Dan is grumpy because his actions have caused others to block his comments, and because his actions have turned his cesspool into a hostile environment for those who won't accede to his demands and whims. Therefore he's decided to comment here.
I'll point out that every question/comment at Stan's represents a question I've asked Dan, but never gotten an answer that makes sense for. I'm not sure what I'll do with this disjointed mess, but for now I'll leave this here.
"Just
because you won't see my answer at Stan's, here's my response to you:
Craig... "I just stuck my toe in the cesspool, and am shocked to think
that the "hyperbole" explanation passes for anything but unsupported
opinion."
But it's not entirely unsupported. Don't YOU THINK that when Jesus said
"Cut off your hand" he was engaging in hyperbole, not an actual command?
Do you think that the "fiery hell" was hyperbole and imagery, not a
literal description?
I suspect that you and most of conservative Christianity would agree
that the maiming verses are NOT literal commands but imagery/hyperbole.
And thus, it's not unsupported, we all AGREE on that passage, thus
establishing that Jesus is using hyperbole/imagery in this larger
section.
And once we've supported that by our agreement, the question becomes:
What is the basis for thinking maiming is imagery/hyperbole but fiery
hell is literal (or sort of literal)?
Beyond that, I'm always quite clear that this is MY opinion on how to
best understand it. Neither the maimer, nor the hellfire preacher, nor
the rational adult who takes such things as figurative can prove our
positions and guesses about what God thinks. The question then is, which
idea is most rational and likely? I'm confident that my idea is
rational and the idea of maiming or torturing someone for an eternity of
torment for minor sins is irrational and unjust and immoral. But you
are free to disagree.
It's just that you'd have more credibility in making your case if you
would answer the reasonable questions that get raised."
" You can do as you wish, but would love for you to
address this question that will go unaddressed at Stan's...
Craig... "While I think that we would all agree that our sinful actions
come from our sinful nature, and that when the scripture says that "no
one" is good that it should be taken at face value."
But WHY? I get that you think that, but why shouldn't anybody take that
seriously? It seems irrational, non-factual and unjust on the face of
it. That's what we are saying.
If you're saying that no one is PERFECT or PERFECTLY good, no problem.
We all can agree to that.
On the other hand. if you're trying to say no one is good, I know good
people. You know good people. I suspect that you two guys are relatively
good people.
So what rational criteria are you having for suggesting that no one is
good? I would just point out that words have meanings. Good is not the
same as perfect.
And don't point to The Bible as criteria. When The Bible says no one is
good, the question is is this hyperbole or literal? You can't then lift
that verse to prove that NO ONE is literal. That IS the question.
You're begging the question, if you're doing that.
So define Good, as you are using it."
12 comments:
Dan,
I'll note that your "questions" don't really address the issue at hand. You claim that these texts are hyperbole, but you don't then explain what the text actually means. You simply announce that you believe that the text is hyperbole, and that any other reading is wrong, without actually explaining what's wrong.
My suggestion is that you could gain a significant amount of credibility if you put more effort into defending your interpretation of what things DO mean, instead of simply making assertions about what they DON'T mean.
Craig... " You claim that these texts are hyperbole, but you don't then explain what the text actually means."
I have answered the question. Here it is again...
I'm saying IT (the text) MEANS THAT SIN HAS SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES and REPERCUSSIONS. AVOID SINNING.
Do you not see that as a direct and clear answer? I'm not asking if you agree. I'm asking do you not see that as a direct, clear answer?
And clarifying what a text DOESN'T/CAN'T mean, one IS answering what it means, because when you winnow out what it can't mean, then that strengthens your case for what it DOES mean.
The flat earther who says that the Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth, thus that "God says the earth is flat and square, to boot..." by pointing out that we can objectively SEE the world is a globe, and therefore, that text MUST be figurative, and that there are not four literal corners of the earth... by pointing out what it isn't, we've eliminated one possibility and know we should be looking for some other meaning.
Regardless, I've both eliminated what it rationally isn't saying AND stated what it IS saying. Do you see that?
Craig's false claim... "Dan is grumpy because his actions have caused others to block his comments"
Fact: Dan is noting that he has reasonable questions that Craig, Stan and others continue to ignore and then those same people say, "Why don't they ever answer questions?!" in a mocking tone at the same time I'm answering questions that they continue to ignore.
I'm not grumpy. I'm amazed. I'm trying to answer your questions and engage in good faith conversations, while you all continue to ignore it when I answer and not answer my questions in return.
Case in point... "I'll note that your "questions" don't really address the issue at hand."
Says who? I think my questions are directly dealing with the question at hand. The question is, "Was Jesus speaking of a literal fiery hell when he used that language? OR was Jesus engaging in hyperbole and metaphor to make a point?"
To then point to the text and context of the quote in question and seeing if the conservatives agree that Jesus is using figurative/hyperbolic imagery when he said "cut off your hand" and "FIERY hell" is DIRECTLY related to the question of "Did Jesus use figurative language?"
The answer that YOU ALL almost certainly will give is YES, "cut off your hand" is an example of hyperbole to make a point. You may even agree that "Fiery" as a descriptor of hell is figurative, as many conservative Christians think. But these questions are central to the larger question.
HOW are they not?
Another question that will go ignored?
Craig... "You simply announce that you believe that the text is hyperbole, and that any other reading is wrong, without actually explaining what's wrong."
I don't simply announce it. I ask you questions to see if you don't AGREE that some of the language used in this passage is figurative/hyperbolic. IF you agree (and you almost certainly do), then we've established that the text, in context, has hyperbolic language being used to warn about the dangers of sin/doing wrong.
This is why my questions to you all are core to the larger question.
IF you agree that "cut off the hand" is figurative, THEN the question, "Is 'fiery hell' ALSO figurative/hyperbolic?" makes more sense and we may even have at least some common ground.
Craig... "I'll note that your "questions" don't really address the issue at hand."
You and yours are making a rather astounding claim. You are saying that no one is good. Literally no human beings are good human beings. Am I understanding you correctly?
If I'm understanding you correctly, do you at least recognize that this is a rather astounding and hard to believe claim? Do you recognize that many, maybe most of us, would say that we know good people?
Given the rather hard to believe and astounding nature of your claim, do you not recognize why it is a reasonable question for us to ask you to define good as you are using it?
How is that not pertinent? How's that not rational?
Craig... "My suggestion is that you could gain a significant amount of credibility if you put more effort into defending your interpretation..."
1. As I have pointed out, I have defended my position.
2. Likewise, I've asked reasonable questions of you to give you a chance to defend your position. You haven't answered those questions yet.
3. If you're saying that there are no good human beings, then you should recognize that your position is almost certainly the outlier position and most of the world would disagree with your claim. Given that, there's even more onus on you to explain your thinking than there is on me.
Where am I mistaken?
Craig... "I also couldn't get him to agree that Hitler was deserving of eternal torment."
I'm quite sure I have answered. And there is only one objectively factual answer.
We do not know.
I do not know.
You do not know.
NONE of us authoritatively know if killing 6 million people is deserving of eternal torture. It is seriously evil, of course, Seriously evil. I would hope that there's some sort of appropriate Justice and I am certain that there is. But eternal torment? I just literally don't know.
That is the one factual answer that any of us can give. Any other guesses are just human speculation.
But carry that out. Let's assume that we found out somehow that Hitler WAS deserving of eternal torment for killing 6 million people. Are you saying that the grandmother out there who never killed anyone, who never physically harmed anyone, who lived a lifetime of regular typical sins... That SHE is deserving of the same punishment as Hitler??
Good God. You can't be serious, can you?
Think about it. You all keep saying that to not have hell is a rejection of Justice. But is not that Granny being punished the same as Hitler a tremendous violation of Justice, too? Come on!
If you truly think it is, say so out loud. Then we can take it from there. This is another reasonable question.
Posted at Stan's, never to be addressed there:
Craig... " I suggested that if Hell was simply eternal separation from God that perhaps that would solve the problem of God being cruel. I believe that the problem is the eternal nature of Hell. "
1. I've never said there's no punishment. Do you all understand that?
2. I've pointed out the reality that we do not know - none of us - authoritatively what happens in the afterlife or IF there's an afterlife. We just don't. We have human opinions that are entirely unprovable, just as a point of reality. Do you all understand that?
3. The problem, when one is talking about justice, is having a penalty that doesn't fit the crime. If that happens, then it is no longer justice, by definition. Do you all understand that?
4. Now, if you want to guess that MAYBE God doesn't torture "typical sinners" for an eternity of pain and suffering, and MAYBE God only is separate from these "typical sinners," that's a fine guess. I don't know that it reflects reality and neither do you. DO you all understand that?
I've suggested the cutting off of hands or the plucking of eyes is not hyperbole, nor even a suggestion that one should consider doing it, but a factual description of just how bad it would be to be consigned to eternal punishment. That is, it would be better for one to cut off one part of the body which could be used to sin rather than to risk that eternal punishment. It illustrates just how bad the consequences of sin really is.
But Dan wants to focus on particular sinful behaviors as opposed to sin. It's truly an indictment of one who claims to have spent time in "serious and prayerful study" to not understand the distinction between the concept of sin versus sinful behaviors. Thus, he'll continue to have the concept of justice all wrong.
"Do you not see that as a direct and clear answer? I'm not asking if you agree. I'm asking do you not see that as a direct, clear answer?"
Since I've never seen this answer before, all I can say is that it is a very limited answer that does more to obfuscate than illuminate. For example, what are these consequences? How do they play out?
"You and yours are making a rather astounding claim. You are saying that no one is good. Literally no human beings are good human beings. Am I understanding you correctly?"
No, you don't understand us correctly.
I don't have the energy to deal with any more of this crap.
Art,
I agree with your thought. The point of Jesus "cut off your..." comments is simply to illustrate the lengths it might be worth going to in order to avoid something worse. It seems reasonable to surmise that whatever the specifics of the eternal punishment might be, that one would be wise to go to great lengths to avoid it.
Although, I haven't read all the crap posted, I suspect that the common thread will be Dan asserting that "We don't know.". I suspect that this will be his excuse for not explaining what he thinks, as well as his grounding to tell others that they are wrong.
The problem is that while we don't know all of the specifics, we do know that what Jesus describes sounds beyond unpleasant. We also know that Jesus came to offer sinners an alternative to that unpleasantness. To conclude that Jesus alternative is better than the unpleasantness can be accomplished without knowing the specifics of either in exhaustive detail. The rest is just an excuse to minimize sin and it's consequences, and to minimize God and His holiness.
I have respect for Universalists, I think they're wrong, but at least they have the courage to stake out a position, attempt to directly support that position from scripture, and actually make positive arguments for their position.
Post a Comment