I saw yesterday that there has been a court ruling regarding the ban on evictions that was imposed due to COVID, which struck down the ban. This is one of the after effects of to response to COVID that isn't talked abut much and which will possibly/probably end up being worse that anyone imagined.
At first glance, the notion of preventing landlords from evicting people because of the government response to COVID seems like a compassionate and nice thing to do. At least it's nice for the renters. But as for the rich landlords, well screw them.
Let's start with the obvious. People who own rental property do so to make money. However, they first have to pay their expenses. Most likely they have a mortgage or LOC on the property, they are also required to maintain the property to at least the standards required by the city the property is in. They have insurance, assessments, a savings account to pay for major repairs of improvements, and other costs they bear. The money for those things comes from the rental income. Unfortunately the eviction moratorium (at least in MN) doesn't require that the renters continue to pay rent, nor that they make up any back rent. So, you have landlords with reduced income but the same expenses, forced to allow renters to live for free in their property. For over a year.
Now if the Federal and State governments had agreed to make the landlords whole during this period, we probably wouldn't be concerned (beyond the massive increase in the deficit), but the various governments decided that the property owners should bear this burden alone.
So let's jump ahead to the point where this moratorium ends, what happens then.
1. Instead of a smaller group of people being evicted each month and "trickling" back into the rental market, you now have a "flood" of people that all hit the market at once.
2. The rental market over the last few years has been marked by high demand, low supply, and rising prices with make it difficult for lower income people to find affordable places to live.
3. The people who own rental property and who've been living with reduced or no income for over a year will properly raise the rents they charge as a way to recoup their losses.
4. Or they will be forced to sell in a market where prices are increasing weekly, which will also result in higher rents.
5. Various jurisdictions will likely try to legislate caps on rent or rent increases, which will likely force some property owners to sell as they are unable to make a profit with artificial caps on rent.
6. Many cities have made the construction of new affordable housing impossible due to the various zoning limits and permit fees.
I'm sure there will be more results that I missed here, but the big takeaway is that the lower end of the rental market is likely to be a giant shit show within 60-90 days of the removal of the moratorium.
Just one more thing to thank our governments for.
571 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 571 of 571Since you're so big on proportional justice, are you suggesting that (if there is a Heaven) that those who end up there have been so good and wonderful that they deserve to be there because of how good they've been?
Craig... " If you are unaware, I'd suggest doing your research, and actually demonstrating specifically what is wrong with the existing scholarship. "
Having grown up around it, having read about it and looked for answers for most of my 58 years, I can confidently say that I am ENTIRELY unaware of any good arguments for saying that typical sins are "deserving" of an eternity of torturous punishment. I can't emphasize this enough:
I DO NOT BELIEVE A GOOD ARGUMENT EXISTS FOR THIS IN THE REAL WORLD.
I think anyone CLAIMING that such an argument exists is lying or delusional. However, I CAN be corrected. All anyone has to do is actually present the argument that I have never seen in my 58 years, in spite of being raised in this world and in spite of actively looking for it.
IF you have that argument that I can't find, by all means, present it. Otherwise, I will conclude that I am correct in thinking that such an argument does not exist in the real world.
Craig... "1. State your position clearly, forthrightly, precisely, and in detail. Provide overwhelming direct evidence from scripture to support your position."
????????
??????U?D#I????!!!??
WHAT in the world do I need to do to present my position more clearly?
Here it is. Again.
1. ANY notion of Justice MUST include reasonable and proportionate response/punishment in order for it to be Just.
2. IF a notion of Justice includes punishment that is WILDLY and INSANELY disproportionate to the crime committed/actions done IS NOT A TRUE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.
3. Thus, the proposal that a Perfectly loving and just God would punish someone FOR AN ETERNITY for relatively typical, temporal sins common to humanity is a perverse portrayal of God and Justice (SEE 1 and 2).
Craig... "Provide overwhelming direct evidence from scripture to support your position."
WHY IN THE NAME of all that is Holy do I need to provide evidence from the Bible to satisfy you? Is it not enough to say, WHATEVER religious book you might value, IT IS A CRIME TO punish someone in a manner wildly disproportionate to the crime done!?
THE GOD-ORDAINED GOLDEN RULE would forbid it, if you take it seriously.
Do you need me to explain why?
Then read closely and understand: DO YOU WANT TO HAVE SOMEONE BURN YOU ALIVE FOREVER for the typical sins you've committed? YES OR NO?
The answer is clearly no to all moral and rational people. Thus, BY THE GOLDEN RULE, we should not have wildly disproportionate punishments, IF we want to be just.
The notion of Justice spoken of everywhere in the Bible would forbid it, IF you take the Bible seriously.
Beyond that, if YOU want to try to seriously suggest that the Bible supports wildly insanely evilly disproportionate punishments of alleged crimes, then YOU SUPPORT THAT Godlessly evil claim from the bible.
Here's the thing, Shirley: YOU CAN'T DO IT. The Bible NEVER endorses wildly disproportionate punishment. It just doesn't. If you think it does, you are flatly mistaken. You are reading the Bible wrong.
And just to head you off... IF you want to cite some place where the Bible or Jesus mentions hell, YOU MUST demonstrate why that passage should be taken literally when it contradicts the notion of all that is holy and decent and just.
Craig... "are you suggesting that (if there is a Heaven) that those who end up there have been so good and wonderful that they deserve to be there because of how good they've been?"
Everyone who reads my words knows the answer to this: If there is a heaven we go to, it's because of God's GRACE. IF we're living in the realm of God's grace now, that is a bit of heaven here on earth, as it is in heaven. Beyond that, we can't demonstrate anything authoritatively.
Maybe your problem in finding an argument that you consider subjectively "good" is the fact the "typical sins are "deserving" of an eternity of torturous punishment.", is not an argument that I've ever heard anyone make. You are the only person I have ever heard advance the hunch that some sins are "typical" or "minor" and there there are some people who have only committed a tiny number of these "typical" or "minor" sins.
Maybe you should have paid more attention, I'm pretty sure that I specified that you might want to " Take one example of the contrary position, state it accurately and dispassionately, then systematically demonstrate why that position is wrong.". When you don't state the contrary position accurately, you likely won't find anyone making that argument.
Given your inability to prove your theory about these "typical" or "minor" sins and your casual acceptance of these categories of sin in the lives of yourself and others, perhaps you could start by simply proving that these categories of sins actually exist and why these sins don't merit any concern.
Or, you could grapple with the arguments actually being made (starting with the perfect holiness of God), and prove those actual arguments wrong. It's really easy to complain that no one is making an argument, that you've invented all by yourself.
Nice try. But keep pummeling that straw man.
" Take one example of the contrary position, state it accurately and dispassionately, then systematically demonstrate why that position is wrong."
That argument doesn't exist anywhere outside of your imagination, try engaging with arguments that accurately represent your opponents.
This is the second time you've pulled this bullshit.
"Everyone who reads my words knows the answer to this: If there is a heaven we go to, it's because of God's GRACE. IF we're living in the realm of God's grace now, that is a bit of heaven here on earth, as it is in heaven."
Excellent answer, so does that mean that you believe that the grace of YHWH gives some people a "reward" that is disproportional to how good they've been?
Are you saying that those who follow the "way/path" of Jesus won't necessarily end up in Heaven, or that their faithful following of the "way/path" will cause YHWH to bestow His grace on those who do the best at following the "way/path"?
Craig... "The only way to agree with that, would be to first agree that the definition of things like "Rational, loving, just/justice, etc" can only be defined by what Dan"
Rational: having reason or understanding
b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason
Loving: affectionate, caring, warm, devoted to; providing and showing strong affection for
Justice: the condition of being morally correct or fair:
Again, these are not understandings of these words that are unique to me. These are the understandings we share as humans.
IF YOU want to argue that someone can punish someone for an eternity for temporal, relatively minor sins, then YOU make that argument and explain how it can be just.
YOU are the one stating an outlandish and evil-sounding claim. YOU have the onus to support that crazy claim.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with how Dan defines things. That is a godless lie and a stupidly false claim. Ridiculous on the face of it. Come on. If you want to argue this point, do it in a rational manner.
"1. ANY notion of Justice MUST include reasonable and proportionate response/punishment in order for it to be Just. 2. IF a notion of Justice includes punishment that is WILDLY and INSANELY disproportionate to the crime committed/actions done IS NOT A TRUE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. 3. Thus, the proposal that a Perfectly loving and just God would punish someone FOR AN ETERNITY for relatively typical, temporal sins common to humanity is a perverse portrayal of God and Justice."
All you've done there is to make three statements that you haven't demonstrated to be objectively and universally True, and typed them in ALL CAPS and a bold font. If you can't explain why those things are true, then you can't simply assert that 2 logically and inevitably follows 1 and that 3 likewise follows 2. You simply making assertions, and offering your impressions about what "all humanity" might think isn't proof.
"WHY IN THE NAME of all that is Holy do I need to provide evidence from the Bible to satisfy you?"
Why would you not? Where else will you find anything that purports to be "God's word"? What else purports to be "breathed" by YHWH? If you love the Bible, and you know that scriptural support will help you be persuasive, and you believe that the Bible teaches your position, then why would you be so fearful of doing so? I'd start by pointing out that whole "Lord's name in vain" thing and then point out that that's exactly the point. It's about how we relate to a Creator God that is perfectly Holy, as created beings that are much less than holy.
I'm not going to parse your rantings as it's just you repeating your unproven claims but in ALL CAPS for emphasis. If you can't see the value in being consistent and doing what you demand of others, then I can't help you. If you make a claim, then prove it. Rhetorical questions aren't proof.
"IF you want to cite some place where the Bible or Jesus mentions hell, YOU MUST demonstrate why that passage should be taken literally when it contradicts the notion of all that is holy and decent and just."
Please explain in detail how have come into the possession of knowing "all that is holy and just", having that knowledge must be quite a burden. Especially since you can't explain how you know these things with such certainty, especially while claiming that it's impossible to know these things.
Craig... "Excellent answer, so does that mean that you believe that the grace of YHWH gives some people a "reward" that is disproportional to how good they've been?"
My direct answer to this question is: I don't know if I think of it as a "reward" that is "disproportionate" to "how good they're been." I sort of think that is missing the point. BUT, one could put it that way.
More fully, I'd say...
I believe the Way of Grace IS Heaven, or at least a bit of it. It's Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in Heaven.
I believe that God LOVES everyone (for God so loved the world and all that nonsense the hippies believe in) and genuinely WANTS to be with us, just like good parents WANT to be with their children. EVEN if those children are not perfect.
I believe that Grace is, by definition, disproportionate... and proportionate, and delightful and to be embraced and lived into.
I think if one is worrying too much about if any delight and grace is proportionate, they're missing the point (see the parable of the laborers who worked all day complaining about the lavish generosity of the employer to the later employees... see the story of the prodigal's son's brother).
Craig... "Are you saying that those who follow the "way/path" of Jesus won't necessarily end up in Heaven, or that their faithful following of the "way/path" will cause YHWH to bestow His grace on those who do the best at following the "way/path"?"
I'm saying quite clearly that I don't know what happens after we die. None of us do. My belief (that I and no one else can prove) is that there is an afterlife and that there is a "heaven" - whatever that looks like - and that God actually WANTS us there (not picking and choosing who will and won't be saved like a drunken gambler) and that those who embrace living within the Way of Grace (not rules, not religion, certainly not oppression!) here and now will continue living in that way of Grace beyond the grave, thanks be to God.
I don't think it's a competition or about works.
"Again, these are not understandings of these words that are unique to me. These are the understandings we share as humans."
Interesting, I've never thought of imposing the "understandings of humans" on the God who created humans, that's quite a notion.
"IF YOU want to argue that someone can punish someone for an eternity for temporal, relatively minor sins, then YOU make that argument and explain how it can be just."
Why would I "make an argument" based on some nonsense "categories" of sin that you invented and that no reasonable scholar acknowledges, and one this notion that these "minor/typical/temporal sins are somehow acceptable. Why would any sane person agree to allow you to place arbitrary, invented limits on their argument and blindly agree to accept your bullshit made up crap.
"YOU are the one stating an outlandish and evil-sounding claim. YOU have the onus to support that crazy claim. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with how Dan defines things. That is a godless lie and a stupidly false claim. Ridiculous on the face of it. Come on. If you want to argue this point, do it in a rational manner."
What specific claim are you referring to? Please provide an exact quote and a link to the original context.
If, as you say, this mystery claim is "godless lie and stupidly false", then why haven't you actually proven it to be so? Why can you not actually prove the claims you make?
I know it's easier to try to move the focus as far from you actually proving your claims as you possibly can, and I know that straw men, false claims, and ignoring things are the way you do so.
You've acknowledged that you can't or won't provide Biblical support for your hunches, and you haven't even remotely proven that the claims of your opponents are false. What's the point in continuing to drive this post about the housing debacle that Biden has inherited and isn't doing anything to help into territory where you openly acknowledge that you can't prove your claims True or other's claims false?
I don;t know what that last comment was, but simple, and direct it was not. Maybe I'll try to make sense of the gobbledygook some other time, but right now I just cant decipher the bullshit.
Craig... "All you've done there is to make three statements that you haven't demonstrated to be objectively and universally True"
This is the common thought and understanding of humanity. If you don't think it's so, you're welcome to try to prove that we're misunderstanding Justice. You're in the minority. If you think you can punish someone an eternity for typical temporal sins and be just, YOU can make that case. You're the one advocating something wildly evil, the onus is on you to support it.
Craig... "All you've done there is to make three statements that you haven't demonstrated to be objectively and universally true..."
I'm sorry. I'm stating that for justice to be just, any punishment can't be wildly disproportionate to the crime. Are you actually disagreeing with that?
I'm saying that a Just God won't act in an UNjust manner.
Do you disagree with this?
I'm just not sure where you're disagreeing with these reasonable, moral positions.
I THINK you're disagreeing because you think, in your head, that your idea of god might have some understanding of justice that is different than human understanding... and that in this "justice" (that is not justice as we typically understand it), is unknowable and mysterious to us... something entirely different than what we mean by justice. Let's call it Blarf.
Are you saying that you think, in your head, that this god has Blarf, not justice, and by Blarf standards, it IS okay to punish someone for an eternity for typical, temporal sins?
Is that what you're arguing?
Or are you saying that your idea of god is somehow wildly offended by typical sins and can't abide by them and this god of yours MUST punish even typical sins with an eternal punishment (what some compare to being burned alive forever!)? If so, that still raises the problem of Justice, as we typically understand it. How is it just for a god to be so thoroughly offended by typical sins that this god has another standard - not justice, but Blarf - that insists upon punishing typical sins forever? How is that just?
That is the question you haven't answered.
Craig... "Interesting. I've never thought of imposing the "understandings of humans" on the God who created humans, that's quite a notion."
1. I'm not "imposing" the understanding of humans on God.
2. I'm saying that we humans are created with God-given reasoning in the Image of God.
Do you disagree?
3. I'm saying that we are not wholly unable to understand right and wrong, just and unjust.
Do you disagree?
4. I'm saying, therefore, that we speak of Love and understand it to mean kindness, care, compassion, concern for, active support and wanting the best for others... (right?) AND if someone (Ralph) says that God thinks we should "love" someone by beating them into obedience and raping women to keep them in line, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NOT LOVE.
Do you disagree?
5. And if Ralph says, "What?! You're trying to impose YOUR MERE HUMAN understanding of Love on God the Great Rapist!? Shame on you!" we'd recognize that it's Ralph that's wrong, not God... AND we would not need the Bible to tell us Ralph is wrong.
Do you disagree?
Come on, quit kicking against the goads.
Craig... "Why would I "make an argument" based on some nonsense "categories" of sin that you invented and that no reasonable scholar acknowledges, and one this notion that these "minor/typical/temporal sins are somehow acceptable."
sigh.
A. I am not saying and never have said and do not believe that minor/typical/temporal sins are "acceptable."
Do you recognize that reality? If so (or if not, now that you've been correct), perhaps you should apologize for the false claim.
B. Typical sins are harmful, they have the potential for causing harm. If a neighbor gossips against another neighbor, that's not good. If a conservative calls a gay person a fag in a hateful manner, that's not good. If a mother kicks their child out of the home for being transgender, that's horrible.
C. NONETHELESS, if someone said, "This mother kicked her transgender child out of their home, LET'S BURN HER ALIVE FOREVER...!" that response would be unjust.
D. The notion that there are levels of wrong/sin is obvious. Lying about eating a cookie while on a diet is nothing like raping a child. Anyone who would suggest otherwise is being irrational.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that lying about eating a cookie while on a diet is equally bad and deserving of the same punishment as raping a child?
Come on.
"Are you seriously trying to suggest that lying about eating a cookie while on a diet is equally bad and deserving of the same punishment as raping a child?"
No.
What I am trying to do is male sense of this notion of "typical/minor" sins and what exactly this means in the context of eternal destiny. You've not been particularly clear about how this works, and generally retreat behind some version of "we can't really know".
Again, perhaps you should consider laying out your "systematic theology" of a sin hierarchy and what happens after death, so that it's clear, understandable, and unambiguous. Since you don't seem willing to deconstruct the arguments of the other side, perhaps focusing on presenting your own clearly, systematically, understandably, and unambiguously would be beneficial to all.
"1. I'm not "imposing" the understanding of humans on God."
Really? When you start passing judgements it certainly sounds as if you are.
"2. I'm saying that we humans are created with God-given reasoning in the Image of God. Do you disagree?"
Yes we are "created" in God's image and likeness. That doesn't mean that our facilities are equal to God's, just that they are a limited version of God's traits,
"3. I'm saying that we are not wholly unable to understand right and wrong, just and unjust. Do you disagree?"
No, you seem very insistent that certain things are absolutely "unjust", while certain other things are absolutely "just". Without being "wholly" able to understand "right and wrong, just and unjust", it's impossible for you to make the absolute claims you make.
"4. I'm saying, therefore, that we speak of Love and understand it to mean kindness, care, compassion, concern for, active support and wanting the best for others... (right?) AND if someone (Ralph) says that God thinks we should "love" someone by beating them into obedience and raping women to keep them in line, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NOT LOVE. Do you disagree?"
Your entire point is contingent on "our" (your) "understanding" and definition of "love". This seems to necessitate God adapting to "our" (your) "understanding" of 'love", and not our adapting to His understanding of love. Now, if one looks at love as Paul describes it, then your extreme examples would not be loving because they don't line up with doing what's best for others.
"5. And if Ralph says, "What?! You're trying to impose YOUR MERE HUMAN understanding of Love on God the Great Rapist!? Shame on you!" we'd recognize that it's Ralph that's wrong, not God... AND we would not need the Bible to tell us Ralph is wrong. Do you disagree?"
Agree with your bizarre and incoherent hypothetical, no. That'd be absurd.
"Come on, quit kicking against the goads."
I love it when you uses these out of context Biblical phrases. In context, the "goads" were things that God allowed to strengthen Paul. In this context, your silly hypotheticals and poorly expressed "theology" are hardly "goads" in the Biblical sense.
More like amusing annoyances. It's really more like I'm questioning your assumptions and the conclusions you draw from them, because you tend to assert assumptions, and conclusions, without proving them.
"I'm sorry. I'm stating that for justice to be just, any punishment can't be wildly disproportionate to the crime. Are you actually disagreeing with that?"
That's quite a statement, I was unaware that you had the power to make such edicts.
Although I don't disagree with your hunch. The problems lies in your view of the seriousness of the offense. Until you can prove that the offense is objectively minor enough, you have no way to measure the justice.
Craig... "What I am trying to do is male sense of this notion of "typical/minor" sins and what exactly this means in the context of eternal destiny. You've not been particularly clear about how this works, and generally retreat behind some version of "we can't really know..."
I don't know what else to tell you. We literally do not know what impact typical sins have on any afterlife.
Agreed?
That is, we have NO authoritative source or objectively provable way to know factually what impact typical sins have on any potential afterlife.
Agreed?
If you DO have some objectively provable source that tells us authoritatively the answer, by all means, provide it. Or let's agree on the reality that no such data exists.
Craig... " problems lies in your view of the seriousness of the offense. Until you can prove that the offense is objectively minor enough, you have no way to measure the justice."
Neither of us - and no one else - has a way to objectively measure the seriousness of a given sin or set of sins, nor a way to objectively prove a perfectly just response.
Agreed?
Again, if you do, prove it/ share it.
Nonetheless, we humans can reach a REASONABLE consensus on generally appropriate responses which, if not perfect, still allows us to function in a society together.
Do you disagree?
For instance, chopping off a hand of a child for taking a cookie would be wildly disproportionate and, thus, wrong. Agreed?
Craig... " problems lies in your view of the seriousness of the offense. Until you can prove that the offense is objectively minor enough, you have no way to measure the justice."
Is it fair to say that until you can prove that these typical sins are somehow serious enough to be fairly punished for a lifetime (let alone an eternity), you have absolutely no argument to say such sins are worthy of such punishment?
I'm glad to hear you don't disagree with the common justice theory of proportionate punishment. On what basis would you treat that idea as more than a mere hunch?
Craig... "Yes we are "created" in God's image and likeness. That doesn't mean that our facilities are equal to God's, just that they are a limited version of God's traits,"
I never said otherwise. We do NOT understand justice or love perfectly. You and I agree.
We DO/CAN understand justice and love, even if imperfectly. I think you and I agree on that.
We don't have God here to explain to us the finer points of what specific steps to take when it comes to justice and love. Do we agree?
That is, we can understand, easily and with no general disagreement, that we should not abuse, harm or oppress children. IF someone is beating a child with a stick or a belt, we can recognize that this is wrong, not loving and unjust.
Agreed?
IF, however, the child was running out into traffic, we can generally recognize that stopping that child - even using force to stop that child - is appropriate. Grabbing that child and pulling them back, sure, that's not abuse. That's the right thing to do.
But then, what is the appropriate punishment for that, say, four year old child for running into traffic? A spank on the bottom with an open hand? A stern talking to? Or do we need to punish them at all? Do they just need an explanation of why that's wrong (will that work for a four year old?)
People of good faith can disagree. Mental health and child development scholars will tell us that corporal punishment generally doesn't help and tends to do more harm than good. But 30 years ago, people may not have known that (and some people still may not know it or choose to believe it).
The point is, we may not know perfectly well how to respond to the child in that scenario and parents and experts may disagree on what punishment - if any - is appropriate in that scenario, BUT we also can clearly recognize great harm as a great wrong and a damaging punishment as a great evil.
Right?
It's sort of like that old definition of porn - we may not be able to define it, but we recognize it when we see it. Same goes for an oppressive and unjust response - we generally can recognize it when we see it.
Or do you think that we're wholly incapable of saying, "You know what? Cutting that child's knee off with a butcher knife is a great and evil wrong in response to that crime!"
Craig... " your silly hypotheticals and poorly expressed "theology" are hardly "goads" in the Biblical sense."
Yeah, the believers and the bulls who kicked against the goads also didn't think so, I'm sure.
"I'm saying that a Just God won't act in an UNjust manner. Do you disagree with this?"
No. I simply don't think that you've demonstrated that YHWH is limited to your limited view of what's just and what's not just. I'm saying that it's possible that YHWH has more information than you do, and is therefore better able to pass those sorts of judgements.
"I'm just not sure where you're disagreeing with these reasonable, moral positions."
I'm sure you don't.
"I THINK you're disagreeing because you think, in your head, that your idea of god might have some understanding of justice that is different than human understanding... and that in this "justice" (that is not justice as we typically understand it), is unknowable and mysterious to us... something entirely different than what we mean by justice."
Actually, that's not really it at all. I think it's reasonable to conclude that YHWH has infinitely more knowledge than you are I do. I think it's reasonable to conclude that YHWH will use that infinitely larger knowledge base to make better decisions than you or I will. I think that YHWH, as the Creator, has power, knowledge, wisdom, prerogatives, abilities, and judgement that is so far beyond our capability to understand that it's foolish to speculate about it. I think it's reasonable to conclude that YHWH dispenses justice perfectly, while humans dispense justice imperfectly. I think it's reasonable to conclude that we who are imperfect cannot understand perfection.
"Let's call it Blarf. Are you saying that you think, in your head, that this god has Blarf, not justice, and by Blarf standards, it IS okay to punish someone for an eternity for typical, temporal sins? Is that what you're arguing?"
No, because this is simply stupid.
"Or are you saying that your idea of god is somehow wildly offended by typical sins and can't abide by them and this god of yours MUST punish even typical sins with an eternal punishment (what some compare to being burned alive forever!)?"
No. I am saying that you have failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that these categories of sins that you've invented ("typical/minor") are actually actual categories that are taken into account by YHWH. Until you can prove the assumption that underlies your hunch, you've offered nothing worth paying attention to. When you make up words because you can't express yourself in English, it just makes things worse.
"If so, that still raises the problem of Justice, as we typically understand it. How is it just for a god to be so thoroughly offended by typical sins that this god has another standard - not justice, but Blarf - that insists upon punishing typical sins forever?"
1. Do you understand how stupid you look when you ask the same question multiple times on one comment?
2. Do you understand that you haven't proven that your made up sin categories "typical/minor) exist anywhere outside of your imagination.
3. You certainly haven't established that YHWH accepts and agrees with your made up categories of sins.
4. Jesus spoke directly and told us to "flee from sin".
4a. Are you suggesting that there are some sins that we shouldn't really "flee" from?
4b. Are you suggesting that Jesus meant to say something like "Flee from the "atypical/major" sins, the others aren't worth getting to worked up about."?
4c Jesus strongly suggested that we "flee from sin", yet your construct seems to suggest that you're more concerned with managing/minimizing sins to those that are "typical/minor", than with staying as far away from sin as possible.
"How is that just?"
I can't answer that question since it assumes facts not in evidence. Once you can prove the existence and lower standard for your "typical/minor" sins, then maybe. Further, why would I argue that your made up construct of "typical/minor" sins and of a sliding scale of justice is how YHWH works, when it's not my position?
"That is the question you haven't answered."
There are lots of questions you haven't answered, and haven't explained why you won't answer. This is one that I would need more information to answer.
"This is the common thought and understanding of humanity."
1. This is a claim you keep making without proving that it is objectively True.
2. At best, it's your opinion of the "common thought and understanding of humanity".
"If you don't think it's so, you're welcome to try to prove that we're misunderstanding Justice. You're in the minority. If you think you can punish someone an eternity for typical temporal sins and be just, YOU can make that case. You're the one advocating something wildly evil, the onus is on you to support it."
I understand what you're trying to do here.
1. You are trying to force me to "make a case" for something that I've never claimed.
2. You haven't actually made a case, beyond repeating your hunches in ALL CAPS, for your position. Why should I do what you won't?
3. Please show me the exact quote with a link for context where I've said that it's appropriate to "punish someone an eternity for typical temporal sins and be just"?
"I don't know what else to tell you. We literally do not know what impact typical sins have on any afterlife. Agreed? That is, we have NO authoritative source or objectively provable way to know factually what impact typical sins have on any potential afterlife. Agreed? If you DO have some objectively provable source that tells us authoritatively the answer, by all means, provide it. Or let's agree on the reality that no such data exists."
OK, if you have no knowledge of this topic, and can't or won't provide even the smallest shred of proof outside of yourself, your hunches, and your Reason, on what basis can you be so dogmatic about any of it. Do you realize how foolish you look when you repeat that others are "wrong, evil, etc", when you admit that you have no actual basis for that judgement outside of your own hunches.
It's kind of sad to see someone when they get so narcissistic that they'll call others evil from a position of ignorance.
"Neither of us - and no one else - has a way to objectively measure the seriousness of a given sin or set of sins, nor a way to objectively prove a perfectly just response."
Yet you keep insinuating that you can. You keep referring to others as "incorrect, evil, wrong, etc", yet you keep admitting that you have no standing outside of your own ego to pass those kinds of judgements.
Is lying or misrepresenting considered a "typical/minor" sin, or something more serious?
"Agreed?"
Yes, I agree that you have offered nothing but your hunches and your representation of what "humanity" thinks to support your position. You've given no rational basis to believe that those you call "evil" are actually evil. Surely you'd agree that making up an inaccurate caricature/straw man and demanding that others defend that straw man isn't appropriate, wouldn't you?
"Again, if you do, prove it/ share it."
If you'll prove anything you've said, we can discuss this demand, but since you won't/can't I see no reason to do what you won't even attempt.
"Nonetheless, we humans can reach a REASONABLE consensus on generally appropriate responses which, if not perfect, still allows us to function in a society together. Do you disagree?"
No, the problem is that you are conflating the kind of consensus that will suffice to "run a society" with how YHWH will treat sinners. that's two completely different things. Hell, this actually destroys your entire claim if you think about it. Just consider what passes for justice in different societies in the 21st century, then look at history. It's absurd to suggest that "justice" in Iran, Singapore, North Korea, or the PRC is remotely the same as it is the the US, Canada, the UK, or Australia. To even think that those two groups share a consensus on "justice" and "proportionate punishment" is simply divorced from reality.
"For instance, chopping off a hand of a child for taking a cookie would be wildly disproportionate and, thus, wrong. Agreed?"
You've asked some form of this at least once and I've answered. The problem with the question is that this punishment is considered to be Justice in some societies. Just like some societies believe that hacking up the genitals of female children because they might "dishonor" the family is justice.
"Is it fair to say that until you can prove that these typical sins are somehow serious enough to be fairly punished for a lifetime (let alone an eternity), you have absolutely no argument to say such sins are worthy of such punishment?"
No, because I consider the very notion of your imaginary "typical/minor/temporal" sins category to be a convenient fiction you've invented and can't prove exists. It rare that I will seriously attempt to argue in favor of a factious standard that someone else made up and that I find ludicrous.
But just for the sake for trying to understand you better.
1. What if someone committed 1,000,000,0000,000,000 of these alleged "typical/temporal/minor" sins, would that meet your threshold?
2. Can you name one sin, or a combination of sins that you would find worthy of some sort of eternal punishment, or eternal separation from YHWH?
"I'm glad to hear you don't disagree with the common justice theory of proportionate punishment. On what basis would you treat that idea as more than a mere hunch?"
When you can provide evidence that YHWH's standards for proportional justice are exactly the same as yours. I have no problem with your theory as an imperfect way for a society to operate and function reasonably well, even though we see many examples of disproportionate justice on a regular basis. Where it becomes a hunch is when you try to extrapolate the imperfect onto the perfect.
Craig... " Do you understand that you haven't proven that your made up sin categories "typical/minor) exist anywhere outside of your imagination."
OF course, they do. You have already acknowledged that stealing a cookie is not the same as raping a child, right? It would be insanely EVIL to suggest that these two sins are of the same type and that one isn't a minor wrong and one a great evil.
Why do you go back on what you've already agreed to? These categories exist EVERYWHERE, including in your own head. According to you. Good God in heaven, have mercy. WHY am I having to repeat what is obvious in the first place?
Are you saying I haven't proven something that is unprovable? Neither of us can prove if God thinks of these as one and the same sin, right?
Craig... "If you'll prove anything you've said, we can discuss this demand, but since you won't/can't I see no reason to do what you won't even attempt."
You don't answer precisely because you can't answer. You can't prove that you have any objective source to know the parameters of heaven and hell or what God will send someone to hell for. You can't prove it.
But worse, you lie like a pharisee and like a coward... like someone who wants to bastardize God and put your tame and tyrannical god in a little box to keep him on a little leash and use him to try be a tyrant over other humans. You are being precisely a pharisee By your childish non responses and attacks, By your cowardice and dodging and irrational opposition. By your refusal to answer questions directly. By your constant irrational vague pablum.
If you could answer, you would. You never have answered this line of questions because you can't and yet you're too cowardly in intellectually dishonest to admit it.
We see what you're doing just like Jesus saw what the pharisees were trying to do. Have some sense of shame and decency, man.
"We don't have God here to explain to us the finer points of what specific steps to take when it comes to justice and love. Do we agree?"
I agree that we don't have YHWH here to answer specific questions, yet to claim that YHWH has been silent on these matters is also foolishness. The question becomes how closely we choose to follow what He has given us, not how far we can push the limits.
"IF someone is beating a child with a stick or a belt, we can recognize that this is wrong, not loving and unjust. Agreed?"
Possibly.
"Or do you think that we're wholly incapable of saying, "You know what? Cutting that child's knee off with a butcher knife is a great and evil wrong in response to that crime!"
I think that this is the 3rd or 4th time you've asked some version of this question. My answer remains the same, I personally agree with you, but Sharia law specifies this punishment and it's still enforced. Are you prepared to treat Sharia law as harshly as you treat YHWH?
"Yeah, the believers and the bulls who kicked against the goads also didn't think so, I'm sure."
The problem is that you're not even close to a pale imitation of YHWH. You just give yourself and your "goads" too much credit. It's why pride used to be considered a sin.
"OF course, they do. You have already acknowledged that stealing a cookie is not the same as raping a child, right?"
As those things pertain to the various legal codes in existence, yes.
"It would be insanely EVIL to suggest that these two sins are of the same type and that one isn't a minor wrong and one a great evil."
Well, again you're conflating what's legal with what's sinful. The problem is that you are looking this from the point of view of the legal system, where you look at each act individually and compare it to the statutes. Where as sin doesn't seem to be looked at the same way. You're specific problem is that you are looking at the tree, not the forest. You're isolating two single acts from the entirety of someones life, and from their response to YHWH and the availability of forgiveness. The very concept that YHWH's grace offered forgiveness for all of our sins no matter what they are is not proportional. If you want to take one single act and compare it against one other single act, then you might be on to something. But that takes that act out of the context of the entire life of the person. It also ignores forgiveness. Like so much it's unhelpful to take one act out of context.
"Why do you go back on what you've already agreed to?"
What specifically have I "gone back" on that I already "agreed to"? Again (although it'll be ignored again), exact quote and link for context.
"These categories exist EVERYWHERE, including in your own head. According to you. Good God in heaven, have mercy. WHY am I having to repeat what is obvious in the first place?"
Why you choose to simply repeat things instead of prove them is a question that only you can answer. Perhaps if you could show me where we learn from YHWH that certain sins are "typical/minor". Or perhaps you could simply acknowledge that you have absolutely zero idea if God has this category, and that you have no justification to claim that He does.
"Are you saying I haven't proven something that is unprovable?"
No, I'm saying that you can't prove the claims you repeatedly make. If you are making claims about something that can't be proven, maybe you should give a little thought to the claims you make and condemning others as "evil" because the don't agree with you.
"Neither of us can prove if God thinks of these as one and the same sin, right?"
The problem with this "question" is that only one of us is making claims about this subject, and it's not me. Maybe stop making claims you can't prove.
"You don't answer precisely because you can't answer."
No, I do answer. I just don't choose to prove claims that you make up and falsely attribute to me. I further don't see any reason why I should do what you won't. If you won't prove your claims, why would I prove your claims. Their all your claims, you know you can't prove your claims, so you try to force me to prove something that you've imagined.
"You can't prove that you have any objective source to know the parameters of heaven and hell or what God will send someone to hell for. You can't prove it."
Excellent!!!!!! You've just gone all Cobra Kai and swept the injured leg of a straw man that you've constructed all by yourself.
Please post the exact quote with a link for context where I've actually claimed that I can "objectively prove that I "know the parameters of heaven and hell" or what YHWH will "send someone to hell for". If you can demonstrate that I actually said that, then you'd be right to call for me to prove it. Unfortunately, this is one more instance where you falsely attribute something to me and can't prove it. Just like all the rest, you'll ignore this one also.
"But worse, you lie like a pharisee and like a coward... like someone who wants to bastardize God and put your tame and tyrannical god in a little box to keep him on a little leash and use him to try be a tyrant over other humans. You are being precisely a pharisee By your childish non responses and attacks, By your cowardice and dodging and irrational opposition. By your refusal to answer questions directly. By your constant irrational vague pablum. If you could answer, you would. You never have answered this line of questions because you can't and yet you're too cowardly in intellectually dishonest to admit it. We see what you're doing just like Jesus saw what the pharisees were trying to do. Have some sense of shame and decency, man."
Again, (for at least the fourth time today) please provide direct quotes and links to substantiate your false charges.
The reality is that I am doing the opposite. I am arguing that YHWH set the boundaries, that YHWH makes the decisions, that YHWH knows infinitely more than you or I and that I am perfectly willing to accept His decisions even if I don't like or understand them. I am perfectly willing to try as best I can to flee from all sin, not to try to figure out how close I can get to sin and still be OK. I try to be decent, and I've never been one who hides from behavior that is shameful, but I also try to be humble enough not to impose my opinions on YHWH.
Just one more example of you attributing something to me when you can't provide any sort of direct quote or context, but instead choose to make something up to accuse me of.
Maybe you should focus less on false, ad hominem attacks, and more on actually supporting/explaining your fantastical claims. I know it's harder to do that than it is to continue down your current path, but maybe doing hard things is good for us.
Craig... "As those things pertain to the various legal codes in existence, yes"
Good God, no! It's not different simply because one's against the law and one isn't. One is a great evil because of the great evil harm it does... the depth of the harm... the depravity of the harm. The other is simply a relatively minor offense. It has NOTHING, I repeat, nothing to do with simply one is against law and the other is not.
Consider, If you lived in a land where rape was not illegal, would you think they are one in the same? Good God in heaven I pray in the name of everything that's decent and reasonable you would say no. Like any rational person.
Craig... "again you're conflating what's legal with what's sinful. The problem is that you are looking this from the point of view of the legal system, where you look at each act individually and compare it to the statutes."
Craig, this is not an ad hom attack. I'm telling you that you talk like a pervert. Like someone who is a sociopath and unable to distinguish between right and wrong.
It has nothing to do with what is legal and not. I am not referring to what is legal or not. I repeat, I am not saying that this is wrong or worse because it is illegal. Do you understand that very simple very basic very clear reality? Seriously! What is wrong with you. Again, if you lived in a place where rape was legal, you would hopefully still be outraged when rape happens and you wouldn't be when someone steals a simple fucking cookie. Don't be a pervert!
Craig... "yet to claim that YHWH has been silent on these matters is also foolishness."
As with Nearly everything you say, I did not say this period I did not say this period this is not what I said. Those are not my goddamn words. What the hell is wrong with you? Are you deliberately obtuse? Are you just not very bright? Are you unable to read words with rational comprehension?
I have not said that God is silent.I think God is quite clear in a whole range of ways.Don't be obtuse.I'm simply pointing out the reality that God has not told you what the parameters are for who will and won't go to hell or if there even is a hell. God has not told you that's. If you think God has told you this, you are deluded. Do you recognize that God has never told you this, neither directly nor indirectly?
Craig... "Sharia law specifies this punishment and it's still enforced. Are you prepared to treat Sharia law as harshly as you treat YHWH? "
1. "Sharia law" varies from place to place. To make a stupidly false blanket statement like this is just another bigoted attack on Islam.
2. In those places where Muslims DO have harsh penalties or laws (that some Christians agree with) that would imprison gay folk, IT IS HORRIBLY WRONG. As I have always been clear upon.
Dan... "IF someone is beating a child with a stick or a belt, we can recognize that this is wrong, not loving and unjust. Agreed?"
Craig... "Possibly."
Holy shit. God in heaven have mercy.
More...
Craig... "Yet you keep insinuating that you can. You keep referring to others as "incorrect, evil, wrong, etc", yet you keep admitting that you have no standing outside of your own ego to pass those kinds of judgements."
1. The problem you have is when you say things like this, it makes it sound like YOU think that we have absolutely no way to make reasoned judgments about ANY moral issues.
2. While I've been quite clear that neither of us can prove that God approves or disapproves of any given sin, we humans can nonetheless reach reasonable agreement, in general.
3. I keep asking you for clarification and you keep dodging. Let me try it again: WILL YOU AGREE that you can not prove your hunches about God and hell (for instance) are objectively factual?
4. Will you agree that even if we can't prove our moral opinions (and you absolutely can not, not objectively, authoritatively, if you could, you would), that humans can and must strive to find some common ground and generally speaking, it is often not that difficult?
The problem with you failing to make clear your answers to 3 and 4 is that you keep vaguely insinuating that you DO have some authoritative source that makes your hunches better than my hunches.
When you refer to the notion that "it's only a hunch that cutting off a child's hand for stealing a cookie is immoral," you make it sound like it's hopeless to find any morality, BUT when you attack me or others saying we CAN find some common ground and oftentimes, it's not that hard, and refer to it as my hunch, you appear to be hinting that YOU have something better than my "hunches."
So, take a stand. Have some intellectual integrity. MAKE YOURSELF CLEAR. Answer the questions.
You can't have it both ways. Either you have some authoritative source for morality or it's hopeless and we have no way of knowing! ...OR, while we can't prove things authoritatively, we can make reasonable moral judgments and it's not hopeless to think we can find some basic common ground.
Craig... "I'm saying that you can't prove the claims you repeatedly make. If you are making claims about something that can't be proven, maybe you should give a little thought to the claims you make and condemning others as "evil" because the don't agree with you."
A. NEITHER of us can prove our moral claims.
B. BUT, we can find common ground generally on many moral questions. YOU do not appear to disagree with me on the points I've made (well, except for your vague response refusing to say it's wrong to beat a child with a belt or a stick! Again, good God!)
C. GIVEN that we can't prove our moral opinions objectively, that does NOT mean that we can't find some REASONED moral common ground. Do you disagree?
Answer the question.
Craig... " I am arguing that YHWH set the boundaries, that YHWH makes the decisions, that YHWH knows infinitely more than you or I and that I am perfectly willing to accept His decisions even if I don't like or understand them."
Then be specific. WHAT boundaries do you think in your little head that God gave to you? NAME THEM (a few, at least). Provide your support.
When you say that your little god gave you some boundaries, do you think you know that as an objective and demonstrable fact? Then demonstrate it. Or is it just your hunch, your opinion about what you think your god wants? If the latter, then say so.
I'm almost positive that there is a reason for your vague obfuscation and not giving direct answers. I THINK that you think that you "know" as a fact some of your hunches are authoritatively correct AND YET, you simultaneously know that you can't prove it and it hurts your little head and heart to admit you can't prove what you think you know as a fact and rather than be honest and clear, you dance around vague nothings.
But here's your chance. Clarify. Answer the questions. Directly.
Craig, at Stan's... "Kind of like saying that punishment must absolutely always be proportionate to the crime, and that a disproportionately harsh punishment is wrong, while advocating that disproportionate forgiveness is deserved."
Again, seeking some kind of clarification...
1. You say, "Punishment must always be proportionate to the crime," as if you disagree. But you don't, do you? We agree that punishment should be proportionate to the crime in order to be just, right?
2. Likewise, you agree that disproportionately harsh punishment is not just, right?
3. I'm not arguing that disproportionate forgiveness is deserved. I'm arguing that forgiveness is always grace. And I'm further arguing that forgiveness is in fitting with the golden rule. We would hope to be forgiven just as we hope to forgive our neighbor.
Do you disagree with grace as I'm speaking of it here?
I really can't believe that we are that far apart from agreement on some of these basic ideas, but you tell me. By answering clearly and directly.
Craig... "Maybe you should focus less on false, ad hominem attacks, and more on actually supporting/explaining your fantastical claims."
I've patiently been focusing on, supporting and explaining my "fantastical claims" for 400+ comments here. Help me help you: WHAT PRECISELY do you think is "fantastical..."
1. That for a punishment to be just, it should be proportionate to the wrong done?
2. That typical sins can't reasonably be said to be "deserving" of an eternal punishment.
3. The reason typical sins can't be said to be deserving of an eternal punishment is... WHY? Let's take the example of an adult who dies at 25, who has lied about relatively minor things 1000 times, who has stolen a pen from work twice, who has been disrespectful to her mother 25 times, who has lusted in her heart over a woman she went to college with (she's lesbian, but a virgin, let's say), who has ogled a picture of naked women 5 times (not really her thing), and let's say 10,000 other typical stuff. Let's say she's even slapped her mother in a disagreement once and once, when a teen, got drunk and had sex with a guy, sort of consensually...
Many (all?) of those sins are not great and some are pretty awful... BUT, who in their right mind thinks, "Given all these sins, the morally right and just thing to do would be to put her in prison for the rest of her life (if she didn't die) or to say, "God, I think she should be sent to hell to suffer for all of eternity? Someone would have to explain WHY these sins are deserving of an eternity of torment.
God has not told us that's the case for someone like her. The Bible doesn't say specifically that's the case for someone like her. At all. The Bible DOES use hellish imagery to talk about punishment for oppressors and those who fail to watch out for the least of these... but nothing about going to be punished for all eternity for typical sins.
MY "defense" of not finding such a suggestion rational or just is that it's not, on the face of it, rational or just.
Do you TRULY think that it is?
And again, I'm not saying, do you think God thinks it is. I'm asking YOUR opinion about these "crimes" and if they are worthy of an eternal punishment and IF YOU think so, explain how.
You see, the question is, "Does God REALLY think what conservatives think about eternal punishment...?" so answering, "I can't answer because that's a question for God and I'm not going to disagree with God..." is dodging the question and is assuming that your interpretation (God DOES think such people deserve to be punished for an eternity) is correct and thus, it's circular reasoning, NOT an answer to the question.
But that probably is making no sense to you. Still, I've tried.
Craig... "Is lying or misrepresenting considered a "typical/minor" sin, or something more serious?"
I know that this was intended as an attempted attack on me, suggesting I'm lying, but let me answer it anyway.
In the Way of Grace, context matters.
If someone is lying about rape, saying, "I never raped her. She WANTED it! It was consensual!" is a great and devious and evil lie - an attack upon a person's character after an attack on the person's body. It is a great sin.
If someone is lying about stealing carburetor wires to stop the Nazis from capturing some Jews, then that's a reasonable act done in the pursuit of Good and Justice and trying to prevent injustice. Is it a lie? I don't know, but it's certainly no great wrong and ANYONE who would say that both lies are both equal MORALLY or from a Justice point of view, that person has a problem with understanding morality and justice.
Do you disagree?
And if someone is saying that the second person deserves to be punished for an eternity for lying to save people's lives, I'd say they have to make some kind of reasonable case for it because, on the face of it, that suggestion sounds like a great evil, itself.
Do you disagree with any of that and if so, specifically what? And explain specifically HOW I'm mistaken and if you know I'm mistaken/wrong as an objectively, provable fact, or if it's just your opinion.
Craig, you keep repeating things like this... "Why would I "make an argument" based on some nonsense "categories" of sin that you invented and that no reasonable scholar acknowledges..."
HERE is where I thought you were saying that you agree that not all sins are the same and that there are levels of serious-ness/awful-ness in sins.
I asked... "Are you seriously trying to suggest that lying about eating a cookie while on a diet is equally bad and deserving of the same punishment as raping a child?"
Craig responded... "No."
Now, given your continued ridicule of the notion of minor vs major sins, I will have to ask again:
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SAYING that raping a child is equally awful as lying about eating a cookie OR, do you agree that there are major sins and minor sins - more serious and less serious sins/wrongdoings?
Your answer of NO suggested to me that we agree that there are major and minor sins. But your continued mocking of the notion (that no scholar would agree with??? WTF? Of course, scholars would agree with this! Are you serious?) makes me ask you again and for clarification.
You followed your NO answer before with this...
"What I am trying to do is male sense of this notion of "typical/minor" sins and what exactly this means in the context of eternal destiny. You've not been particularly clear about how this works, and generally retreat behind some version of "we can't really know"."
And I simply pointed to the reality that WE DO NOT KNOW "what exactly this means in the context of eternal destiny." I've answered that question with an absolute fact: WE DO NOT KNOW.
Now, GIVEN that we do not know - you don't know, I don't know, no one knows - what impact either "major" or "minor" sins have in the context of eternal destiny... do you still agree that there are major and minor/more and less serious sins, as your "NO" answer indicated? Or was I misreading your simple No incorrectly?
Are you saying that, In THIS world, there are major and minor sins, AS DETERMINED by whether or not it's against the law... but in no other sense? Or do you agree that there are, in fact, major and minor offenses/sins/crimes/wrongs?
Still being patient and awaiting direct answers that I think will help make sense of what we're each saying.
As to the ridiculous notion that "no reasonable scholar" would acknowledge the concept of degrees of sins... of major and minor or more and less serious sins... how about a Southern Baptist scholar...
"Although all sin before God is serious and deserving of eternal punishment, Scripture distinguishes between degrees of sin. In this sense, not all sin is equal in terms of its effects, consequences, and degree of punishment on the person, others, the church, and society."
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/degrees-of-sin/
Or, how about the folks at Ligonier (RC Sproul, his own self)...
"Historically speaking, both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism have understood that there are degrees of sin... It’s clear that we have different degrees of sin when we consider the warnings of Scripture. "
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/are-there-degrees-sin/
And to be clear, I'm not saying that I'm in agreement with everything these fellas are saying, just noting that of course scholars recognize degrees of sin, because OF COURSE. It's moral and rational and just to recognize and acknowledge these degrees.
These evangelicals go on to make some of the same rational mistakes as you do (you're a fan of Sproul, aren't you? Seems right up your alley). The notion that those who sin are choosing to put their own wishes deliberately over God's, for instance, is a claim that may be true some of the time, but I'd argue that there is NO DATA to support that this is commonly true or factual.
Anyway, point addressed and a stake driven in its ill-witted heart.
Dan... "My argument begins with I don't believe modern evangelicals understand the notion of hell correctly."
"Ok, if your argument begins there, then explain how you can determine that someone doesn't "understand the notion of hell correctly",
when (according to you) such an understanding doesn't exist.
That you are beginning your argument from a place of such weakness mystifies me."
1. I'm noting the reality that neither of us can prove our positions about hell. You can't prove your hunches. Nor can I. Not objectively.
2. NONETHELESS (And here appears to be the point that you're missing entirely), Just because we can't objectively prove something like the nature of hell or the existence of hell or who gets sent to hell, if any one... Does not mean that all arguments are equally valid.
Do you understand that distinction?
For instance, if someone was arguing that hell exists AND that this perfectly loving and perfectly just God really really wanted to burn everybody alive forever in hell, regardless of what they did. Babies, those with intellectual disabilities, genuinely decent people, et cetera. This God wanted to roast every one in a very extremely tortuous manner for all of eternity AND still wanting to claim to be a perfectly loving and just God.
You agree that this is an irrational and internally inconsistent theory?
13 comments since yesterday afternoon. Unfortunately for Dan, I have work to do. I'll get around to his crap eventually.
Re, "13 comments since yesterday..."
You ask a lot of questions that need answering and so I answer. You make a lot of false claims which need to be clarified, so I clarify. You leave a lot of questions unanswered, so I ask.
"Good God, no! It's not different simply because one's against the law and one isn't."
Since I didn't make that claim, I guess you just wasted more of your time. My point was that you are treating sin, as if it were merely against the law. In that sin is a cumulative, and nature issue while crime is looked at on a case by case basis.
"One is a great evil because of the great evil harm it does... the depth of the harm... the depravity of the harm. The other is simply a relatively minor offense. It has NOTHING, I repeat, nothing to do with simply one is against law and the other is not. Consider, If you lived in a land where rape was not illegal, would you think they are one in the same?"
When you "ask" idiotic "questions" like this it simply raises concerns about your ability to comprehend English.
"Good God in heaven I pray in the name of everything that's decent and reasonable you would say no. Like any rational person."
"Craig, this is not an ad hom attack. I'm telling you that you talk like a pervert. Like someone who is a sociopath and unable to distinguish between right and wrong. It has nothing to do with what is legal and not. I am not referring to what is legal or not. I repeat, I am not saying that this is wrong or worse because it is illegal. Do you understand that very simple very basic very clear reality? Seriously! What is wrong with you. Again, if you lived in a place where rape was legal, you would hopefully still be outraged when rape happens and you wouldn't be when someone steals a simple fucking cookie. Don't be a pervert!"
What a fascinating example of a passive aggressive ad hom attack. An ad hom attack, claiming to not be an ad hom attack.
What's clear is that you completely understand the point I was trying to make, and have chosen to jump to conclusions, rather than to seek information. Well done.
I'm merely pointing out that you are treating sin as if it is individual actions divorced from any other actions or attitudes. Just like the legal system does. Further, you appear to approach sin from the something akin to innocent until proven guilty. Clearly you appear so attached to your distortion of my point, that trying to explain my actual point would be a waste of time.
"As with Nearly everything you say, I did not say this period I did not say this period this is not what I said. Those are not my goddamn words."
Ahh, the "these aren't my exact words trope. If you didn't twist, characterize, make up, and bastardize the words of others so frequently, this would merely be amusing. Since you do, it's just one more double standard.
"What the hell is wrong with you? Are you deliberately obtuse? Are you just not very bright? Are you unable to read words with rational comprehension?"
Nothing, no, no, no.
"I have not said that God is silent.I think God is quite clear in a whole range of ways.Don't be obtuse.I'm simply pointing out the reality that God has not told you what the parameters are for who will and won't go to hell or if there even is a hell."
Yes, you are quite clear that YHWH is silent on this and other topics. You just choose to express your hunch in a way that leaves you what appears (to you) to be a way to not actually take a firm position.
"God has not told you that's. If you think God has told you this, you are deluded. Do you recognize that God has never told you this, neither directly nor indirectly?"
That's quite a claim poorly disguised as a question. Do you realize that it's theoretically possible that I have the "spiritual gift" of prophecy and that YHWH does speak to me, and that I'm simply passing along what YHWH says?
"1. "Sharia law" varies from place to place. To make a stupidly false blanket statement like this is just another bigoted attack on Islam."
Sharia law might be enforced differently from place to place, or people in certain places might choose to ignore certain aspects of Sharia law, but the law as passed on by Muhammed (the blessed prophet of Allah) is the law. That's an entirely different thing. How can pointing out the reality of Sharia law be "anti Muslim"? I guess you're not going to treat Sharia law with the same vitriol as you do the commandments of YHWH.
"2. In those places where Muslims DO have harsh penalties or laws (that some Christians agree with) that would imprison gay folk, IT IS HORRIBLY WRONG. As I have always been clear upon. Dan... "IF someone is beating a child with a stick or a belt, we can recognize that this is wrong, not loving and unjust. Agreed?" Craig... "Possibly." Holy shit. God in heaven have mercy. More..."
Please, point out specifically which "christians" agree with Sharia law. Let's see actual, direct quotes, with links for context.
The likelihood is that you won't prove this bullshit either.
"1. The problem you have is when you say things like this, it makes it sound like YOU think that we have absolutely no way to make reasoned judgments about ANY moral issues."
If it sounds like that then you are badly mistaken. The problem is that you seem to think that your Reason, and moral judgement are worthy of being applied beyond yourself. The problem could be that you simply choose to see a straw man of your own construction, instead of what I actually said.
"2. While I've been quite clear that neither of us can prove that God approves or disapproves of any given sin, we humans can nonetheless reach reasonable agreement, in general."
Yet you continue to make claims that strongly suggest that you have some sort of objective knowledge about these topics. Maybe the best option is for you to simply hide behind that "I don't know anything" curtain, and stop telling those that disagree with you that they are "wrong/mistaken/evil/etc" because they don't agree with you?
"3. I keep asking you for clarification and you keep dodging. Let me try it again: WILL YOU AGREE that you can not prove your hunches about God and hell (for instance) are objectively factual?"
That's strange because I keep answering your questions, and you keep refusing to provide the same clarity that you demand of others.
a. Where have I ever claimed that my "hunches" are "objectively factual"? Again, exact quotes and links for context.
b. If I have made that specific claim, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate that fact. If I haven't, then perhaps the problem lies with you inventing things that I haven't said and attributing them to me.
c. Why would I prove a claim that I haven't made? Why would you demand that I prove a claim that I haven't made?
"4. Will you agree that even if we can't prove our moral opinions (and you absolutely can not, not objectively, authoritatively, if you could, you would), that humans can and must strive to find some common ground and generally speaking, it is often not that difficult?"
When you phrase your questions to force people to give the answer that you want, it's pretty stupid. The answer to the question as you've phrased it is, no it's not in theory. Yet, in reality, we see significant divergence when moral and legal codes are instituted.
"The problem with you failing to make clear your answers to 3 and 4 is that you keep vaguely insinuating that you DO have some authoritative source that makes your hunches better than my hunches."
No I don't. The problem is that you keep making shit up and attributing it to me, and expecting me to defend your made up caricature of my positions. The reality is that, I keep trying to get you to demonstrate that your hunches are "true/correct/right/better" than any alternatives. Unfortunately, you haven't offered much beyond some versions of "because I said so." or "Reason" or "consensus" or some other vaporous "standard". I've been quite clear that in the absence of you doing what you demand of me, I see no reason to do what you won't.
"When you refer to the notion that "it's only a hunch that cutting off a child's hand for stealing a cookie is immoral," you make it sound like it's hopeless to find any morality, BUT when you attack me or others saying we CAN find some common ground and oftentimes, it's not that hard, and refer to it as my hunch, you appear to be hinting that YOU have something better than my "hunches." So, take a stand. Have some intellectual integrity. MAKE YOURSELF CLEAR. Answer the questions. You can't have it both ways. Either you have some authoritative source for morality or it's hopeless and we have no way of knowing! ...OR, while we can't prove things authoritatively, we can make reasonable moral judgments and it's not hopeless to think we can find some basic common ground."
The above "paragraph" has so many errors that I'll just say that it's wrong and move on to the multitude of other bullshit.
I'd suggest that if you'd start from the standpoint of either proving your claims, or disproving other's claims it'd be much more effective. Making up bullshit and flinging it around like a chimp (I know it's a mixed "metaphor") isn't really helpful any anything but obfuscation.
" A. NEITHER of us can prove our moral claims. B. BUT, we can find common ground generally on many moral questions. YOU do not appear to disagree with me on the points I've made (well, except for your vague response refusing to say it's wrong to beat a child with a belt or a stick! Again, good God!) C. GIVEN that we can't prove our moral opinions objectively, that does NOT mean that we can't find some REASONED moral common ground. Do you disagree? Answer the question."
This is a great example of how simply repeating one's unproven assumptions doesn't really help the conversation.
The problem is, of course, that because it's possible to reach some level of "consensus" on an imperfect compromise that becomes a moral/ethical/legal system doesn't raise "violations" of that human/imperfect/compromise system to actually be "sin". It's simply trying to conflate human attempts to reinvent the wheel of morality without an external moral agent, with sin in the Biblical sense of the word.
"Then be specific. WHAT boundaries do you think in your little head that God gave to you? NAME THEM (a few, at least). Provide your support. When you say that your little god gave you some boundaries, do you think you know that as an objective and demonstrable fact?"
I'd start with what most call the 10 commandments. Do I need to list all 10, or are you familiar with them? Yes, I think that I objectively know what the 10 commandments are. FYI, I'm not the one promoting the idea of a "little" god. I'd argue that the all knowing, all powerful, Creator of all things, eternal, etc YHWH is so far beyond measurable that "little" is simply the description given by an idiot. Beyond that, stating that I personally believe that YHWH has provided boundaries isn't a statement of "fact", it's a statement of belief.
"Then demonstrate it. Or is it just your hunch, your opinion about what you think your god wants? If the latter, then say so. I'm almost positive that there is a reason for your vague obfuscation and not giving direct answers. I THINK that you think that you "know" as a fact some of your hunches are authoritatively correct AND YET, you simultaneously know that you can't prove it and it hurts your little head and heart to admit you can't prove what you think you know as a fact and rather than be honest and clear, you dance around vague nothings. But here's your chance. Clarify. Answer the questions. Directly."
For someone who's utterly failed to attempt to "prove" anything and who actively hides behind "We just can't know", this attack/provocation/childish taunt, is pathetically sad. The problem is that you're confused by substituting your imaginationary bullshit about what I'm doing with what I'm actually doing. What I'm actually doing is trying to get you to focus on proving YOUR claims, before I do anything else. I realized that as long as you can focus on this sort of bullshit, you can hide behind it and ignore the fact that you haven't actually done what you demand others do. So yes, I am trying to FOCUS on getting direct, unequivocal, answers and proof from you before I do anything else.
So, I would suggest that you should "clarify, answer the questions directly" first before you demand that others do so.
" Again, seeking some kind of clarification... 1. You say, "Punishment must always be proportionate to the crime," as if you disagree. But you don't, do you? We agree that punishment should be proportionate to the crime in order to be just, right?"
Actually, I say it that way because I'm ;pointing out that you insist that your claim is a fact, without actually proving it to be one. In theory, from a flawed/imperfect.human/limited standpoint I agree that the ideal is that the punishment should fit the crime in our human legal system.
"2. Likewise, you agree that disproportionately harsh punishment is not just, right?"
Theoretically you might be right. In the absence of proof, it's hard to be as dogmatic as you are.
"3. I'm not arguing that disproportionate forgiveness is deserved. I'm arguing that forgiveness is always grace. And I'm further arguing that forgiveness is in fitting with the golden rule. We would hope to be forgiven just as we hope to forgive our neighbor. Do you disagree with grace as I'm speaking of it here?"
Yes. But I do appreciate you making my point. You are quite content with a "grace" that is disproportionate. A grace that is "unjust" because complete forgiveness is literally not what is deserved. If "all have sinned", then at least some level of punishment is deserved in order for the :"justice" you demand. Yet, your (undefined) "grace" is completely disproportionate and "unjust". Where you problem lies is that you argue for "proportionate" on one side of the equation, and "disproportionate" on the other. Yet you can't explain why the disparity is somehow "just".
"I really can't believe that we are that far apart from agreement on some of these basic ideas, but you tell me. By answering clearly and directly."
I can, because we're starting from such radically different starting points. After you.
" I've patiently been focusing on, supporting and explaining my "fantastical claims" for 400+ comments here. Help me help you: WHAT PRECISELY do you think is "fantastical...""
Your continued retreat to unproven assumptions and treating them as if they were facts.
"1. That for a punishment to be just, it should be proportionate to the wrong done?"
a, Yes.
b, Because you haven't established a standard that applies this flawed/human/compromise/etc to YHWH and sin.
c, Because you assume dis proportionality with Grace, but not with punishment.
d, Or you do believe that "grace" is proportional to our "worth/behavior/goodness/etc".
e. Unfortunately you haven't been clear about if c or d is correct.
"2. That typical sins can't reasonably be said to be "deserving" of an eternal punishment."
Well, given you inability to prove that there is a category of "typical/minor" sins, and that these sins are treated differently than other sins I can't see where it's "reasonable" to assume that an unproven hunch accurately describes reality. Further you inability to prove the actual existence of anyone who fit's this mythical category simply renders your entire hunch theoretical at best.
"3. The reason typical sins can't be said to be deserving of an eternal punishment is... WHY? Let's take the example of an adult who dies at 25, who has lied about relatively minor things 1000 times, who has stolen a pen from work twice, who has been disrespectful to her mother 25 times, who has lusted in her heart over a woman she went to college with (she's lesbian, but a virgin, let's say), who has ogled a picture of naked women 5 times (not really her thing), and let's say 10,000 other typical stuff. Let's say she's even slapped her mother in a disagreement once and once, when a teen, got drunk and had sex with a guy, sort of consensually... Many (all?) of those sins are not great and some are pretty awful... BUT, who in their right mind thinks, "Given all these sins, the morally right and just thing to do would be to put her in prison for the rest of her life (if she didn't die) or to say, "God, I think she should be sent to hell to suffer for all of eternity?"
Again, with the bizarre slanted hypothetical based on your unproven assumptions. IF I chose to uncritically accept all of your unproven assumptions, the very essence of the hypothetical is that of a rhetorical question. You're assuming everything in the hypothetical is True without actually proving it to be so. I see no reason to "answer" a "leading question" based on unproven hunches.
"Someone would have to explain WHY these sins are deserving of an eternity of torment."
Really? You believe that you "deserve" an explanation, by what standard do you "deserve" an explanation of what YHWH does of does not do?
"God has not told us that's the case for someone like her. The Bible doesn't say specifically that's the case for someone like her. At all."
No, because the Bible doesn't usually speak to specific hypothetical situations designed to lead to a predetermined answer.
"The Bible DOES use hellish imagery to talk about punishment for oppressors and those who fail to watch out for the least of these... but nothing about going to be punished for all eternity for typical sins."
I guess "all" only means "all" when it fits your preconceptions.
"MY "defense" of not finding such a suggestion rational or just is that it's not, on the face of it, rational or just. Do you TRULY think that it is?"
I can't speak to what goes on in your imagination, I wouldn't begin to try. I will say that "because I said so" isn't actually a rational reason for others to join you in your hunches.
"And again, I'm not saying, do you think God thinks it is. I'm asking YOUR opinion about these "crimes" and if they are worthy of an eternal punishment and IF YOU think so, explain how."
Asked and answered.
"You see, the question is, "Does God REALLY think what conservatives think about eternal punishment...?" so answering, "I can't answer because that's a question for God and I'm not going to disagree with God..." is dodging the question and is assuming that your interpretation (God DOES think such people deserve to be punished for an eternity) is correct and thus, it's circular reasoning, NOT an answer to the question. But that probably is making no sense to you. Still, I've tried."
No it's not, that's just another unproven hunch based on you misrepresenting others positions.
FYI, I'm still not going to "prove?argue for/make a case for/etc" anything unless you can demonstrate with a direct quote and a link that I've actually said what you claim I said.
" I know that this was intended as an attempted attack on me, suggesting I'm lying, but let me answer it anyway. In the Way of Grace, context matters. If someone is lying about rape, saying, "I never raped her. She WANTED it! It was consensual!" is a great and devious and evil lie - an attack upon a person's character after an attack on the person's body. It is a great sin. If someone is lying about stealing carburetor wires to stop the Nazis from capturing some Jews, then that's a reasonable act done in the pursuit of Good and Justice and trying to prevent injustice. Is it a lie? I don't know, but it's certainly no great wrong and ANYONE who would say that both lies are both equal MORALLY or from a Justice point of view, that person has a problem with understanding morality and justice. Do you disagree? And if someone is saying that the second person deserves to be punished for an eternity for lying to save people's lives, I'd say they have to make some kind of reasonable case for it because, on the face of it, that suggestion sounds like a great evil, itself. Do you disagree with any of that and if so, specifically what? And explain specifically HOW I'm mistaken and if you know I'm mistaken/wrong as an objectively, provable fact, or if it's just your opinion."
No, it's literally a question to try to get you to give a fucking simple direct answer. Dude get help for the paranoia. Then try to answer the question as asked.
It seems as though your response is that there are two "categories" of lies, and that one "category" is (or might be) a sin of some level (minor/major?), and that other lies are exempt. Nothing new, nothing that's an actual answer to the question asked.
"HERE is where I thought you were saying that you agree that not all sins are the same and that there are levels of serious-ness/awful-ness in sins. I asked... "Are you seriously trying to suggest that lying about eating a cookie while on a diet is equally bad and deserving of the same punishment as raping a child?" Craig responded... "No.""
Impressive, you actually provided a direct relevant quote of what I actually said. No link for context, but a small step in the right direction.
"Now, given your continued ridicule of the notion of minor vs major sins, I will have to ask again: ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SAYING that raping a child is equally awful as lying about eating a cookie OR, do you agree that there are major sins and minor sins - more serious and less serious sins/wrongdoings?"
This is really interesting. Instead of providing proof that YOUR hunches about "typical/minor" sins are accurate, and instead of making your case, you simply assume that your hunches are correct and proceed from that starting point. Beyond that, you then change the terminology. As long as you are trying to get me to agree to your unproven hunches, my answer will be no. Of course, what I asked, was for you to lay out this "doctrine" in a systematic manner and provide detail. Instead, you've chosen this tactic.
"Your answer of NO suggested to me that we agree that there are major and minor sins. But your continued mocking of the notion (that no scholar would agree with??? WTF? Of course, scholars would agree with this! Are you serious?) makes me ask you again and for clarification."
This is an excellent example of why you shouldn't make assumptions and treat those assumptions as if they are reality. It leads you into problems.
"You followed your NO answer before with this... "What I am trying to do is male sense of this notion of "typical/minor" sins and what exactly this means in the context of eternal destiny. You've not been particularly clear about how this works, and generally retreat behind some version of "we can't really know"." And I simply pointed to the reality that WE DO NOT KNOW "what exactly this means in the context of eternal destiny." I've answered that question with an absolute fact: WE DO NOT KNOW. Now, GIVEN that we do not know - you don't know, I don't know, no one knows - what impact either "major" or "minor" sins have in the context of eternal destiny... do you still agree that there are major and minor/more and less serious sins, as your "NO" answer indicated?"
Well done. You simply dodged the question by burying it in a bunch of bullshit, and came out with your unproven hunch as the baseline. IF (as you claim) we "can't know", then where in the hell do you get off asserting ANYTHING? You're literally making claims, and instead of proof offering "I don't know". Again, when you make assumptions and barrel ahead based on those straw men, it's likely to be bad for you.
"Or was I misreading your simple No incorrectly?"
Yes.
"Are you saying that, In THIS world, there are major and minor sins, AS DETERMINED by whether or not it's against the law... but in no other sense?"
No. I'm not saying anything about "typical/minor" sins. I'm trying to get you to prove your claims that these categories exist and that your hunches about them are True. I'm sorry that you confuse me trying to get you to explain/prove your claims with something else entirely.
"Or do you agree that there are, in fact, major and minor offenses/sins/crimes/wrongs? Still being patient and awaiting direct answers that I think will help make sense of what we're each saying."
I agree that you have made and repeated this unproven claim. I agree that you haven't proven this claim, haven't explained what these magical categories are specifically, or how they affect our lives on earth of after death.
Yes, I'm still waiting, but I've given up on patience.
" "Although all sin before God is serious and deserving of eternal punishment,"
So you do agree that all sin before God is serious and deserving of eternal punishment?
"And to be clear, I'm not saying that I'm in agreement with everything these fellas are saying,"
And you answer the question before it's asked, by denying the underlying premise, and cherry picking the parts that you like.
That's too damn funny to waste any more time with.
"1. I'm noting the reality that neither of us can prove our positions about hell. You can't prove your hunches. Nor can I. Not objectively."
Then you just admitted that your original claim that "evangelicals understand hell incorrectly" was false. If (as you insist) these positions can't be "proven", then you have absolutely zero grounds to claim that anyone's understanding is "incorrect" or that yours is "correct". You just cut off the branch you were sitting on.
"2. NONETHELESS (And here appears to be the point that you're missing entirely), Just because we can't objectively prove something like the nature of hell or the existence of hell or who gets sent to hell, if any one... Does not mean that all arguments are equally valid. Do you understand that distinction?"
Why yes, I do. The problem is that your original claim wasn't about validity, it was about correctness. You've acknowledged that you have no basis to objectively reach conclusion about either of those things. You're essentially arguing that your argument has no validity beyond your own flawed/limited/imperfect imagination. The reality is that you can't simply declare someone's position to be "incorrect" while exempting your position from the same scrutiny.
"For instance, if someone was arguing that hell exists AND that this perfectly loving and perfectly just God really really wanted to burn everybody alive forever in hell, regardless of what they did. Babies, those with intellectual disabilities, genuinely decent people, et cetera. This God wanted to roast every one in a very extremely tortuous manner for all of eternity AND still wanting to claim to be a perfectly loving and just God. You agree that this is an irrational and internally inconsistent theory?"
If someone was actually making that argument, you might have a point. But when you declare victory over straw men, it's usually a hollow victory.
!3 comments, and two hours of my time wasted. No answers to questions asked, no claims proven, lots of repetition, and bullshit on your part.
More answers on my part.
Maybe if you'd stop arguing against your assumptions about what you think I said/meant, or provide actual quotes and links for context, things would go better. I guess it's just too hard to get things right.
Craig... "IF (as you claim) we "can't know", then where in the hell do you get off asserting ANYTHING? You're literally making claims, and instead of proof offering "I don't know"."
This is the question I'm trying to clarify for you. It's the reason I ask you questions that are reasonable and expect you to reasonably answer them directly.
1. I have literally never said we can't know anything. That is an astoundingly stupidly false claim. It is a mistake of epic proportions on your part.
2. Rather, I have stated the obvious that there are some things that we can't prove. Our opinions about what God thinks about marriage for gay folks... we can't prove that objectively. Our opinions about what God thinks about abortion.... we can't prove that objectively.
3. Like it or not, on moral opinions, we have no authoritative source where we can objectively prove our opinions...
It would help tremendously if you could just say, yes, I agree we can't prove those sorts of things authoritatively and objectively. I'm sure you won't, but it would help. Which is why I ask.
4. NONETHELESS, as rational and moral beings, we are entirely and utterly obliged to make moral conclusions and hold moral opinions, even if we can't prove them objectively.
If we truly claimed we can't know ANY moral opinions objectively, therefore people can do whatever they want, rape, abuse children, chop off hands, it's all good because we can't prove anything. That is a hell on Earth if you're proposing that. I'm not saying you are, I'm saying if you or anyone is proposing that, that would be a hellacious way to live.
5. So, where do I get off saying that we should hold moral opinions about matters, even if we can't objectively prove them? Because the alternative is hell.Because as rational moral beings, we are obliged to do so for the sake of the world. A hellish chaos is no place to raise a family or a community.
Again, it would help if you could just give a simple answer. Do you agree?
Same for the question about major/minor sins/wrongs/lies... do you agree that - entirely aside from laws - that we can reasonably recognize major and minor sins?
Craig... "More answers on my part."
Also Craig... "I agree that you have made and repeated this unproven claim. I agree that you haven't proven this claim, haven't explained what these magical categories are specifically, or how they affect our lives on earth of after death."
(This, in response to my question, Do you agree there are major/ minor sins?
Literally NOT answering the actual question asked. At all.
I wonder if you even recognize that this is not an answer to the question asked?
Wow. What Dan insists can't be known...aside from being something no one was arguing...is typically that which Dan doesn't like knowing. What we can know about hell has been proven with citations to Scripture, both here and in the similar conversation at my blog which Dan abandoned having gotten no where with his false claims there. Nothing beyond what Scripture teaches has been offered. What remains is Dan's contention that God must act in a manner of Dan's choosing in order to be just and loving. He denies this, of course, after doing nothing but building up that which leaves no other conclusion.
Dan wants us to focus on human notions of what constitutes greater or lesser crimes. He doesn't want to focus on the seriousness of sin, and certainly not on how seriously God regards sin. But here's the thing: imagine the worst sin possible (for Dan, who can know what that would be!?!) and then imagine the perpetrator truly repenting and seeking God's forgiveness by accepting Christ and His great sacrifice on our behalf. That person will be forgiven and spend eternity in God's Holy presence. Now imagine one committing one of Dan's "minor" sins. Imagine that person doing nothing to appeal to God and never repenting and never accepting Christ. In Dan's world, because of the sin being "minor" (according to the Will of Dan), God has no business denying heaven to this person. So God better get His act together, lest He fall prey to Dan's wrath.
Craig... "You believe that you "deserve" an explanation, by what standard do you "deserve" an explanation of what YHWH does of does not do?"
To answer yet another question directly:
I believe that if
a HUMAN says that THAT HUMAN thinks
that god wants us to punish someone for an eternity for typical sins,
It is entirely reasonable to expect that HUMAN to try to defend this irrational and immoral suggestion.
I'm not asking for God to explain God's self.
I'm asking that HUMAN to explain where they think this is rational or not.
The problem with your question is that it presumes that your HUMAN OPINION about God and justice is correct, as a starting point. And yet, you have not established that God thinks people should be punished for an eternity for typical sins.
Thus, the Standard on which I question your hunches about god and punishment are the standards of reason and justice.
Not that I expect you'll understand this, but that IS the direct and clear as day answer to your question.
"Good God, no! It's not different simply because one's against the law and one isn't. One is a great evil because of the great evil harm it does... the depth of the harm... the depravity of the harm. The other is simply a relatively minor offense. It has NOTHING, I repeat, nothing to do with simply one is against law and the other is not. Consider, If you lived in a land where rape was not illegal, would you think they are one in the same? Good God in heaven I pray in the name of everything that's decent and reasonable you would say no. Like any rational person."
If you can't understand that there is no specific conflation between how things are adjudicated in various human legal systems, and how YHWH might don things differently, I simply can't help you. Your desire to impose some elements of human legal systems on YHWH are simply beyond my comprehension.
"This is the question I'm trying to clarify for you."
Then please clairify how you can assert that someone is "incorrect" about something, then claim that you have no knowledge about that same topic. If you don't know anything, then you have no grounds to declare anyone "incorrect".
"It's the reason I ask you questions that are reasonable and expect you to reasonably answer them directly."
I don't understand why you ask me questions to explain your positions, then ignore my answers, but OK.
"1. I have literally never said we can't know anything. That is an astoundingly stupidly false claim. It is a mistake of epic proportions on your part."
Let's start by you demonstrating with a direct quote and a link for context, where I made this specific claim.
"2. Rather, I have stated the obvious that there are some things that we can't prove. Our opinions about what God thinks about marriage for gay folks... we can't prove that objectively. Our opinions about what God thinks about abortion.... we can't prove that objectively."
Yes, and IF you can't prove something objectively, then you have no grounds to assert that anyone is "mistaken". This is your problem, you keep making this unproven assertion, then you contradict yourself by announcing that people are "incorrect" or that you're version of something is "reality". Prove your claims, or stop making them.
"3. Like it or not, on moral opinions, we have no authoritative source where we can objectively prove our opinions... It would help tremendously if you could just say, yes, I agree we can't prove those sorts of things authoritatively and objectively. I'm sure you won't, but it would help. Which is why I ask."
Why you demand that I agree to your unproven claims, is beyond me.
"4. NONETHELESS, as rational and moral beings, we are entirely and utterly obliged to make moral conclusions and hold moral opinions, even if we can't prove them objectively."
Yes, I understand that you believe that moral codes are subjective. The problem is that you act as if those moral codes are objective and that your moral code is binding on those who have a different moral code.
"If we truly claimed we can't know ANY moral opinions objectively, therefore people can do whatever they want, rape, abuse children, chop off hands, it's all good because we can't prove anything."
Yes. Although, in the absence of any universal, objective moral code (I'm noting the attempt to change the subject once again), there is no reason or grounding to expect anyone else to accept your moral code as normative. If you look at the sociological definition and the dictionary definition of morality they are clear that morality is defined by society, tribe, group, etc. Therefore there is no universal/objective morality. I have no problem using that definition for the sake of discussion, as long as it's acknowledged that you can't live with that definition and hold others to your moral code.
"That is a hell on Earth if you're proposing that. I'm not saying you are, I'm saying if you or anyone is proposing that, that would be a hellacious way to live."
Except, the sociological/dictionary definitions allow for exactly this on a societal or group level.
"5. So, where do I get off saying that we should hold moral opinions about matters, even if we can't objectively prove them?"
Ok. but that gives you absolutely zero grounds to assert anything objective. In other words, you have no basis to declare anyone's "opinions" about anything as "incorrect", because you've made it clear that we can't know what is "correct", and it's all just "opinions".
"Because the alternative is hell.Because as rational moral beings, we are obliged to do so for the sake of the world. A hellish chaos is no place to raise a family or a community. Again, it would help if you could just give a simple answer. Do you agree?"
Yes, I agree. I agree that you have taken the discussion off on another fruitless tangent for who knows what reason. You've made so little sense that I don;t even know what the "Do you agree?" is specifically referring to.
"Same for the question about major/minor sins/wrongs/lies... do you agree that - entirely aside from laws - that we can reasonably recognize major and minor sins?"
Given that this question is based on the unproven assumptions that there is such a category as "major/minor" sins, and that YHWH recognizes these category distinctions, I'm not sure that this is a rational question.
I will say that we can sometimes see the effects of a certain sin, and that sometimes those effects can be more severe and far reaching than the effects of other sins. However, I would argue that we don't ever see all of the effects of our sins and that we can't really know for sure of our perceptions are 100% accurate.
"Literally NOT answering the actual question asked. At all. I wonder if you even recognize that this is not an answer to the question asked?"
You are correct. If I was to answer the question as asked, based on your unproven hunches, then I am essentially validating your unproven hunches as being correct. I choose to wait until your prove your hunches to be correct, before I agree to them. I'm surprised that you are confused by this as I've been pointing out the flaw in your unproven assumptions for quite some time.
"To answer yet another question directly: I believe that if a HUMAN says that THAT HUMAN thinks that god wants us to punish someone for an eternity for typical sins, It is entirely reasonable to expect that HUMAN to try to defend this irrational and immoral suggestion."
Please (first) demonstrate where anyone has specifically claimed that "god wants to punish someone for an eternity for typical sins". Then demonstrate (second) where YHWH has spoken directly of "typical" sins, and how He chooses to treat them. If you can't do those then you're simply asking about an hypothetical without an analogue in reality. Which is ridiculous and pointless to indulge your fantasies as if they are reality.
"I'm not asking for God to explain God's self."
OK. Sure.
"I'm asking that HUMAN to explain where they think this is rational or not. The problem with your question is that it presumes that your HUMAN OPINION about God and justice is correct, as a starting point."
No, the problem with your (non) answer is that it presumes that your assumptions are correct, without having demonstrated them to be correct.
"And yet, you have not established that God thinks people should be punished for an eternity for typical sins."
1. You have not established that I actually hold this position which you've assigned to me.
2. You have not established that anyone but you buys this "typical" sins standard.
Until you establish the Truth of those two premises, then your "question" remains based on false/unproven premises. FYI, if your response is that none of this can be proven, and that it's all "opinion" as you've asserted before, then you undercut your very basis for asking.
"Thus, the Standard on which I question your hunches about god and punishment are the standards of reason and justice. Not that I expect you'll understand this, but that IS the direct and clear as day answer to your question."
Ok, well if you want to base "reason and justice" on an unproven and/or false premise, that's your prerogative.
Art,
That's all well said. What I find more interesting is that Dan, in another thread, seemed to state very clearly that he was unable to conjure up any circumstance/sin/or person who would be deserving of any level of eternal punishment. I think that says plenty right there.
I do agree that he's leaving out the potential for forgiveness in his equation. He's also definitely not given anything close to a good explanation of the scriptures that contradict his hunches.
Craig... " Dan, in another thread, seemed to state very clearly that he was unable to conjure up any circumstance/sin/or person who would be deserving of any level of eternal punishment."
Okay this brings up yet another way to try to look at this...
So, who IS deserving of being tormented/punished for all of eternity, in your mind? Hitler, maybe?
Let me guess that yes, you probably think Hitler deserves to be tormented forever for his crimes against humanity.
Do you then think it is rational or just or even just not batshit crazy to suggest that Hitler deserves to be tormented for an eternity for his crimes AND that some sweet little grandmother who never harmed anyone physically and only committed what REASONABLE people can agree are relatively minor sins...? Do you see how insane that is to say that this sweet relatively harmless sinner granny AND Hitler both deserve the same punishment? That typical sins are somehow equivalent in severity to causing the death of six million people?
Does that not sound insane to you? Like a great affront to the notion of Justice?
I know, I know, no answers. Just ignore the hypocrisy and injustice/evil in your opinions and it will go away.|
AND I'm also sure you'll say "I never said that both deserve to be tormented/punished for an eternity... But then, CLARIFY your position. Answer the questions that I've actually asked so I can know your position.
Weaseling out of direct answers to reasonable questions is not a good look for adults who hope to be rational and moral.
Craig... "The problem is that you act as if those moral codes are objective and that your moral code is binding on those who have a different moral code."
So, No matter how many times I've been quite clear that we can't objectively prove our opinions, you still think that maybe I think it's objectively provable?? I continue to make a distinction between what is objectively provable and what is reasonably agreeable. Most of humanity can agree that we should not rape children. I don't need to know that objectively or to be able to prove it objectively to know... God damn it! Of course not we should not do this!
Your inability to prove objectively that it is wrong to rape children does not mean that you, as a moral and rational human being, can't take a principled stand against it.
DO you think your inability to objectively prove it means you should be quiet and act as if it doesn't matter? If so, what a waste of humanity.
Marshal... "Dan wants us to focus on human notions of what constitutes greater or lesser crimes. He doesn't want to focus on the seriousness of sin, and certainly not on how seriously God regards sin."
Quite the contrary. I am more than glad to focus on sin.
Let's go, Chester.
SHOW me how some sins are so serious that they deserve to be punished for an eternity. Demonstrate it authoritatively, with data, and proof, research and evidence.
Here's the thing, Alice, You can't.
You are entirely impotent and and flaccidly incapable to do so. If you could, you would. You can't and so you make up shit.
I repeat...
You. Can. Not. Support. Such. An. Evil. And. Stupid. Claim.
I don't know how else to say this. You want to focuson the seriousnessof sin? Let's talk about it. Prove it. Step up and Give some data. And don't point to some Bible verse and give me YOUR lame ass interpretation of what it means.
I don't know how else to put this period I don't give a damn about your opinion when you're making claims about facts. You wanna make a fat claim, you support it like An adult. I'm talking about hard data.
Now. You've been called out and your lie has been shown for the Nothingness it is.
Put up or shut up.
But first apologize for your stupidly false claims.
We see.
Your last line is the crux of the problem. Dan can object all he wants, but until he can provide a better "interpretation" for the cited verses he claims are interpreted poorly or "too literally" or whatever, then he's just objecting to God's Word...not ours...which is presented as the basis of our (or just "my") position. The verses and passages, then, present what we can know and thus, do know about God's position on anything. What those verses and passages suggest as stated can only lead to one conclusion without some evidence based explanation for how they are "metaphorical", "hyperbolic" or anything other than a clear expression of His Will. I can't help but again go back to the most egregious example of Dan's "we can't know" rejection of God's will: Lev 18:22. There's nothing about this verse that suggests any exception...that there is any context or scenario when the behavior described therein is not an abomination. To then extrapolate from there to the obvious and most logical position that God would not in any way enable, approve or tolerate "gay marriage" as good, noble, pure, or any other flowery language Dan uses to dress it up as anything other than another manifestation of abomination is no better than absurd, and quite frankly, a willful lie.
Regarding my last comment, my comparison presents what Dan avoids resolving. Where in Scripture do we find any hint that God will reward the unrepentant, non-believer with heaven simply because the sins that person commits falls under Dan's perception of "minor sins"? Indeed, I know far better Christians than Dan who also cannot bear the thought that people of whom they are fond may suffer eternal punishment given their overall character. I feel that way as well. But feeling that way doesn't count as an actual argument against what is clearly stated in Scripture...clearly stated Scripture Dan hasn't begun to prove means something else.
Marshal... " Now imagine one committing one of Dan's "minor" sins. Imagine that person doing nothing to appeal to God and never repenting and never accepting Christ. In Dan's world, because of the sin being "minor" (according to the Will of Dan), God has no business denying heaven to this person."
Actually, what Dan is saying is that it is not rational, moral, just or biblical to choose to punish someone an eternity for relatively minor sins. If you want to deal with what I'm ACTUALLY saying, by all means, make your case.
Just recognize that it will be almost entirely based on your opinion with nothing moral, rational, biblical or just to support your claims.
Because you have nothing. As we have seen by the way you all are continually forced to dodge questions and engage in ad hom attacks rather than simply deal with the reasonable questions put to you and, when you can't answer them rationally, to simply admit it.
Pride goeth before a fall, boys.
Craig... ""And yet, you have not established that God thinks people should be punished for an eternity for typical sins."
1. You have not established that I actually hold this position which you've assigned to me.
2. You have not established that anyone but you buys this "typical" sins standard."
1. WHY NOT simply answer the question so I can KNOW without a doubt your position, rather than running in pissy-pants cowardice.
A. DO PEOPLE DESERVE to be punished an eternity for typical sins?
B. BASED ON WHAT besides your opinions?
C. DO you truly disagree that - ENTIRELY ASIDE from any law ever written in the history of law and culture - that some sins are rationally recognized as not only worse than others, but significantly, astoundingly, smack-yourself-in-the-face-obviously more wrong/awful/evil than others?
You can't complain that I don't "get" your position correctly AND refuse to answer clarifying questions. That's just schoolboy childish and immature. Let's reason like adults here, boys.
2. I've already pointed to other conservative Christian types who, along with all of rational humanity, recognize that some sins are worse than others. How about the notion of the Seven Deadly Sins? WHY are they isolated as if they aren't worse than others/of a different, more serious (deadly, some may say) nature than others?
Or there's this:
"In one sense, all sins are equal in that they all separate us from God. The Bible’s statement, “For the wages of sin is death …” (Romans 6:23), applies to all sin, whether in thought, word, or deed.
At the same time, it seems obvious that some sins are worse than others in both motivation and effects, and should be judged accordingly. Stealing a loaf of bread is vastly different than exterminating a million people. "
~Billy Graham
"Some sins are worse than other sins. That is the message of Scripture. For example, Genesis 18:20 refers to the sin of homosexuality as an exceedingly grave sin."
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/are-some-sins-worse-than-other-sins/
(From the same website, the author states simply: "One Sin Will Send You To Hell"
Do you agree? Do you think stealing one cookie without permission when you were hungry... that this ONE SIN is rationally punished with an eternity of torment?
Do you not see how gravely, irrationally EVIL such a suggestion is, just using the common sense that God gave a rock?)
I've already pointed to RC Sproul...
"It’s clear that we have different degrees of sin when we consider the warnings of Scripture."
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/are-there-degrees-sin/
I could go on all day with philosophers, both religious and secular. So, your point "2. You have not established that anyone but you buys this "typical" sins standard."
...is undone by reality. As anyone who can read and think for themselves, I HAVE established the notion that people recognize the obvious distinction between typical and more grave sins. Because we're not idiots.
The question is, then, do YOU recognize this obvious, observable reality?
But then, you'd have to commit to a direct, clear answer to make progress on this point and we've seen how loathe you are to do that.
Craig... "2. You have not established that anyone but you buys this "typical" sins standard."
And, of course, one would have to entirely ignore the long and vast history of the Catholic Church to suggest that this idea of "typical" and more serious sins is somehow something Dan made up in the 21st Century.
"In Roman Catholic moral theology, a sin, considered to be more severe or mortal sin is distinct from a venial sin (somewhat similar to the secular common law distinction of classifying the severity of a crime as either a felony or a misdemeanor) and must meet all of the following conditions: Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (Article 1860 of The Catechism Of The Catholic Church specifies;) "Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_sin
Because OF COURSE, people recognize this if they're not entirely daft.
Do you?
So, just to summarize where we are (I'll probably post this on my blog, for clarity's sake).
1. There are, of course, what we might call major and minor sins. Larger, more egregious, more overtly harmful sins and smaller, more typical to humanity sins. No one seriously disagrees with this. Because, it's obvious, it's observable, it's just rationally understood by rational adults.
1a. We might say that, in some sense, all sins ARE sins, imperfections, literally "missing the mark..." because of course they are... it's just that some sins miss the mark SO wildly as to be another level of wrong-doing.
1b. NONE of this is to downplay the hurt and harm that can be caused by typical sins. Telling lies and taking things that don't belong to you DO cause harm. Littering DOES cause harm. Name-calling can clearly cause harm. Noting the obvious distinction between major and minor is not in any way saying that minor/typical sins are Okay. Just that there's a vast difference between slander and murder, in the real world. Both are serious, but one is more serious than the other.
1c. Intention and motivation should always be considered when judging seriousness of a wrong. Stealing spark plugs and lying about it to a Nazi to enable Jews to escape capture is one level of stealing and lying, with an intention for good. Breaking the windows in of a black church and stealing stuff as an affront to black people and then lying about it to cover up your actions is a whole OTHER level of stealing and lying. Motivations and intention matter greatly, because of course they do.
2. The vast majority of humanity does not engage in the major sins. All of humanity, to some degree or another, engages in typical sins. With the exception of babies and people with intellectual disabilities which would preclude them from doing any intentional sins.
See 1b.
3. The notion of "hell" is touched on in the Bible. Sort of. The word "hell" never/rarely appears in the Bible (depending on your translation) and where it is used, it's a reference to either Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna.
3a. Sheol and Hades mean simply, The Grave, the Place of the Dead, the Pit.
3b. Tartarus means "to cast down in eternal torment and Gehenna is simply a reference to an actual garbage dump near Jerusalem, a place that was often burning.
3c. The entire NT conversation about hell comes down to 12 mentions of Gehenna (mostly by Jesus) and one mention of Tartarus. Thirteen total instances.
Further, the ONE word (Tartarus) that mentions something akin to eternal torment occurs ONE time in the Bible, in 1 Peter. Where it says...
"For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell, placing them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;"
That is, the ONE mention of a word hinting at a place of eternal torment is used when speaking of "angels, when they sinned," not people. And it's a place to be "held for judgment."
cont'd...
Here's a helpful look at the words translated to Hell and what they meant in context of the day...
https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/hell-a-biblical-staple-the-bible-never-actually-mentions-c28b18b1aaaa
3d. Breaking it down a bit more, Jesus used Gehenna
* Three times in the same sermon (sermon on the Mount - "better to chop off your hand" allegory) in Matthew 5,
* Two times in Matthew 25, in the sheep and goats parable
* Three times in Mark 9 in the same lesson (don't cause one of these little ones to stumble)
* Once in Matthew 10, warning his disciples about the Pharisees
* Once in Matthew 18, the same warning found in Mark 9; and
* Once in Luke 12, again in a warning about the Pharisees
Put another way: Jesus mentioned Gehenna five times in two separate figurative lessons, twice in warnings specifically about Pharisees and once in a warning to not cause people to stumble (probably also directed at Pharisees.)
3e. The other two instances of "hell" in the NT are the aforementioned reference to a place where "angels who sinned" were sent to "await judgment" and James 3, which is a figurative warning about the tongue's danger.
4. The OT is silent about hell, speaking only of "the grave" and Hebrew folk of the day would not have believed in hell in the more modern "Christian" sense.
5. The NT, as I just covered, uses the word more figuratively and about some sense of punishment for specific wrongs (being Pharisaical, causing harm to the least of these, failing to watch out for the least of these, causing one of these "little ones" to stumble...) and in NONE of these vague and figurative references to Gehenna/Tartarus/The Grave are there ANY arguments that this "hell" is specifically for ANY and ALL who commit any sins whatsoever.
THAT, as we can see, is not a biblical argument. It's just not there.
6. I will note that there are other passages that reference "judgment" but that, too, is more specific and not a widespread charge against any and all "sins" or "missing the mark." For instance, there are places like James 5, where he says... "Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes." A specific warning for a specific group of people for specific misdeeds (and, as with this James passage, it is almost always about oppression or causing harm to the poor and marginalized).
And that is where we stand, as I see it. I may amend and update this on my blog, but there it is for now.
"Okay this brings up yet another way to try to look at this... So, who IS deserving of being tormented/punished for all of eternity, in your mind?"
How interesting. Instead of clarifying his position, Dan chooses to start asking questions about others positions? What an interesting way to avoid clarifying his position.
"Hitler, maybe? Let me guess that yes, you probably think Hitler deserves to be tormented forever for his crimes against humanity."
I'd suggest that if there is someone worthy of eternal punishment, then Hitler would be at the top of the list if your were trying to make a case that there are "minor/typical/major" sins and that punishment is simply the result of actions.
"Do you then think it is rational or just or even just not batshit crazy to suggest that Hitler deserves to be tormented for an eternity for his crimes AND that some sweet little grandmother who never harmed anyone physically and only committed what REASONABLE people can agree are relatively minor sins...?"
1. I've never suggested the position above. I don't hold that position.
2. No.
3. Please show me real world proof that this hypothetical "sweet little grandmother" actually exists, and that her sin resume is limited as you assert.
4. This notion of "minor/typical" sins as a criterion for hell is still an unproven assertion.
"Do you see how insane that is to say that this sweet relatively harmless sinner granny AND Hitler both deserve the same punishment?"
Do you see how insane you are to make these sorts of claims about me without actually proving that your claim is accurate or proving your claim about "minor/typical" sins?
"That typical sins are somehow equivalent in severity to causing the death of six million people? Does that not sound insane to you? Like a great affront to the notion of Justice? I know, I know, no answers."
The problem with your "no answers" bitching, is that your questions are based on your false characterization of something you made up. The assumption that "typical/minor" sins are a category that YHWH takes into account is an unproven assumption.
No. Yes. Yes. The last yes is based on the construct of justice you've articulated.
"Just ignore the hypocrisy and injustice/evil in your opinions and it will go away."
Please point out what is the specific "hypocrisy and injustice/evil" you are referring to. Direct, exact quotes with links will suffice.
"AND I'm also sure you'll say "I never said that both deserve to be tormented/punished for an eternity... But then, CLARIFY your position."
You're right that I will say that. I'll say it because it's the Truth. If you could show the examples, you would (except you seem to be too lazy to prove those sorts of claims, when it's easier to make shit up), but you haven't.
"Answer the questions that I've actually asked so I can know your position. Weaseling out of direct answers to reasonable questions is not a good look for adults who hope to be rational and moral."
I've answered them once again. I'm not sure how much simpler and more direct I can make them.
"So, No matter how many times I've been quite clear that we can't objectively prove our opinions, you still think that maybe I think it's objectively provable??"
No. You just want to act like it's objectively provable. That is a significant difference.
"I continue to make a distinction between what is objectively provable and what is reasonably agreeable. Most of humanity can agree that we should not rape children. I don't need to know that objectively or to be able to prove it objectively to know... God damn it! Of course not we should not do this! Your inability to prove objectively that it is wrong to rape children does not mean that you, as a moral and rational human being, can't take a principled stand against it."
I've agreed that these standards can be agreed to within a given society/culture/group and are often codified into law. The problem is that other societies.cultures/groups might/do reach different conclusions about what is moral, and your construct gives you no basis to assert that their subjective choices driven by their culture/society/group are wrong. The best you can do is suggest that you don't like their choices.
I've repeatedly pointed out that most sociologists use this as a working definition of morality, and that this is how dictionaries define morality.
"DO you think your inability to objectively prove it means you should be quiet and act as if it doesn't matter?"
This "question" makes absolutely no sense, and I can't begin to guess what you are asking.
The problem is, that it does matter. When you (and others) assert a subjective (non objective) moral code, then you (and others) have no objective basis to condemn others for their moral code if it disagrees with yours (and others). In your specific case, you want the comfort of a subjective (non objective) moral code, but you also want the sense of moral superiority that comes with an objective moral code. You want to be able to call others "evil", without acknowledging that without objective standards good and evil are meaningless.
"Help me out and answer the question directly."
Instead of proving your claim about my position, or being an adult and admitting that you were wrong and falsely characterized my position based on your prejudices and biases, you pull this bullshit.
I'll tell you what. You admit your wrongdoing, acknowledge that you simply followed your prejudices and biases to make up a position and falsely attribute it to me, and I'll answer your questions again.
Do you believe this? Do you believe that some people who never rape, kill, assault, abuse, oppress, et cetera do you believe that some people like this will be punished for eternity? I can easily point to others, and I have, who believed just what I wrote. But let's talk about what you believe. Answer the question.
Craig... "When you (and others) assert a subjective (non objective) moral code, then you (and others) have no objective basis to condemn others for their moral code"
You are correct that YOU (and others) have no objective basis to condemn others for their moral code. But we DO have a RATIONAL basis to do so.
Just because YOU are entirely unable to objectively prove your opinions about rape, for instance, does not mean that YOU should not condemn it wherever it happens.
Do you disagree? If you were in a nation that condoned rape, do you think you should remain quiet about it when it happened?
Craig... "I'll tell you what. You admit your wrongdoing,"
1. I don't know that I'm wrong. How can I admit what I don't know? Be reasonable. The way that I can know is if you would just answer the damn question you fucking coward. be a rational adult.
"1. WHY NOT simply answer the question so I can KNOW without a doubt your position, rather than running in pissy-pants cowardice."
The lengths you will go to in order to avoid actually proving that your claims are True is impressive. It's clear that you can't prove your claim, and that your underlying assumptions prevent you from even making a coherent effort to do so. Instead of proving your claim, you resort to this sort of childish name calling and attempts at shame.
I'll hold your comment, while I wait for you to prove your claim, or admit that you can't. Then I'll answer your questions again.
FYI, if you admit that you can't prove your claim, then you forfeit any ability to claim that other's positions are "wrong/incorrect/evil/etc". If you can't establish what is "right" then you have no measure to determine wrong.
" You can't complain that I don't "get" your position correctly AND refuse to answer clarifying questions. That's just schoolboy childish and immature."
Yet that's exactly what you do. I guess you haven't abandoned the double standard.
I love how you cherry pick Sproul (who you likely disagree with on virtually everything), but then leave out the part of his quote that doesn't fit your narrative.
1. Ofering RCC tradition as proof of your hunches about sin, is not a particularly effective strategy.
2. It's hilarious when you cherry pick things from people you disagree with and offer them as proof of your hunches as if someone who you'd say is wrong on virtually everything else, got this one thing right.
3. Not worth wasting any more time on.
Craig... " You admit your wrongdoing, acknowledge that you simply followed your prejudices and biases to make up a position and falsely attribute it to me,"
At this point, I don't even know what it is you think I've falsely attributed to you. When I ask you questions like...
Do you agree that there are levels of seriousness of sin?
Or...
Do you think people who commit typical sins are deserving eternal punishment?
That isn't a claim about your position. I'm not claiming that you've ever said that. I'm clearly asking what you believe... seeking reasonable clarification on reasonable questions.
Note the question marks.
Craig... " if you admit that you can't prove your claim, then you forfeit any ability to claim that other's positions are "wrong/incorrect/evil/etc". If you can't establish what is "right" then you have no measure to determine wrong."
Bullshit and nonsense.
YOU can't prove that rape is objectively wrong, can you?
Does that mean you'll be a coward and remain silent when it happens? I don't believe you're that big a douche to do that, but you tell me.
"But we DO have a RATIONAL basis to do so."
Again, another unproven assertion. To be fair, you do have a "RATIONAL" basis to do so as long as you do so with the notion that your subjective (non objective) moral code is "right" and theirs is "wrong". Of course, right and wrong are objective categories and for you do so goes against the definition of morality as something established within groups/societies/cultures". Which leaves you with something that is subjective (non objective) and only "RATIONAL" withing the specific group/culture/society that you inhabit.
"Just because YOU are entirely unable to objectively prove your opinions about rape, for instance, does not mean that YOU should not condemn it wherever it happens."
Why yes, I can condemn rape wherever it happens. The problem is that in a society/group/culture where rape is considered immoral, I can condemn rape, I just have no grounds to say that rape is immoral in that culture.
"Do you disagree? If you were in a nation that condoned rape, do you think you should remain quiet about it when it happened?"
No. No. I just wouldn't expect that culture/society/group to accept the morality of my culture/society/group as binding or authoritative on them. Because I have no standing to impose a subjective (non objective) moral standard on a society/group/culture that has reached a different consensus.
To further complicate your example, there are respected scientists who argue that rape is a behavior that the evolutionary process rewards. If rape is evolutionaryily beneficial, can it really be considered immoral from a Materialist/Darwinian/Naturalist perspective.
"1. I don't know that I'm wrong. How can I admit what I don't know? Be reasonable. The way that I can know is if you would just answer the damn question you fucking coward. be a rational adult."
I'm sorry, this is strike one. If you are so committed to clinging to your false characterization of my position that you have to resort to this sort of childish name calling and attempting to shame me, then I see no reason to reward your hubris and vile behavior.
Craig... " Ofering RCC tradition as proof of your hunches about sin, is not a particularly effective strategy."
Damn. Anti-Catholicism in your big bag 'o bigotry, too?
Craig... "hilarious when you cherry pick things from people you disagree with and offer them as proof of your hunches"
?
You suggested that the notion of degrees of sin is something unique to me that I made up out of thin air. I pointed out the reality the reality that many others combine including people you align with, agreed. Doesn't mean I have to accept Catholicism or Islam or Conservative evangelical beliefs to note the reality that they agree with what I've Said about the idea of degrees of sin, of more and less serious sins.
You asked for evidence and I gave it to you. Get over yourself. You're being irrational.
"At this point, I don't even know what it is you think I've falsely attributed to you."
Then you either lack reading comprehension, or just choose to ignore what I've said.
"When I ask you questions like... Do you agree that there are levels of seriousness of sin? Or... Do you think people who commit typical sins are deserving eternal punishment? That isn't a claim about your position."
Interesting that you claim ignorance of my position, yet don't hesitate to call my position "evil". It's almost like you're substituting name calling and bullshit for actually explaining your position and proving your claims.
"I'm not claiming that you've ever said that. I'm clearly asking what you believe... seeking reasonable clarification on reasonable questions. Note the question marks."
I do, that's why I've answered them with the exception of two comments that are on hold.
Craig... " I just have no grounds to say that rape is immoral in that culture."
Wow.
"Bullshit and nonsense."
Nope, simple logic.
"YOU can't prove that rape is objectively wrong, can you?"
Probably not to your satisfaction. Of course, I could actually put together a pretty good argument why rape is not immoral from a Materialist/Naturalist?Darwinian perspective.
"Does that mean you'll be a coward and remain silent when it happens?"
Strangely enough, I just answered this.
"I don't believe you're that big a douche to do that, but you tell me."
Strangely enough, I already did.
Of course this doesn't solve your problem. While I could and would express my disapproval of rape in a society/group/culture/or scientific discipline that had concluded that rape is not immoral, I couldn't impose my morality on that society/group/culture/scientific discipline, because (as you insist) morality is subjective (non objective) and as the dictionary suggests is based on "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.".
As I said, you appear to want the moral superiority of an objective moral code for others, while clinging to a subjective (non objective) moral code for yourself.
"Damn. Anti-Catholicism in your big bag 'o bigotry, too?"
No. Theological disagreement is not bigotry. I guess when you have nothing else, those sorts of bullshit attacks are all that's left.
"You suggested that the notion of degrees of sin is something unique to me that I made up out of thin air. I pointed out the reality the reality that many others combine including people you align with, agreed. Doesn't mean I have to accept Catholicism or Islam or Conservative evangelical beliefs to note the reality that they agree with what I've Said about the idea of degrees of sin, of more and less serious sins. You asked for evidence and I gave it to you. Get over yourself. You're being irrational."
Yet you ignore the part of Sproul's quote that undermines your hunch, and cherry pick a bit of RCC tradition (strange that you're now a fan of tradition over scripture) as cover.
The reality is that even those two examples don't line up with what little you've provided about your hunch about "typical/minor" sins and how those are dealt with.
Once again. Perhaps you should spend your time explaining your won position so well, and in so much detail, that it can be readily understood. Instead of trying to tear down the straw men of your hunches about what others think.
" I just have no grounds to say that rape is immoral in that culture."
Based on your assertion that moral standards are subjective (non objective) and the dictionary definition that is clear that moral standards are "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.", then I have no grounds to impose my morality on another society.
That's not to say I don't have options to offer help to those being raped, or to attempt to shift the "values and principles of conduct" of a "particular society". Unfortunately, under the limits of your hunch and the dictionary, simply labeling something "immoral" or imposing my morality, aren't options.
But please, explain how you can reasonably impose your subjective (non objective) morality on a society/group/culture that has collectively determined their moral code based on their specific values and principles of conduct.
I'll wait.
Craig... "you appear to want the moral superiority of an objective moral code for others, while clinging to a subjective (non objective) moral code for yourself."
No. As I've been abundantly clear, neither you nor I can objectively prove our opinions about moral codes. Nonetheless, I believe greatly in the notion that we can rationally make our moral positions known and make the case for them, using reason when we can't objectively prove it.
I don't know what you find so astounding in this. do you reject out of hand the notion that we can make a rational case against rape or child abuse?
Craig... "please, explain how you can reasonably impose your subjective (non objective) morality on a society/group/culture that has collectively determined their moral code based on their specific values and principles of conduct."
Are you serious? Do you think this is difficult, in theory?
Gladly. Just like with conservative folk, I'd try to establish some common ground on rational consensus ideas and move outward from there.
Imagine: We're meeting with a non-Christian ruler of a nation that is dedicated to their own moral code that is not connected in any way with Christianity. Let's say that they are religious believers in some other religion. And part of their belief system is that it doesn't matter if women consent to sexual intercourse, if a man wants to "take" a woman, he can. For instance, in their culture, they believe that if you are engaged in a war with a neighbor nation and you defeat them, you can capture the females and take them home to forcibly wed them.
I'd probably begin with the notion of the Golden Rule. Most philosophies and faith systems in the world agree with a notion similar to Do Unto Others.
Do you believe this? I'd ask.
They probably would affirm Yes, because most people do.
Then I'd say, well, how would you feel if you lost that war and the other nation took your daughter, wife, mother and aunt to forcibly wed them? Would you not find that to be a great moral wrong? An injustice?
Most people would affirm that they would, BUT let's say that this guy does affirm he'd find that wrong, but Might makes Right, he says. So, while the loser may not like it, might makes right?
I'd counter with, but does it really? Is that a rational way to live? Consider your own self interest, if nothing else. In a world where Might makes Right, then at some point, you will no longer be the one with the Might! Then you would be open to oppression. Isn't a world where we abandon Might makes Right as the norm in favor of Do Unto Others be a better world? FOR YOU, when you're no longer mighty? For your loved ones who will be oppressed and abused in the hellish world of MMR?
It's just not a rational way of living...
Like that. That's the rational argument that I would make to such a person. It may not work, but it's rational and has the advantage of moral authority and reason on its side. Such a tact would have the support of the majority of the world (I suspect) because the majority of the world agrees with the Golden Rule.
What would YOU do in your conversation with this ruler who is okay with rape/forced marriage?
Craig... " Theological disagreement is not bigotry."
No, it's not. Saying to a Catholic person, "I disagree with the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick and Last Rites and Catholic views on abortion..." for instance is disagreeing with their theology.
Saying to a Catholic person, "You don't understand morality..." (the point in question) on the other hand, sounds like Catholic bigotry.
What's interesting is, I cite people you come closer to agreeing with and you say that doesn't count because I don't agree with them on every point (or something?? Not sure what your point is, there). I cite a religious group you apparently disagree with more and you write them off as not a credible authority on moral questions...?
How does one win with such "reasoning" and rigidity?
"Saying to a Catholic person, "You don't understand morality..." (the point in question)"
Please point out specifically where I said that an individual Catholic person doesn't understand morality? Quote and link.
The problem is that I didn't and you just made that up.
1. We're not talking about morality, we're talking about sin and it's consequences.
2. In the RCC tradition is held up as equal in weight with scripture.
3. The notion of mortal and venial sins is a teaching of RCC tradition, not from scripture.
4. But it is a theological matter that is unique to the RCC tradition.
"..on the other hand, sounds like Catholic bigotry."
Maybe you problem is when you make shit up, attribute it to me, then denounce your made up shit as "bigotry".
"What's interesting is, I cite people you come closer to agreeing with and you say that doesn't count because I don't agree with them on every point (or something??"
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy in cherry picking from people (out of context) when you disagree with literally every other theological position they hold, and when you wouldn't accept me offering them on any other topic.
"Not sure what your point is, there)."
That you are a hypocrite, and will cherry pick anything regardless of the context if you think it helps your hunch.
"I cite a religious group you apparently disagree with more and you write them off as not a credible authority on moral questions...?"
No, I did not "write them off as not a credible authority on morality". Didn't happen, you simply made that bullshit up. It's simply false.
"How does one win with such "reasoning" and rigidity?"
Given your fluidity, flexibility, and inconsistency, I've given up any hope of winning because it's impossible to beat the moving goal posts.
"Are you serious?"
Yes.
"Do you think this is difficult, in theory?"
I don't think you can do so. But am hopeful you'll try instead of ignoring.
"Gladly. Just like with conservative folk, I'd try to establish some common ground on rational consensus ideas and move outward from there. Imagine: We're meeting with a non-Christian ruler of a nation that is dedicated to their own moral code that is not connected in any way with Christianity. Let's say that they are religious believers in some other religion. And part of their belief system is that it doesn't matter if women consent to sexual intercourse, if a man wants to "take" a woman, he can. For instance, in their culture, they believe that if you are engaged in a war with a neighbor nation and you defeat them, you can capture the females and take them home to forcibly wed them. I'd probably begin with the notion of the Golden Rule. Most philosophies and faith systems in the world agree with a notion similar to Do Unto Others. Do you believe this? I'd ask. They probably would affirm Yes, because most people do. Then I'd say, well, how would you feel if you lost that war and the other nation took your daughter, wife, mother and aunt to forcibly wed them? Would you not find that to be a great moral wrong? An injustice? Most people would affirm that they would, BUT let's say that this guy does affirm he'd find that wrong, but Might makes Right, he says. So, while the loser may not like it, might makes right? I'd counter with, but does it really? Is that a rational way to live? Consider your own self interest, if nothing else. In a world where Might makes Right, then at some point, you will no longer be the one with the Might! Then you would be open to oppression. Isn't a world where we abandon Might makes Right as the norm in favor of Do Unto Others be a better world? FOR YOU, when you're no longer mighty? For your loved ones who will be oppressed and abused in the hellish world of MMR? It's just not a rational way of living... Like that. That's the rational argument that I would make to such a person. It may not work, but it's rational and has the advantage of moral authority and reason on its side. Such a tact would have the support of the majority of the world (I suspect) because the majority of the world agrees with the Golden Rule. What would YOU do in your conversation with this ruler who is okay with rape/forced marriage?"
So you can't impose your moral code. All you have is to attempt an argument based on utilitarian principles. I do love how you simply assume that you'd be able to single handedly convince people to act against their perceived self interest.
It's an interesting attempt.
"No. As I've been abundantly clear, neither you nor I can objectively prove our opinions about moral codes."
Yes, I understand that you have been doing so.
"Nonetheless, I believe greatly in the notion that we can rationally make our moral positions known and make the case for them, using reason when we can't objectively prove it."
Again, I understand that you are positing a subjective (non objective) moral code that fits the dictionary definition.
"I don't know what you find so astounding in this. do you reject out of hand the notion that we can make a rational case against rape or child abuse?"
What I find so astounding is not that you can make a case against those things, but that you think that anyone who comes to a different conclusion is "evil or immoral".
As I've pointed out there is a scientific/Materialist/Naturalist/Darwinian/Utilitarian case being made that rape is beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint. When you couple this with the Naturalist/Darwinian/Materialist notion that "survival of the fittest" is the highest moral code. Then when you add the very definition of the term morality, you literally have no grounding to unilaterally apply your moral code to any other group/society/culture.
I'm sorry that your insistence on calling others evil has blinded you to certain things.
Craig... "that you think that anyone who comes to a different conclusion is "evil or immoral".
As I've pointed out there is a scientific/Materialist/Naturalist/Darwinian/Utilitarian case being made that rape is beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint. "
Do you disagree that anyone deciding rape is okay and engaging in it is engaging in evil behavior? What's weird about that?
As to your infantile obsession with what YOU think some naturalists might think, you're almost certainly wrong, in general. While I'm sure that there may be an isolated nutjob in the naturalist world who thinks rape is not immoral/a great wrong (just like I'm sure that there are those in the Christian world who think the same), I'd be willing to bet that 99.9% of them would not argue that rape is a moral option for humans. AND I'd be willing to bet that, if you disagree, that you certainly can't prove it (that any large number of naturalists are okay with rape as a moral option).
Outliers should rarely factor in to rational decision making.
Craig... "So you can't impose your moral code. All you have is to attempt an argument based on utilitarian principles. I do love how you simply assume that you'd be able to single handedly convince people to act against their perceived self interest.
It's an interesting attempt. "
Says the boy who apparently doesn't even want to TRY to make a case against rape. "You don't believe in it in your culture? No problem! Go for it. I can't argue against it. I'm an impotent and useless non-authority when it comes to morality."
Craig... " I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy in cherry picking from people (out of context) when you disagree with literally every other theological position they hold, and when you wouldn't accept me offering them on any other topic. "
IT LITERALLY DOES NOT MATTER. When the question is, "Is there ANY ONE who truly believes in the notion of degrees or seriousness of various sins?" It doesn't matter if I disagree with them on other points. My pointing to those who DO believe in major/minor sins is evidence that there are, in fact, people who believe in/recognize the reality of major sins and typical sins... more serious sins and less serious sins.
What about that do you fail to understand?
What about that is hypocritical? That is just another stupidly false claim you can't support.
If the question is, "No one but you believes in a universe that is billions of years old" and I cite some "old earth creationists" and some scientists who do, in fact, believe in an old universe, it doesn't matter if I disagree with them on other points. It's demonstrating that "No one but you believes it" is demonstrably not factual.
Do you acknowledge that very simple reality?
Craig... "you can't impose your moral code."
I. Never. Said. I. Could. Impose. My. Moral. Code. It didn't happen.
I said that OF COURSE we can and should make the rational case against something like rape, even if it's not illegal in another location/culture. Because of course we should. And saying, "You know, it's really evil - a great wrong - to violate someone so horribly" is not anything but making that case, from a reasoned, rational point of view.
What would you do, Craig? Tell them they're making your little god really really angry and they should stop right here and now?
Let me know how well that works.
Craig... "sorry that your insistence on calling others evil has blinded you to certain things."
It's not so much calling "others evil..." that I'm doing. I'm noting that rape and forced marriage is evil and that this is a reasoned, rational position to take. I'm talking about specific behaviors and calling them out when they're, you know, evil.
What would you suggest instead?
Also Craig... "You want to be able to call others "evil", without acknowledging that without objective standards good and evil are meaningless. "
I disagree and think this is an irrational and unsupported hunch, on your part. Just because you can't objectively prove rape is wrong doesn't mean you should stand idly by while it happens. AND not having an objective standard (which you don't) doesn't mean that OTHER methods (rational moral reasoning) are meaningless. That claim is, itself, meaningless and irrational.
I'm trying to find some place where I referred to something as evil. Here's one...
"Do you think stealing one cookie without permission when you were hungry... that this ONE SIN is rationally punished with an eternity of torment?
Do you not see how gravely, irrationally EVIL such a suggestion is..."?
Do you think it is mistaken to say that punishing a cookie stealer for an eternity is an evil/a great wrong?
Dan: "No. As I've been abundantly clear, neither you nor I can objectively prove our opinions about moral codes."
Craig: "Yes, I understand that you have been doing so."
You'll be much happier once you can accept reality and say out loud: "I, Craig Milquetoast, can not objectively and authoritatively prove my opinions about what God thinks about morality."
When you do this in-denial/back-handed attack attempt of saying, "I understand that YOU have been doing this..." you just embarrass yourself.
IF you can objectively prove something, do it. You will be helping me and everyone else. BUT, if you can't (and you can't), then just say so and quit the vague superiority attempts.
It's failing and undermines your credibility with everyone but the Pharisees.
Craig... "What I find so astounding is not that you can make a case against those things, but that you think that anyone who comes to a different conclusion is "evil or immoral"."
Really? Even though YOU are entirely impotent and unable to objectively prove your opinion about rape... Does that mean you don't think that those who believe rapes OK are advocating evil?
I don't think you do.
""No. As I've been abundantly clear, neither you nor I can objectively prove our opinions about moral codes."
I don't know why this would be required. We have our beliefs about what is moral, and to have any belief one must have a reason to argue the belief is rational. The suggestion proof is impossible is much more a ploy to protect the subjectivity of morality while also insisting his opinion is more rational. I maintain, as always, morality is objective and we must work to understand it to the best of our abilities. It is objective because it flows from the nature of God, who is unequivocal about behaviors are or aren't moral. One can be tolerated for promoting the suggestion that understanding God's will is a subjective thing, but then we're back to the requirement of supporting one's subjective opinion with facts. To Dan, that is pretty much limited by the opinions of others...but not by facts.
Dan also is hung up on this notion of "minor sins", while, at least in my case, I've been focused on sin...not any particular sinful act, but sin. In doing so, Dan rejects the reality that God has an entirely different response to sin than does Dan when protecting those he believes are exempt from God's justice due to the severity of a particular sinful act relative to humans. To say it again, Dan does not regard sin with the same level of seriousness as does God and for that Dan regards God as irrational...or rather, that anyone accepts that God takes sin more seriously than Dan is irrational for suggesting such a thing.
So then Dan argues against eternal punishment because Dan believes those whose lives are, in Dan's mind, good enough for heaven but imperfect because of "minor sins" must nonetheless be accepted within the Pearly Gates because Dan insists God be just according to human notions of what is rational justice in matters of the spiritual. That's rather presumptuous to say the least. Being a Universalist, Dan may feel this is OK. But a Christian who seriously and prayerfully studies Scripture cannot come to such a conclusion. There's Scriptural support for it.
On the other hand, I've provided many verses that speak of eternal punishment and Dan, being a works based kinda guy, believes that "minor sins" are to be overlooked by God, despite the Scriptural teaching regarding breaking one of the Laws of God is to break them all. Thus, to say something like,
"Just recognize that it will be almost entirely based on your opinion with nothing moral, rational, biblical or just to support your claims."
...is absurd given the many verses and passages I've cited in support of the true teaching of Scripture, while Dan simply craps on Scripture with his "reason".
As a sidebar, I'm of the mind that Dan is unlikely to carry on in this discussion given it has now passed from the first page of the blog, but my job puts me at a disadvantage, so I'll continue with a few more thoughts, anyway...I'm sure Dan is happy to have a way out of his dilemma that doesn't include defending his position.
"Quite the contrary. I am more than glad to focus on sin."
And yet you've avoided doing so for the over 500 comments here, as well as the over 100 comments at my blog. You're not even artful in your dodging.
"SHOW me how some sins are so serious that they deserve to be punished for an eternity."
So after pretending you're willing to focus on sin, you immediately demand proof regarding sinful behaviors. But I don't need to prove any such thing that isn't relative to my position...eternal punishment...given the many references to it in Scripture, including by Christ Himself. That's not focus, Dan. Not at all.
"You want to focuson the seriousnessof sin? Let's talk about it. Prove it. Step up and Give some data. And don't point to some Bible verse and give me YOUR lame ass interpretation of what it means."
Sin is so serious, we needed a Savior to protect us from the punishment sin requires by God. Oh wait....that's just data from Scripture and you can't have what you can't counter, can you? And while you desperately need to believe my citations of Scriptural verses and passages are "lame ass interpretations", you continue to provide nothing whatsoever in the way of a supportable (by Scripture) alternative. It's just another example of the many Scriptural truths you reject because they're inconvenient to the Religion of Trabue.
"I don't know how else to put this period I don't give a damn about your opinion when you're making claims about facts."
Try putting it truthfully...like this:
You don't give a damn about facts that conflict with your baseless opinions nothing in Scripture could possibly be used to support. I have supported my position. Constantly, consistently and accurately by the appropriate verses and passages that you're incapable of rebutting.
As to your citing of the various theologians, not one of those citations has any bearing on the notion of eternal punishment or even the fact that different sins still need to be addressed in terms of judgement.
And your dissertation on hell ignores the message taught by Christ which is on the table, which is that we are all deserving of punishment and many will be punished. It really doesn't matter what any of those words mean, or more importantly, how those like yourself wish to diminish Christ's teachings on sin and punishment by playing games with words.
And so it goes...Dan demands but does not produce. Dan rejects Scripture once again and pretends he's a believer.
"Do you disagree that anyone deciding rape is okay and engaging in it is engaging in evil behavior?"
I do agree that anyone who is advocating for rape in any positive sense is problematic. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the fact that there are scientists who are arguing that rape is beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint. In all honesty (based on the Materialist/Darwinian/Naturalist worldview), they're simply being consistent.
"What's weird about that?"
If one believes that being consistent with one;s worldview is a good thing, then nothing.
"As to your infantile obsession with what YOU think some naturalists might think, you're almost certainly wrong, in general."
Yet, I've provided the quotes and the links to the peer reviewed studies for you in other places and you haven't engaged with those at all. The problem is that you have a hard time accepting what scientists are saying when it doesn't fit your pollyannish view of what science should be. Now, you could actually prove me wrong, but you won't.
"While I'm sure that there may be an isolated nutjob in the naturalist world who thinks rape is not immoral/a great wrong (just like I'm sure that there are those in the Christian world who think the same), I'd be willing to bet that 99.9% of them would not argue that rape is a moral option for humans."
Well played. You've just move the goal posts. I said that the contention was the rape was beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint (the actual claim), and you turned it into something else. The questions really should be whether it's possible that (under the Materialist/Darwinian/Naturalist worldview) for an act that benefits evolution to be immoral and whether morality exists in a world that is driven by purposeless, directionless, urges.
"AND I'd be willing to bet that, if you disagree, that you certainly can't prove it (that any large number of naturalists are okay with rape as a moral option). Outliers should rarely factor in to rational decision making."
You are right that I wouldn't begin to try to prove this misrepresented version of what I actually said. Why would I try to prove something that I didn't say?
"Says the boy who apparently doesn't even want to TRY to make a case against rape. "You don't believe in it in your culture? No problem! Go for it. I can't argue against it. I'm an impotent and useless non-authority when it comes to morality."
Impressive that you so effortlessly twist my actual words into something else entirely.
1. I never said that I "can't argue against it".
2. My position on this is predicated on accepting that morality is subjective (non objective) and that the dictionary definition is the correct definition.
3. My point is that if the two conditions in #2 are operative, then there is absolutely no basis to claim that one group's moral code is inherently superior to any other group's moral code. That there is no basis to refer to any other group's moral code as "evil" in any meaningful non subjective sense.
4. If you are referring to something as "evil" in a subjective sense, then that's fine. It's just an irrelevant opinion with no inherent value.
The problem you have is that you are confusing my pointing out the inherent flaws in your position (demanding a subjective (non objective) moral code, yet wanting to judge those who disagree as if your moral code is objective.
Marshal... "Dan rejects the reality that God has an entirely different response to sin than does Dan"
What I reject is YOUR hunch that God might want to punish people for an eternity for typical sins. This HUNCH of YOUR BRAIN is not equivalent to God's Word or God's Will, not that you can prove. It's just something you pulled out of your brain via your ass.
Think differently? PROVE IT. Stop telling me you "know" things objectively. PROVE it.
"IT LITERALLY DOES NOT MATTER. When the question is, "Is there ANY ONE who truly believes in the notion of degrees or seriousness of various sins?" It doesn't matter if I disagree with them on other points. My pointing to those who DO believe in major/minor sins is evidence that there are, in fact, people who believe in/recognize the reality of major sins and typical sins... more serious sins and less serious sins. What about that do you fail to understand?"
1. The Sproul quote (in the very first sentence) disagreed with your larger premise that these "minor/typical" sins are judged differently than any other sins.
2. The fact that you have to take snippets of the larger theology of sin from people who you would never accept in any other argument out of context, only demonstrates that you can cherry pick quotes that seem to support your hunch.
3. Your obsession with being "right" at any cost is strange, yet strangely impressive.
"What about that is hypocritical?"
1. the fact that you cherry pick, out of context snippets, edit out or ignore the parts that disagree with you, from people or groups that you disagree with on virtually every issue and act as if they 100% agree with your entire concept of sin/punishment/eternal consequences.
"Do you acknowledge that very simple reality?"
1. I'd never make that claim, because it would be stupid.
2. I wouldn't offer something that contradicted my claim as support of my claim.
3. I understand the reality that you'll do pretty much anything to avoid being wrong.
4. Even if the snippets you provided did agree 100% with one facet of your hunch, they still don't agree with the entirety of your hunch.
Marshal imagines my position thusly...
"1. then Dan argues against eternal punishment because
2. Dan believes those whose lives are, in Dan's mind, good enough for heaven
3. but imperfect because of "minor sins"
4. must nonetheless be accepted within the Pearly Gates
5. because Dan insists God be just according to human notions
6. of what is rational justice in matters of the spiritual."
My actual positions...
1. Dan does not objectively know about ANY "eternal punishment" because no one knows.
2. I have never said anything about being "good enough for heaven."
2a. I've been quite clear that if there is a heaven in the afterlife and people go there, it will be because God's GRACE and have nothing to do with being "good enough.
2b. I'm not sure what part of "NOTHING TO DO WITH 'GOOD ENOUGH'" you're failing to understand or if I repeated it 100 more times you'll understand that this is nothing I've said.
3. Correct, we are, by and large, imperfect because of minor (or as I prefer, typical) sin, because that is the reality.
4. Again, never said we Must be accepted in the Pearly Gates. Not anything I said.
5. Dan believes that God IS just and that we generally - if imperfectly - understand justice, because of course we do, being made in God's image, just a little lower than God, who calls us all the time to be just... if we didn't have any clue about Justice, how would we do this?
6. If Marshal wants to suggest that his god's idea of justice is unknownable and wholly unknown to us and completely different than what we generally understand, Marshal can make that case. Thus far, he hasn't.
IF Marshal wants to argue that his god's justice means that he would punish people for an eternity for typical temporal sins, Marshal can make that case. Thus far, he hasn't. He hasn't because he can't. He has nothing biblical, rational or moral on which to base his wild-ass hunch.
Just by way of reality and clarification.
Craig... " I've provided the quotes and the links to the peer reviewed studies for you in other places and you haven't engaged with those at all. The problem is that you have a hard time accepting what scientists are saying "
You have not done shit, Craig. The problem is that you read and do not comprehend, as is so evident on your comments here, with your UNENDING mis-readings and misunderstandings of my words. I GET that you quote some isolated scientists out of context. What you have NOT done is show that scientists or naturalists, by and large, think that rape is an acceptable or even good moral activity.
YOU HAVE NOT DONE THIS and YOU CAN NOT DO THIS, so why not do the decent thing and quit pretending like you know what "science" thinks? Just because you can lift a quote is not evidence that you can UNDERSTAND that quote.
You want to make the case that "naturalists" all/mostly support rape as a moral activity? PROVE IT. Cite some studies.
IF you're going to merely make the case that some isolated scientists believe rape is acceptable, big shit! I can make the case that some isolated conservative Christians think rape is acceptable. I don't care about outliers, they don't mean shit to serious discussions about morality.
Put simply, it's not that I have a hard time accepting what "scientists" say.
I have a hard time accepting that YOU UNDERSTAND what scientists are saying.
Do you understand these words and the distinction between what I'm saying and what you're misunderstanding?
"I. Never. Said. I. Could. Impose. My. Moral. Code."
Yet you continue to claim that those whose moral codes disagree with yours are "evil", are you suggesting that you wouldn't (if you could) do whatever was necessary to stop "evil"?
"It didn't happen. I said that OF COURSE we can and should make the rational case against something like rape, even if it's not illegal in another location/culture. Because of course we should. And saying, "You know, it's really evil - a great wrong - to violate someone so horribly" is not anything but making that case, from a reasoned, rational point of view."
The problem is that it is only "evil" or a "great wrong" in a society whose moral code deems it so. You certainly consider it so, yet others do not. Given the subjective (non objective) nature of your moral code, you have no grounds to assert (objectively) that someone else's moral code is "evil". You can (as you've said) attempt to present arguments and try to persuade them, but to simply announce that your subjective (non objective) moral code is "good" while someone else's subjective (non objective) moral code is "evil" is undermined by your insistence on a subjective (non objective) basis of morality. Which is the actual definition of morality.
"What would you do, Craig? Tell them they're making your little god really really angry and they should stop right here and now?"
I can tell you that I wouldn't stoop to being condescending, and misrepresenting others views.
The problem with your question is that if I ascribed to your view that morality is subjective (non objective), I would be honest enough to admit that I had no grounding to try to apply my subjective (non objective) moral code to others, and I wouldn't constantly refer to them or their behavior as "evil".
Let me know how well that works.
Craig... " then there is absolutely no basis to claim that one group's moral code is inherently superior to any other group's moral code."
I get that you are SAYING that, but you are not DEMONSTRATING it. JUST BECAUSE you think there is no objective proof of something does not mean that we can't rationally come to some agreement/common ground... or at least make the case.
Find some DATA and RESEARCH that says (and is commonly accepted in the real world) that IF there is no objective proof of something, THEN we can't take a stand on it.
"It's not so much calling "others evil..." that I'm doing. I'm noting that rape and forced marriage is evil and that this is a reasoned, rational position to take."
Ahhhhh, the splitting hairs/distinction without a difference/semantics trope.
"I'm talking about specific behaviors and calling them out when they're, you know, evil."
Are you suggesting that those specific behaviors exist outside of the specific individuals that engage in them? That those who do so lack agency? That their moral code is inherently wrong?
"What would you suggest instead?"
Given the limits you've established around morality, and you're insistence that morality is subjective (non objective), the only consistent position to take is to acknowledge that morality is subjective (non objective) and that morality is "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
Given those to limitations, the only consistent position is to live and let live.
Or, if one takes a strict Materialist/Darwinian/Naturalist worldview, then one can either argue that everything is amoral (because the highest value is "Evolution"), accept a subjective (non objective) moral code, import a moral code from a different worldview, or simply acknowledge that "nature is red in tooth and claw" and that "survival of the fittest" are the only moral code that matter.
"I disagree and think this is an irrational and unsupported hunch, on your part. Just because you can't objectively prove rape is wrong doesn't mean you should stand idly by while it happens. AND not having an objective standard (which you don't) doesn't mean that OTHER methods (rational moral reasoning) are meaningless. That claim is, itself, meaningless and irrational."
Well, OK. That settles everything. As long as you disagree, then the case is closed and there is nothing else to be said. I guess the fact that you've misrepresented what I've actually said is immaterial.
Craig... "Yet you continue to claim that those whose moral codes disagree with yours are "evil", are you suggesting that you wouldn't (if you could) do whatever was necessary to stop "evil"?"
I would not engage in evil to stop evil, if that's what you're asking. IF another nation truly accepted rape as acceptable, I would not as an outside entity force my will on those people. That would be, well, like rape and the point is that rape is wrong - forcing your will on others is wrong.
But I certainly would and do act where I can to stop such activity to the degree I can do it justly and morally.
Let's use a more real world example - Female genital mutilation is a practice still happening in parts of the world. It's culturally accepted in places, still. Now, most of the Western World (and other parts of the world - almost certainly the majority), find the practice ghastly and immoral. But what do we do when something like this is culturally accepted?
We educate and try to make change the best we can. And that is how the rational/moral world has responded and it IS making a difference, with significant declines in the practice.
https://time.com/5447132/africa-female-genital-mutilation-decline-fgm/
That is what I support. MAKING THE RATIONAL CASE that this is not good or healthy or needed. Because that is rational. Education. Data. Sharing stories. This is how we make change.
IF we believe that one can make a rational case against a culturally accepted practice, in spite of religious beliefs.
And THAT is precisely why we should be prepared to make a rational case against something, as opposed to merely decreeing, "Our God hath FORBAD it!"
Does that seem rational to you?
OR, do you think that since you can't prove it's wrong, there's no use in making the case against it, using reason?
"I'm trying to find some place where I referred to something as evil. Here's one... "Do you think stealing one cookie without permission when you were hungry... that this ONE SIN is rationally punished with an eternity of torment? Do you not see how gravely, irrationally EVIL such a suggestion is..."? Do you think it is mistaken to say that punishing a cookie stealer for an eternity is an evil/a great wrong?"
No, I'm saying that there is no one (especially anyone in this conversation) who is saying that "stealing one cookie" is "punished with an eternity of torment". I'm saying that arguing against a straw man is stupid and pointless.
But, if you actually argued against what I actually said...
Craig... "Given the limits you've established around morality, and you're insistence that morality is subjective (non objective), the only consistent position to take is to acknowledge that morality is subjective (non objective) and that morality is..."
I am not placing a SINGLE fucking limit on ANY thing, you moron. IF YOU HAVE OBJECTIVE PROOF of morality, then GOD DAMN you, man, put it up! What sort of limp-assed useless coward would have objective proof and withhold it? THAT, itself, would be an evil, don't you agree?
Jesus Christ, have mercy!
Answer the question then, don't be a coward. Be an adult. DO YOU HAVE OBJECTIVE PROOF of your moral hunches?
Craig... "I'm saying that there is no one (especially anyone in this conversation) who is saying that "stealing one cookie" is "punished with an eternity of torment". I'm saying that arguing against a straw man is stupid and pointless. "
Great, I'm glad to hear that no one is punished for an eternity for even one sin. Are there SOME people who are punished for an eternity, then? And if so, WHY?
Again, be an adult. Make your case, don't make me drag it out of you like this.
Rational adult conversation need not be this difficult.
Craig... "I'm saying that there is no one (especially anyone in this conversation) who is saying that "stealing one cookie" is "punished with an eternity of torment". I'm saying that arguing against a straw man is stupid and pointless."
You DO recognize that there are conservative Christians who DO make the argument that "EVEN IF we only sinned once, that ONE SIN would be sufficient to send us to hell for an eternity," right? I've already cited this but here's another...
"One sin is enough to deserve hell."
https://newspring.cc/articles/6-common-myths-about-hell
It has been in the past (I don't know about currently) a common evangelist's trope... "EVEN IF you only commit ONE SIN, that sin is enough to send you to an eternity of hell fire!"
Are you aware of that? Do you acknowledge that this thinking exists in the evangelical world?
Craig... "Given those to limitations, the only consistent position is to live and let live..."
I get that this is what YOU say. But I don't know many if any people in the real world who would ever say that. Just because YOU make a claim that YOU don't see how it's consistent to be unable to objectively prove something AND STILL make a reasoned stand against something doesn't mean that it is so.
Craig... " you have no grounds to assert (objectively) that someone else's moral code is "evil"."
Do you honestly believe that a REASONED moral argument against a behavior is WRONG, if we can't prove it objectively?
Do you honestly think you can PROVE OBJECTIVELY that abortion (for instance) is wrong?
If so, why have you not made that case and surprised the world with this hitherto unseen arguments?
If not, then I guess you would tell the anti-abortionists to quit trying to impose their hunches on others?
Please answer.
Craig... "Given the subjective (non objective) nature of your moral code, you have no grounds to assert (objectively) that someone else's moral code is "evil"."
1. Well, we have seen that YOU are entirely unable (or even attempt to try) to give an objective moral code, thus, YOUR moral code is subjective in nature, correct?
2. Given that, do you believe that YOU have "no grounds to assert (objectively) that someone else's moral code is evil..."?
or are you just inconsistent?
3. Given that, do you believe that you have no reason or impetus to speak up?
"You'll be much happier once you can accept reality and say out loud: "I, Craig Milquetoast, can not objectively and authoritatively prove my opinions about what God thinks about morality." When you do this..."
You see, when you do things like this (make up something I haven't actually done, and attribute it to me as if I had), you completely undermine anything else that you say.
"...in-denial/back-handed attack attempt of saying, "I understand that YOU have been doing this..." you just embarrass yourself. IF you can objectively prove something, do it. You will be helping me and everyone else. BUT, if you can't (and you can't), then just say so and quit the vague superiority attempts. It's failing and undermines your credibility with everyone but the Pharisees."
"Really?"
Yes, the fact that you so quickly and blithely throw around adjectives like "evil" with no basis, is mystifying to me. Unless it's out of some desire for moral superiority or something.
"Even though YOU are entirely impotent and unable to objectively prove your opinion about rape..."
That's quite a claim, I'll eagerly await proof. Of course, I'm still waiting for proof of all the things you've attributed to me falsely and many of your other claims, which means that it's unlikely you'll do anything but ignore this as well.
"Does that mean you don't think that those who believe rapes OK are advocating evil?"
No. The issue isn't what I think. It's your lack of ability to demonstrate how your subjective (non objective) personal moral code and he definition of morality gives you the ground to make objective claims about the moral code of others.
"You have not done shit, Craig. The problem is that you read and do not comprehend, as is so evident on your comments here, with your UNENDING mis-readings and misunderstandings of my words. I GET that you quote some isolated scientists out of context."
Since this entire section is bullshit, I see no reason to address it.
"What you have NOT done is show that scientists or naturalists, by and large, think that rape is an acceptable or even good moral activity."
You are correct. I have not done that. I have never claimed to or attempted to do that. What I did do, is to demonstrate that there are scientists who have a Naturalist/Darwinian/Materialist worldview who have made the argument in peer reviewed journals that rape confers an evolutionary advantage to those who engage in it. This view is in harmony with the Naturalist/Darwinian?Materialist worldview that asserts that nature (or evolution, or whatever therm is used) is amoral. That the everything (according to that worldview) is based on "survival of the fittest", at all costs. This is an entirely consistent position within that worldview.
"YOU HAVE NOT DONE THIS and YOU CAN NOT DO THIS, so why not do the decent thing and quit pretending like you know what "science" thinks?"
Because (once again) I have never claimed to know what "Science thinks". I have pointed out the reality that there are "expert" scientists who are advocating for certain positions that conflict with your hunches.
"Just because you can lift a quote is not evidence that you can UNDERSTAND that quote."
Yet, strangely, you have no problem lifting out of context quotes and pretending that you understand them perfectly.
"You want to make the case that "naturalists" all/mostly support rape as a moral activity?"
No, I don't. I've made the case, and provided enough evidence for you to prove me wrong if you weren't too lazy to do so, that there are scientists who claim that rape is an evolutionary advantage in an amoral system. You simply made up all the other bullshit.
"PROVE IT. Cite some studies. IF you're going to merely make the case that some isolated scientists believe rape is acceptable, big shit!"
I've provided enough evidence for you to dig into it and prove me wrong. You haven't. Instead you've resorted to simply flinging shit up against the wall and hoping it will stick. Just because you're too lazy to respond to the evidence I've provided doesn't mean anything. Prove that the actual claims, I've actually made are objectively wrong, or shut the hell up with this made up bullshit.
"I can make the case that some isolated conservative Christians think rape is acceptable. I don't care about outliers, they don't mean shit to serious discussions about morality. Put simply, it's not that I have a hard time accepting what "scientists" say. I have a hard time accepting that YOU UNDERSTAND what scientists are saying. Do you understand these words and the distinction between what I'm saying and what you're misunderstanding?"
I completely understand that you say you "can' do something, but won't. I completely understand that you decided that it was easier to put words in my mouth, and make shit up that to deal with reality. I understand that you think that you have this absurd impression that you can simply assert any bullshit you want and not have to prove it.
Mostly it's all about diverting attention from your failure to prove your own claims.
Craig... ""Even though YOU are entirely impotent and unable to objectively prove your opinion about rape..."
That's quite a claim, I'll eagerly await proof."
The proof is that you have NEVER done so. That, and your own words like "I can't show it to you in a way that you would accept..."
I have been abundantly clear, IF you can prove your hunches as objective reality, PLEEEEEEASE show me because, as someone concerned about morality, I would LOVE to have objective proof of morality.
But never have you ever.
IF you could prove it, you would, wouldn't you? ALL I'm left with is, Too bad, I guess he can't do it. Because what kind of awful person would HAVE the tools/data needed to prove objectively that rape is wrong and then wouldn't share it? I mean, isn't that a special kind of evil?
I can't "prove" a negative, Craig. All I can do is say, "I've never seen it, in spite of repeated requests that you show your objective proof."
Does none of this make sense to you?
"1. Well, we have seen that YOU are entirely unable (or even attempt to try) to give an objective moral code, thus, YOUR moral code is subjective in nature, correct?"
I've been focused on trying to get you to explain your hunches in detail. I've never claimed that I could do any of this. I rarely try to do something that someone else makes up and attributes to me.
"2. Given that, do you believe that YOU have "no grounds to assert (objectively) that someone else's moral code is evil..."? or are you just inconsistent?"
I've never asserted (objectively) that anyone's moral code or actions are "evil", you have. You can't prove the claims you actually made, why should I prove claims I haven't made?
"3. Given that, do you believe that you have no reason or impetus to speak up?"
Asked and answered.
Until you can actually show either than you have objective proof of your moral hunches OR admit you don't (which we can see that you don't, you just don't have the moral wherewithal to say it out loud), I think we're done.
The ball's in your court.
Again, help me out. I would LOVE to know that we can objectively prove our moral positions. IF you can do so, you would be helping me out and not just me, but the whole world. We all eagerly await your moral clarity IF you have it. But if you don't, just have the decency to admit it.
I for one, truly hope you CAN prove it.
Craig... "I've never asserted (objectively) that anyone's moral code or actions are "evil", you have."
If you go to your blog and search for "evil," you will see that you have, just fyi. Not often, to be fair. More often you were attacking those who called things evil or wrong that you presumably didn't think warranted such strong language. But then, what does that say about you?
Is your middle name Milquetoast? Pablum? Just curious.
Re: Dan's comment on July 1, 2021 at 7:38 AM
"What I reject is YOUR hunch that God might want to punish people for an eternity for typical sins."
First, I don't do "hunches". That's just what you call that which you don't like to hear.
Secondly, my position is the doctrine of eternal punishment, affirmed by the words of Christ and His Apostles in their epistles. You continue to want to make it about your so-called "typical" sins, or "minor" sins. I speak only of sin. It's really not a difficult distinction for even you to grasp if you'd wait for the vapors to pass and actually consider what is actually said.
"This HUNCH of YOUR BRAIN is not equivalent to God's Word or God's Will..."
You know what is equivalent to God's Word or God's Will? God's Word and God's Will about which I restrict my arguments, lifted directly from the Scripture where they can be found by even those who only claim to have seriously and/or prayerfully studied it. It's how I prove what I know to be true.
"It's just something you pulled out of your brain via your ass."
I don't find, however, any evidence in Scripture of this kind of "embracing grace".
"Think differently? PROVE IT. Stop telling me you "know" things objectively. PROVE it."
What?...AGAIN??? How many times do you need to see the Scriptural verses which support my position in order to...OH!!! You want me to prove what YOU need to believe I'm saying...not what I'm actually saying. As does Craig, I'll take a pass and focus on my own actual positions, not those you've invented for me.
Re: Dan's comment on July 1, 2021 at 7:46 AM
Dan's (*snicker*) "actual" positions:
"1. Dan does not objectively know about ANY "eternal punishment" because no one knows."
But Dan does know about the doctrine of eternal punishment because I've provided the verses and passages from Scripture, including from Christ Himself, that affirm the doctrine. Thus, those who have actually studied Scripture seriously and prayerfully know full well the doctrine is Biblical and real. At best, Dan can only say, as he does with so much about Scripture he finds personally objectionable, he rejects what even Christ has affirmed as true.
"2. I have never said anything about being "good enough for heaven.""
Not in so many words. But that's how it works with Dan.
Dan's argument absolutely promotes that position when he wets himself over the notion that someone he describes as having committed only "typical" sins should not be punished eternally. "Typical" sins, to Dan, aren't worth the bother of avoiding or seeking repentance and forgiveness and do not require a Savior in Whom such a sinner need put his faith. When it comes to the "typical" sins, if that's all one ever commits, one is thus good enough for heaven.
"2a. I've been quite clear that if there is a heaven in the afterlife and people go there, it will be because God's GRACE and have nothing to do with being "good enough."
Then you should stop promoting such a thing by your constant reference to "typical sins" not being worthy of concern. Though your grasp of the concept of God's grace is infantile, you must keep in mind that it covers sinners who've committed the most egregious sins imaginable. Christ's sacrificial blood has made all of us "good enough for heaven" who've accepted Christ as Savior.
"2b. I'm not sure what part of "NOTHING TO DO WITH 'GOOD ENOUGH'" you're failing to understand or if I repeated it 100 more times you'll understand that this is nothing I've said."
Continued defense of unbelievers who have done no worse than your "typical sins" absolutely conflicts with your "NOTHING TO DO WITH 'GOOD ENOUGH'" mantra.
"3. Correct, we are, by and large, imperfect because of minor (or as I prefer, typical) sin, because that is the reality."
That's not the reality at all. We're imperfect because we're not God. No one is perfect but Him. Setting that absolute truth aside, we're not imperfect because of "typical sins". We're imperfect because of sin. Christianity 101. Very basic stuff. All who seriously and prayerfully study Scripture know this.
"4. Again, never said we Must be accepted in the Pearly Gates. Not anything I said."
Again, not in so many words. But your continued defense of unbelievers who have done no worse than your "typical sins" absolutely conflicts with your "NOTHING TO DO WITH 'GOOD ENOUGH'" mantra.
"5. Dan believes that God IS just and that we generally - if imperfectly - understand justice, because of course we do, being made in God's image, just a little lower than God, who calls us all the time to be just... if we didn't have any clue about Justice, how would we do this?"
This is irrelevant to the doctrine of eternal punishment and what makes us deserving. And again, it relies on God adhering to YOUR insistence that He not be offended by sin any more than you are. You continue to miss the point and try to make it about a misunderstanding of what justice is, when the point is distinctly the seriousness of the crime in question...sin. Not which sin, but sin.
"6. If Marshal wants to suggest that his god's idea of justice is unknownable and wholly unknown to us and completely different than what we generally understand, Marshal can make that case. Thus far, he hasn't."
First of all, "my" "god" is God. He's the Only God there is, and thus he's YOUR God as well, despite the fact you don't believe in Him.
Secondly, I never suggested God's justice is unknowable, and that's easy to tell by my citations of verses and passages that speak to an element of His justice...eternal punishment....about which all who seriously and prayerfully study Scripture are entirely familiar. So, as is the case with Craig, I'm not about to spend any time defending something I've never promoted.
"IF Marshal wants to argue that his god's justice means that he would punish people for an eternity for typical temporal sins, Marshal can make that case."
Golly, Dan! Thanks! But I'd rather focus on that which I do want to argue, and leave you to pretend whatever you want about what I believe. And that which I do argue is fully supported by the passages and verses I've already cited and thus what I argue is Biblical, rational and moral.
"I get that you are SAYING that, but you are not DEMONSTRATING it."
Since you haven't demonstrated how your subjective (non objective) moral code that is "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society." can be applied or enforced on a universal basis. You simply make the assumption that it can. I'm simply looking at the logical reality that it's impossible to apply a subjective (non objective) moral code that is "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society." beyond the limits of the "specified person or society", and stating the only consistent conclusion.
"JUST BECAUSE you think there is no objective proof of something does not mean that we can't rationally come to some agreement/common ground... or at least make the case. Find some DATA and RESEARCH that says (and is commonly accepted in the real world) that IF there is no objective proof of something, THEN we can't take a stand on it."
Just because you make up some bullshit and try to attribute it to me and demand that I defend your made up bullshit, doesn't mean I'm obligated to actually waste my time with your made up bullshit.
"I would not engage in evil to stop evil, if that's what you're asking."
No, I wasn't.
"IF another nation truly accepted rape as acceptable, I would not as an outside entity force my will on those people. That would be, well, like rape and the point is that rape is wrong - forcing your will on others is wrong."
So there are limits to what you would do to prevent "evil", interesting. The notion of allowing "evil" to prevent "evil" sounds strange to me. But you do you.
"But I certainly would and do act where I can to stop such activity to the degree I can do it justly and morally."
"Let's use a more real world example - Female genital mutilation is a practice still happening in parts of the world. It's culturally accepted in places, still. Now, most of the Western World (and other parts of the world - almost certainly the majority), find the practice ghastly and immoral. But what do we do when something like this is culturally accepted?"
Do you mean when FGM is accepted as a "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."? Of course, not only is it "accepted" but it's actually legal.
"We educate and try to make change the best we can. And that is how the rational/moral world has responded and it IS making a difference, with significant declines in the practice. https://time.com/5447132/africa-female-genital-mutilation-decline-fgm/ That is what I support. MAKING THE RATIONAL CASE that this is not good or healthy or needed. Because that is rational. Education. Data. Sharing stories. This is how we make change. IF we believe that one can make a rational case against a culturally accepted practice, in spite of religious beliefs. And THAT is precisely why we should be prepared to make a rational case against something, as opposed to merely decreeing, "Our God hath FORBAD it!" Does that seem rational to you?"
Well, to use one of your favorite arguments, FGM is never specifically mentioned in scripture...
No, I agree that the only option you have is persuasion. I've already acknowledged that. Your problem is that you have no grounding in a subjective (non objective) moral code where the " particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society." defines morality for that "specified person or society", to declare the practice as "immoral or evil" beyond simply expressing that as you opinion.
"OR, do you think that since you can't prove it's wrong, there's no use in making the case against it, using reason?"
Asked and answered. But again, no.
I would suggest that the process of persuading could be done from the starting point of YHWH creating people in His image and that our True value and worth comes from our status as image bearers of YHWH. The problem is that the cultures that still practice things like FGM don't value all humans equally, and it will be hard to convince them not to mutilate humans that they consider to be property.
"I am not placing a SINGLE fucking limit on ANY thing, you moron. IF YOU HAVE OBJECTIVE PROOF of morality, then GOD DAMN you, man, put it up! What sort of limp-assed useless coward would have objective proof and withhold it? THAT, itself, would be an evil, don't you agree? Jesus Christ, have mercy! Answer the question then, don't be a coward. Be an adult. DO YOU HAVE OBJECTIVE PROOF of your moral hunches?"
This makes no sense to me and is using language that I consider to be abusive, bullying, and utterly devoid of grace.
I'll leave it up as an example of the depravity and gracelessness being demonstrated.
"Great, I'm glad to hear that no one is punished for an eternity for even one sin. Are there SOME people who are punished for an eternity, then?"
If one accepts what we see from Jesus' teachings and from scripture, then this is a reasonable conclusion to draw.
"And if so, WHY?"
Because all have sinned, and the wages of sin is death. Fortunately the gift of God is eternal life. If scripture is trustworthy and believable.
"Again, be an adult. Make your case, don't make me drag it out of you like this. Rational adult conversation need not be this difficult."
Again, be an adult. Prove your claims, explain your positions clearly and distinctly, provide scriptural support for your hunches, stick to using terms consistently, and stop moving the goalposts and changing the subject.
You asked a yes of no question, I answered smply and directly.
"I get that this is what YOU say. But I don't know many if any people in the real world who would ever say that. Just because YOU make a claim that YOU don't see how it's consistent to be unable to objectively prove something AND STILL make a reasoned stand against something doesn't mean that it is so."
!. Yet, you can't prove this hunch, you just assert it.
2. Given your insistence that morality is subjective (non objective), and the reality that morality is "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.". I see no other option but to "live and let live".
3. My "live and let live" conclusion doesn't preclude attempting to persuade others to a different conclusion. It only referes to the reality that there are no grounds to refer to others who hold "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.", as "evil" or immoral.
4. I'm essentially agreeing with your comment where you said you'd stand by and let the evil continue while you engaged in the time consuming work of persuasion.
"Do you honestly believe that a REASONED moral argument against a behavior is WRONG, if we can't prove it objectively?"
No. I also don't believe that given your insistence that moral codes are subjective (non objective) and the reality that moral codes are "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.", that you have no grounds to label any behavior as "evil" or "immoral". That doesn't preclude you from making whatever argument you want. Just that the above don't give you grounds for those particular labels.
"Do you honestly think you can PROVE OBJECTIVELY that abortion (for instance) is wrong?"
What in the hell is this? Are you seriously trying to introduce one more smoke screen to avoid proving your own claims?
For the record, I believe that there are effective and compelling arguments that abortion is wrong being made frequently and loudly. Your opinions on those arguments have no bearing on the arguments themselves. I'm not going to re hash this topic for your amusement.
"If so, why have you not made that case and surprised the world with this hitherto unseen arguments? If not, then I guess you would tell the anti-abortionists to quit trying to impose their hunches on others? Please answer."
See above. The point is that if pro life folks accepted your hunch that morality must be subjective (non objective) and that morality is "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.", they also would have no grounds to refer to abortion as "evil" or "immoral".
The problem you have is that you can't seem to comprehend that there are arguments to be made on these topics that don't necessitate calling others "evil" or "immoral". You just seem to revel in doing so in a manner that seems self righteous.
"That's quite a claim, I'll eagerly await proof."
Since you edited my quote, and I'm not inclined to search for it, I'm left wondering why you'd expect me to prove your hunch. If you've already proven your hunch to be objectively True, I'll apologize for missing that and ask for you to copy paste it so I can behold it's wonder.
"The proof is that you have NEVER done so."
Never done what? Do you expect me to read your mind or make assumptions abut what you mean?
"That, and your own words like "I can't show it to you in a way that you would accept..." I have been abundantly clear, IF you can prove your hunches as objective reality, PLEEEEEEASE show me because, as someone concerned about morality, I would LOVE to have objective proof of morality. But never have you ever."
This is amazing, you've never proven (or attempted) to prove your hunches to be objectively True. In fact you've hidden behind the cowardly approach of claiming that it's all just opinions and can't be proven objectively True. Yet you demand that I prove claims I've never made. How strange. Perhaps you can show me where I've claimed that I can prove any of these things objectively.
"IF you could prove it, you would, wouldn't you?"
What specifically have I claimed that I could prove that I haven't? Please help me by showing me where I specifically claimed that I could prove anything to be objectively True. I'll need to see exact quotes and links for context.
"ALL I'm left with is, Too bad, I guess he can't do it. Because what kind of awful person would HAVE the tools/data needed to prove objectively that rape is wrong and then wouldn't share it?"
Again, where have I claimed this?
"I mean, isn't that a special kind of evil?"
Not proving claims I haven't made doesn't seem evil under any but the most warped and subjective standards.
"I can't "prove" a negative, Craig. All I can do is say, "I've never seen it, in spite of repeated requests that you show your objective proof." Does none of this make sense to you?"
No, demanding that I prove claims that I haven't made (that you've made up out of thin air) makes absolutely no sense. Your failure to demonstrate that I've made these claims simply makes my confusion more justified.
"Until you can actually show either than you have objective proof of your moral hunches OR admit you don't (which we can see that you don't, you just don't have the moral wherewithal to say it out loud), I think we're done. The ball's in your court. Again, help me out. I would LOVE to know that we can objectively prove our moral positions. IF you can do so, you would be helping me out and not just me, but the whole world. We all eagerly await your moral clarity IF you have it. But if you don't, just have the decency to admit it. I for one, truly hope you CAN prove it."
Repeatedly pointing out that I have never claimed to be able to prove any of these things "objectively", while you repeatedly demand that I prove s claim I haven't made is getting old.
"If you go to your blog and search for "evil," you will see that you have, just fyi. Not often, to be fair. More often you were attacking those who called things evil or wrong that you presumably didn't think warranted such strong language. But then, what does that say about you? Is your middle name Milquetoast? Pablum? Just curious."
Oh, well done. Just more unsupported, unproven bullshit that you think should be accepted because it spews from your keyboard. Again, I'd ask for quotes or links to prove your claim, but you've chosen to to provide them anywhere else.
If it makes you feel better, I'll amend my statement to say that I've "rarely" referred to anyone's actions as "evil".
Craig... "Repeatedly pointing out that I have never claimed to be able to prove any of these things "objectively", while you repeatedly demand that I prove s claim I haven't made is getting old.
Sigh.
Repeatedly pointing out that I'm not saying you are claiming that, I'm ASKING if you can agree and then you using words that make it SOUND like you believe something about morality can be objectively proven by you... but refusing to clarify... which is why I ASK you, for clarification, not because you've said it!... is also getting old.
You DO understand, don't you, that I'm not saying you CLAIMED your moral theories can be proven objectively? I'm asking if you agree to the reality that you CAN'T prove your hunches about morality.
Do you?
Why not simply answer?
Maybe he meant me. I have no problem pointing out the evil inherent in many of Dan's positions and beliefs. As I do so when those positions are in such stark contrast to Biblical teaching, it's pretty easy to do and justified as well. I can't say the same for Dan's claims of evil by others, since he often attributes to others that which their words don't indicate.
But at the risk of providing Dan a means to avoid your expectations of him which he has to this point still failed to address, abortion is evil because it's the murder of what Dan would refer to as "the least of these" if he really cared about "the least of these". Dan's defense of abortion is evil because it is based on the discriminatory rejection of the value of the aborted child's life because of it's age, size and location...which is just like discriminating on other immutable characteristics such as race.
Again, this will likely be seen by Dan as an opportunity to go off on another tangent, but I thought it good enough to use to demonstrate when I might refer to a person or practice as evil. What it comes down to is that my position on these things is based on Scripture. For a Christian, or one like me who tries to be, Scripture is the definitive source for knowing and understanding morality. It means my position is not subjective at all, but because it flows from the Will of God, it is objective in a way nothing else can be.
Finally...for now...I visited the site to which Dan last linked...the one he posted as evidence that some evangelicals believe one sin is enough...and found it, based on a quick and cursory review, perfectly sound from a doctrinal point of view. Dan wants to insist that "some" evangelicals believe one sin is enough to warrant eternal punishment. The reality is that it is far more accurate that "some" Christians don't. Most do, since it reflects Biblical teaching. But Dan is so hung up on the sin itself, when the point is "sin". Period. And what the sinner does about it. To put it another way, if one commits a sinful act, one is guilty of sin. But if one is guilty of sin, one hasn't necessarily committed any particular sinful act. Dan wants to pretend the act matters. But it's sin that matters.
Marshal... "Maybe he meant me. I have no problem pointing out the evil inherent in many of Dan's positions and beliefs. "
Of course you do, as does Craig in a variety of ways. Often not so directly as calling it evil but otherwise snidely and vaguely making hi attempted attacks.
And yet, we see the hypocrisy and inconsistency in Craig because he never calls you out or himself out. We see.
I still suspect that while you will overtly say that you can objectively prove what you cannot objectively prove, Craig likes to THINK that he can objectively prove his moral hunches but won't say it because he doesn't want to be held to it because he can't prove shit.
Just as Marshall is glad to claim, without a single bit of proof, that 1 sin can reasonably cause someone to justly be sentenced to an alternative punishment. Again, Marshal, let's talk about it. Make your case. How in the name of everything holy in the whole world can you make the case that stealing one damned cookie somehow deserves an eternal punishment? Do you not see how ridiculous that is ? How overtly evil on the face of it it is?
Here's a hint, if you can't defend it, perhaps you should not make the case.
Marshal... " Dan wants to insist that "some" evangelicals believe one sin is enough to warrant eternal punishment. The reality is that it is far more accurate that "some" Christians don't. Most do"
To be clear, I am guessing that most do, as well. Or at least, most did 30 years ago when I was deep in the heart of the conservative Bible belt. It's just that Craig was acting as this was some sort of wild conspiracy theory I had dreamed up. But no, as Marshal testifies, it's pretty mainstream in the conservative evangelical world. Again, I suspect.
Dan... " How in the name of everything holy in the whole world can you make the case that stealing one damned cookie somehow deserves an eternal punishment? Do you not see how ridiculous that is ? How overtly evil on the face of it it is?"
And to address Craig's apparent distaste for using the word Evil (even when he and no one else can objectively prove our opinions about morality...), I just ask that he/everyone look at what I'm saying.
Here's a 30 year old woman. NEVER sinned in her life (let's assume the One Sin can Damn blasphemy). Then, she took ONE COOKIE that didn't belong to her.
The cops show up and say, "You've stolen a cookie! You should be punished for the rest of your life in jail!" Even if you can't prove it objectively, do you have ANY doubt that this punishment would be so over the top as to be evil?
HOW can we say something is evil if we can't objectively prove it?
Because we are reasoning human beings with an innate sense of morality and justice. Now, of course, our innate sense of morality and justice (common to humanity) is not perfect. But I don't have to have a PERFECT knowledge of medicine to say, "Oh my, that man was shot by a bullet in his stomach and is bleeding profusely! He needs medical help!"
Some things are obvious.
Our founders in this nation (and others) have noted that
"We hold these truths to be
self-evident,
that all [people - it wasn't self-evident enough that women and people of color have these rights, too, to some people!] are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Some things are just self-evident. Do you disagree?
The notion of punishing someone a life time (or an eternity) for one relatively minor sin (or just "sin," since Marshal wants to pretend that there's no such thing as degrees of sin to God or him) is just is clearly, self-evidently wrong, in spite of the Bible not saying anything on the topic.
Do you disagree?
Again, Dan, you want to pretend I've supported your premise that eternal punishment can be one's end for a single sin, while I just freakin' explained it's about "sin", not any particular sin. And your hypothetical...one little theft of a single cookie...does not mitigate the reality at all, unless you're aware of anyone you've ever met having only committed one sin in their entire life.
But I'll go with it. But rather than the theft of one little cookie, let's make it one single murder. If that's the only sin your hypothetical example has committed, is that one sin worthy...MORE worthy...of punishment of any duration for that otherwise sinless individual? To our human perspective, of course. Murder to us is more serious than the theft of a cookie. It's more serious than theft of any kind that does not result in the death of another human being.
The problem is, both have sinned. Thus, both are sinners and it is because they are sinners they are deserving of God's wrath. You see a cookie. God sees sin.
Let's look at each:
Murder is the taking of a life unjustly. But it's not the only manner in which one person takes the life of another. Yet it is the only form of killing that is prohibited by God. Thus, it's not the taking of a life. It's doing it unjustly. Let's say you were pushed into the path of a speeding train. How much does it matter to you that you died by an accidental push versus an intentional push? Your life was taken from you. Be it God or us, most of us don't want people going around murdering people, but those who are killed for whatever reason are dead. I stress the distinction because the point is really the intent, which in this case is murder. Murder is forbidden by God.
Now let's look at the cookie. It is theft. If someone steals your cookie, it's not so big a deal to you, but you are still deprived unjustly of your property. If someone steals your car, it's a much bigger deal, but it's still a case of having your property unjustly stolen. We humans see a difference in the value of what's stolen, but it's still a case of your personal property having been stolen. THAT is the sin...that someone took something without your consent...that someone unjustly appropriated your property. The sin isn't what was stolen. The sin is that the person stole. Stealing is forbidden by God.
Now, if you still want to hang your pointed hat on the severity of stealing a single cookie, please tell me why you felt justified in stealing the cookie in the first place? If you were starving to death, you could be easily forgiven by most for doing so. But that's called "mitigating circumstances" and isn't necessarily regarded as mere theft, despite not having permission. So we'll dismiss that obvious diversion and stick to your hypothetical. If you had no desperate need for the cookie, I would contend that it is far more egregious in that it's stupidly unnecessary to steal it in the first place. You just went and stole it without any need or rationalization except that you wanted to eat someone's cookie. Said another way, because it's "no big deal" because it's "only a cookie", it's a freakin' big deal that you chose, intentionally and with malice aforethought, to steal someone's cookie, when you could have easily asked permission, or having no permission granted, easily survived not having the cookie to eat.
You don't see sin the way God sees sin. You don't take sin as seriously as God takes sin. If you don't see a given sinful act as a big deal, it's not a sin. Therefore, God must not see it as a sin because YOU don't. Indeed, even this seemingly insignificant act proves you're a sinner and being a sinner, you're deserving of death. How in the name of everything holy in the world (assuming anything truly is or can be) can you insist on something as unholy as theft be ignored by God? It's because you don't take sin as seriously as God does, nor as any true Christian ought. Rather than question whether some sinful act is sinful enough to warrant eternal punishment, try promoting a Christian life devoted to obeying God's Commandments and avoid it altogether.
Just noticed a serious typo. I had said: " Dan wants to insist that "some" evangelicals believe one sin is enough to warrant eternal punishment. The reality is that it is far more accurate that "some" Christians don't. Most do" It should have read "Most don't". It's an important distinction in the point I intended to make. Dan wants to insist that "some" evangelicals believe one sin is enough to warrant eternal punishment. I intended to broaden that to a more accurate "some Christians". Yet the emphasis is, to my mind, still on the word "some". The truth is that most don't believe one sin is enough to warrant eternal punishment. I work with a guy who is steeped in the faith, his Bible always near and being read almost daily (at some point during his shift), who also believes that some he feels are not really believers...or even, perhaps actual non-believers, though I didn't seek clarification...will still nonetheless not suffer eternal punishment. Sadly, we didn't have the time to get into it, but the anecdote goes to my point that most people don't want to believe those they regard fondly can suffer that fate because they're, in their eyes, "good enough". Dan is one of these.
"Sigh. Repeatedly pointing out that I'm not saying you are claiming that, I'm ASKING if you can agree and then you using words that make it SOUND like you believe something about morality can be objectively proven by you... but refusing to clarify... which is why I ASK you, for clarification, not because you've said it!... is also getting old. You DO understand, don't you, that I'm not saying you CLAIMED your moral theories can be proven objectively? I'm asking if you agree to the reality that you CAN'T prove your hunches about morality. Do you? Why not simply answer?"
I've said repeatedly and consistently for the last months/years that I cannot (nor would I ever claim to be able to) prove my hunches, opinions, or any other subjective topic. I hope this clears this up.
I also won't even bother with your invented, misrepresented versions of your hunches about my positions.
Marshal... "The problem is, both have sinned. Thus, both are sinners and it is because they are sinners they are deserving of God's wrath. You see a cookie. God sees sin. "
So, what you're saying then is that you worship a petty little MORON god who can't distinguish between taking a life and taking a cookie.
How pathetic and disgusting your little marshalgod is.
Seriously, do you not see how ugly you make god out to be?
WHO would want to worship your baby-tyrant-god?
Jesus, save us from your followers.
Also, just to be clear: MARSHAL thinks his god can only see sin and is pathetically impotent and ignorant and unable to distinguish between a life and a cookie. But Marshal has not proven this about his little god. It's just Marshal's empty and unsupported claim.
NOT a fact.
Thank God.
Marshal... "You don't see sin the way God sees sin."
PROVE IT. Prove your god is petty and flaccid as you are in your arguments... evil to the core, like you say.
Just because YOU don't think your god sees the difference between a cookie and a life doesn't mean that you are representing your god accurately.
"So, what you're saying then is that you worship a petty little MORON god who can't distinguish between taking a life and taking a cookie."
No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm not even so much as hinting at such a thing. My God is the God of Scripture who doesn't operate on Dan Trabue's terms. What might help is if you'd take your head out of your backside and slowly read my words again. Have an adult help you. Keep in mind it's not about any particular sinful behavior, it's about sin.
"How pathetic and disgusting your little marshalgod is."
What's a "marshalgod"?
"Seriously, do you not see how ugly you make god out to be?"
Given that I don't make the One True God out to be ugly, I have no idea why you'd ask such a question. It must be because He's not the hippie, kumbaya supreme being you wish He was, and it makes you wet yourself to know that. It should.
"WHO would want to worship your baby-tyrant-god?"
I don't have a "baby-tyrant-god". I do have a blog opponent who is infantile in his understanding of most things, including the God he pretends to revere and worship.
"Jesus, save us from your followers."
Wow! Now you're hating on Christ's followers? You're more lost than I feared.
"Also, just to be clear: MARSHAL thinks his god can only see sin and is pathetically impotent and ignorant and unable to distinguish between a life and a cookie."
That's not being clear. That's projecting more crap you made up. I know God sees all. He sees you. He sees you doing all you can to deny His sovereignty in favor of sinful people about whom you demand He must accept into His eternal presence.
"But Marshal has not proven this about his little god."
Nor will I try, given that's not my position, but is your perversion projected upon me because you the truth is inconvenient for you. So while you demand I defend what you desperately need to believe is my position, you do nothing to prove there's any flaw in my actual position. Typical and sad.
"It's just Marshal's empty and unsupported claim."
It's just your made up claim you attribute to me.
"Thank God."
Which "God" are you thanking? The One True God of Scripture I try hard to please, or the one you've invented for yourself?
"Marshal... "You don't see sin the way God sees sin."
PROVE IT."
I've done so, repeatedly over two blog discussions on this subject. Thus far, you're rebuttal has been your typical "nyuh uh", with absolutely no Scriptural evidence to either prove me wrong or to support your "nyuh uh".
"Prove your god is petty and flaccid as you are in your arguments... evil to the core, like you say."
Again you want me to prove your invention you attribute to me. I've never in any way promoted the notion God is petty or flaccid...whatever the hell you mean by "flaccid". I certainly haven't insisted He's "evil" and you're quite evil to insist such a thing.
"Just because YOU don't think your god sees the difference between a cookie and a life doesn't mean that you are representing your god accurately."
But I've never said such a thing. But you go ahead and copy/paste where I did with the date and time of the comment in which I said it. I'll wait here while you don't.
Post a Comment