Friday, August 26, 2022
I Guess it's Too Much
I guess it's just too much to ask for one instance where Jesus, His Disciples, or the Early Church actually lived out a prosperity gospel. A gospel in which the primary aim was to take matreially poor people, and make them not materially poor during their time on earth. A goapel in which the primary focus was eliminating earthly, mateiral, poverty, and minimizing the life beyond our fleeting time on earth. How does one reconcile that this gospel that was supposed to free the marginalized, oppressed, and poor actually ended up leading it's followers to increasing levels of marginilization, oppression, and poverty. Paul literally went from well to do, powerful, and a menber of one of the powerful sects of Jewish leaders, to an impoverished criminal slated for execution. John the apostle went from a fisherman, to an exiled prisoner. We know the stories, Peter crucified upside down, James killed, Stephen killed, and on and on. Read 1 and 2 Peter and tell me if Peter was writing to followers of a gpspel that had them in materially better shape than they started. Where is the gospel that predictaes salvation on improving one's financial position?
What did Paul say about anyone who comes preaching a different gospel?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
213 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213Craig...
I'm asking you for YHWH's definition or YHWH's endorsement of yoru definition, or explicit Biblical support for your hunches.
GOD HAS NOT GIVEN US A DEFINITION OF SIN.
GOD HAS NOT TOLD US THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SIN.
GOD HAS NOT TOLD US THAT THERE ARE NOT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SIN.
God has said in the Bible that God's Word is written upon our hearts. God NOT ONE TIME said God's Word is "the Bible" and God sure as all that is holy has not said one time that "the Bible" is what conservative Christians tell us what it is.
But God DID say, in the Bible (if you take it seriously) that God's Word, God's Law is written upon our hearts and our minds.
Basic moral common sense recognizes that there is a great chasm of moral difference between selfishly taking the last cookie vs genocide or rape or bombing an entire town of innocents.
Maybe that's the problem that you're having? Maybe you don't have basic moral common sense?
One more thing: GOD NEVER SAID that we can only find support for moral decisions/ideas only in the Bible. Thus, if our God-given common sense recognizes what is obvious except for those who are damaged, amoral or whose religion has blinded them to basic human decency then why would we assume we must find support for the obvious and self evident notion of "degrees of sin" in the Bible?
Having said that, there is, of course, instances in the Bible that makes clear that God finds some behaviors or sins especially repugnant.
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea”
Or the multiple instances in the OT where some sins were punished more lightly than others, because the murder was worse than the mere assault, for instance.
Here's the conservatives at the Gospel Coalition making the case for degrees of sin (because, of course there are degrees of sin... DO YOU DISAGREE? another question ignored and not answered by you).
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/degrees-of-sin/
They still make many of the irrational and unbiblical mistakes that are common to conservative religious types, but they recognize degrees of sin.
Now, until such time as YOU start answering questions, I'm done. Until YOU start answering questions beginning with the critical Do you recognize that YOU can't objectively prove your moral hunches, that YOU have no objective authoritative moral code that is demonstrably objectively correct? ... until you admit that reality, I'm done answering your cowardly drivel.
That is the reality. Will you admit to it and apologize for your slander?
Odds are, no.
I would suggest that you do whatever feels best to you at any given moment...given it's your blog and all...and leave Dan to play his games. You can respond to him or not. Personally, I'd prefer you post his comments because I might like to respond to them, but again, your blog, your rules and that's how Dan plays the game, so he can pound sand if he doesn't like yours.
As to his goofy notions about what Scripture does or doesn't support, anything related to irresistible grace requires that term to show up in Scripture in order for him to accept that it speaks on it at all. That's how it works with Dan. Throughout history, men have identified concepts and/or teachings in Scripture and affixed labels to them for easy reference. Whatever the label...so long as one understands what the label means...it can be said that Scripture teaches that concept. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is one of them. "Irresistible grace" is another. Those terms don't appear. Those concepts do. I can provide examples of IR proponents providing multiple verses and passages which lend credence to the concept of IR, some more directly than others. For one who claims to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture and never come upon them is an indictment on the quality of one's study. Said another way, not nearly as serious as advertised.
"1. It was an EXAMPLE of an act of selfishness, a point which Marshal appears to recognize. Thus, what is wrong with you all in having a problem with giving a legitimate reasonable example of an act of selfishness."
No problem at all. The sin is selfishness from which a selfish act is a manifestation. If one is selfish, it is a sinful state of being. One might be able to control it, overcome it, yet still be plagued by it. Ignoring the feelings of others for the sake of one's self is a rather conscious thing, or a very thoughtless thing, but eating that last cookie isn't necessarily either. Sometimes...likely most...it's simply eating the last cookie.
But at least we know that Dan is either indulging this level of selfishness believing himself free from condemnation as a selfish oaf, or he never takes the last anything, always denying himself of every possible option out of concern and wonderment regarding what others might desire. What a guy!
"Calling that small wrong an evil is irrational. That was the point of the perfectly fine example I gave."
Oh...well that's different. If that was your point, your point is crap. There's nothing at all "irrational" about pointing out evil and less "irrational" because YOU think an evil act isn't bad enough to rise to a level which makes sense to Dan Trabue. On what basis can you presume to suggest God would dismiss millions of "small wrongs" one might commit throughout an entire life? Where's the cutoff point...the minimum number of "small wrongs" one can get away with committing before God takes notice and decides one is unworthy...that one isn't truly devoted to living in obedience to God's Will?
Where would God be without Dan Trabue to guide Him??
"Now the REAL question is, do you think God is keeping morality a secret from humanity? With out without the Bible? Says who? Why should anyone believe that bullshit claim?"
No, no, I made no claim to be believed or disbelieved.
"GOD HAS NOT GIVEN US A DEFINITION OF SIN.
GOD HAS NOT TOLD US THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SIN.
GOD HAS NOT TOLD US THAT THERE ARE NOT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SIN."
Yet you claim to know that certain things are sinful, you claim to know what sins are "minor" and "trivial".
I guess this is as close to getting you to acknowledge that you're just spouting your hunches and that they have no value to anyone but you.
That's enough.
I love how Dan tries to pretend that I haven't answered virtually every question he's asked. (If not answered, at least addressed or asked for clarification so I can answer) How he wants to play the aggrieved victim and run away on false pretenses.
"Do you recognize that YOU can't objectively prove your moral hunches, that YOU have no objective authoritative moral code that is demonstrably objectively correct?"
1. The fact that I've never actually claimed to have a specific objective moral code would seem to indicate that I don't have to prove things I haven't claimed.
2. My lack of proof for something I haven't claimed doesn't mitigate your responsibility to prove things you have claimed.
3. You continually claim that if other people to X, that they are engaging in an objectively immoral action, yet you have nothing beyond personal preference to ground your claim.
4. If you'd spend half as much time proving your claims by citing proof beyond some version of "It's what I think.", we'd be so much further along. Instead you demand I prove claims I haven't made.
I'll give you a freebie though. YHWH has given us 12 specific commandments, assuming He is the Creator God who created everything that exists, then it's reasonable to conclude that He has the authority to establish an objective moral code, and that the 12 commandments (!st & 2nd, plus the 10) are an objective moral code.
Art,
My integrity is important to me on many levels. One of those is that I do my very best to keep my promises. I promised Dan that I would (with a few specific exceptions) post his comments. I intend to keep that promise.
Craig...
2. My lack of proof for something I haven't claimed doesn't mitigate your responsibility to prove things you have claimed.
What I have claimed on this are THREE clear, observable and indisputable things:
1. We have NO OBJECTIVE AUTHORITATIVE way to "prove" that our opinions about morality are objectively correct. None of us do. You sure don't.
1a. We likewise have no objective, authoritative way to prove that our opinions about what various sacred texts say are objectively correct. None of us. Not you, not human conservative traditions. You just don't, as a demonstrable fact (demonstrable that you all have NEVER proven such claims authoritatively and objectively).
2. Nonetheless and in spite of that reality, it is important for us to TRY to make moral decisions. A world of moral anarchy, where rape and murder and genocide are okay, is not an acceptable option.
3. Fortunately, we humans are clearly able to make moral decisions and find some moral common ground, even though we can't objectively prove it. Again, this is demonstrable, observable reality.
Don't let the perfect (which we don't have) be the enemy of the good (which we CAN experience).
Excellent,
Simply label your hunches "indisputable" and you absolve yourself of having to prove them. The problem is that you're still grounding "indisputable" in your personal, subjective, experience, not in anything objective.
The second problem is that you've missed my point. It's entirely possible for an individual to have a personal, subjective, moral code which guides their decisions. Where that fails, is when you try to apply your personal, subjective, moral code to others.
IF you were saying something like, "I personally believe that X is immoral and I will not ever do X because of my belief.", then we have no problem. Where the problem occurs is when you say that "When Y does X, then X is immoral and Y is engaging in immorality.". As long is morality is grounded in one's self, then there is nothing that grounds it to be applied outside of one's self. The fact that others might agree with your subjective moral code, doesn't indicate anything other than coincidence or consensus, neither of which ground your judgemental attitude towards others.
Good Lord, have mercy.
Craig...
"The fact that others might agree with your subjective moral code, doesn't indicate anything other than coincidence or consensus, neither of which ground your judgemental attitude towards others."
What do YOU base moral codes upon?
Do you think people are free to do whatever hellish things they may want and it's none of your business?
Craig...
"Simply label your hunches "indisputable" and you absolve yourself of having to prove them..."
Look, AS FAR AS I KNOW, it's indisputable. I've never seen a case that disputes it objectively. And so, I'm stating what is clearly factual.
Now, IF you can dispute it, DO so. Don't complain because I've made a clear claim. Dispute it if you can.
You can't.
If someone says to me that it's indisputable that liberal men are rapists, I wouldn't complain that he used the word, indisputable, I'd dispute it.
Welcome to adult level conversations.
We are imperfect. The imperfection which most matters is our deficiency of morality or goodness. We are imperfect in that regard. It's a spiritual thing. We will indeed be denied a place in heaven because of this. Fortunately, we have Jesus who has paid the price for our spiritual imperfection, our sin nature, and with Him having done so, we now can be regarded as perfect by the Father if Jesus is our intercessor. It's not that one has stolen a gumball. It's that one's sin nature allows one to believe one can just take that which is not one's to take. Dan thinks it's about the gumball.
"Look, AS FAR AS I KNOW, it's indisputable. I've never seen a case that disputes it objectively. And so, I'm stating what is clearly factual."
This is quite a claim, or series of claims. They essentially boil down to Dan claiming that he is the sole reference point for what is "clearly factual". He's literally claiming that "AS FAR AS I KNOW", is the standard for determining what is "clearly factual". Dan is literally claiming that anything beyond the extent of his knowledge, is objectively factual.
No evidence, no proof, just that.
Post a Comment