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:
1 – 200 of 213 Newer› Newest»This is Dan. More later, but just to deal with this..., the term prosperity gospel means something entirely different than what you're talking about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
Okay, more time. Now, given your weird descriptions, I'm not at all sure if you're asking this of people like me, but IF you are, then...
"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."
I reject the notion of Prosperity Gospel as it's typically understood as thoroughly anti-Christian and anti-biblical and anti-rational. Just to be clear.
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.
Likewise, this is not anything I've said. I've never said that the primary aim of the Gospel was to make poor people into not poor people.
I've never said that the primary focus of the Gospel was eliminating material poverty.
Before I go any further, do you fully understand that NONE of this is what I'm speaking of?
So two things could be happening. 1. You're not addressing this to me but some other sort of people advocating this weird whatever it is you're speaking of. Or, 2. You don't understand what it is I'm saying, but you are trying to address what I'm saying.
I think it's the latter so I'll try to correct your misunderstanding of what it is I'm saying.
A. I'm saying that Jesus led his ministry with saying he had a Good News that was Good News specifically for the poor and marginalized. One that echoed (and expanded upon) Jubilee themes from the OT. That's just what Jesus said.
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me.
God has sent me to preach good news to the poor,
to proclaim release to the prisoners
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to liberate the oppressed,
and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
This proclamation of Jesus' purpose is, itself, an echo of prophetic words from Isaiah which speaks to good news for the oppressed and poor in Israel. Isaiah 61.
Both of these are echoes of the constant theme throughout Scripture that God is on the side of the poor, the oppressed, the foreigners, the orphans and widows and otherwise marginalized.
So to start off with, I'm just noting the reality of Jesus and the prophetic and OT tradition of God siding with the poor and marginalized.
With me so far?
B. So, while I'm NOT saying the primary focus of the gospel is "eliminating poverty," I AM saying that siding with the poor is how Jesus most often helped illustrate what it meant to be a follower of Jesus.
"Go, sell your stuff, give it to the poor and come follow me..." is what he told the rich ruler who asked how to be saved.
And following Jesus' harsh rebuke of the rich fool and then Jesus' wondrous teaching about simple grace to his disciples...
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear...
“Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these...
seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well."
After that, Jesus said,
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor.
Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out,
a treasure in heaven that will never fail,
where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
And WHERE was the treasure of those who followed Jesus' teaching? "Sell your possessions and give to the poor." THAT is where their treasure literally would be, right?
The Sheep and the Goats, you know the story. Where was the treasure of the sheep-followers of Jesus? With the least of these. Where was the treasure of the goats in that story? NOT with the least of these.
Where did Jesus place himself in that story? As one of the least of these.
When Zaccheus repented and came to follow Jesus, WHERE did he understand his treasure needed to be? With the poor and oppressed.
When John the B asked Jesus if he was the one, what inescapable proof did Jesus provide?
"Tell John that I am hanging out with and helping the sick and marginalized.
Tell him I preach good news to the poor."
I'm not incorrect in any of this, am I? These are all just factually, observably the words and teachings of Jesus, right?
Thus, I'm not saying "The point of the gospel is eliminating poverty." I'm saying, "Jesus came announcing he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized and the day of Jubilee" and from there on, Jesus sided with/preached to/helped out the poor and marginalized and identified that as the way one recognizes one is walking in God's realm of Grace.
Is any of that factually incorrect or can we agree?
And can you see the distinction between
"The point is to eliminate poverty"
and
"the point is a welcoming, forgiving, accepting grace as demonstrated by
siding with/aligning with/working with and for the poor and marginalized..."?
Craig...
A gospel in which the primary aim was to take matreially poor people, and make them not materially poor during their time on earth.
C. So, I'm not saying "eliminate poverty." I'm saying align with the poor, for that's how Jesus literally, repeatedly, consistently expressed his grace-plan, his realm of God Way.
But why do I think Jesus would say this, if not to eliminate poverty?
Well, first of all, Jesus did say "the poor we'd always have with us..." Why do I think he would say that?
Because it's the reality of human condition that...
1. people struggle;
2. some people struggle more than others - some people have disabilities, mental illnesses, bad or no parents, some people are born into disadvantageous situations that sometimes get the best of them;
3. some people struggle with greed and are good at finding ways to exploit the world to benefit themselves;
4. some who struggle with greed for wealth and power find ways to create systems that better enable the strong and powerful and wealthy to horde that strength, wealth and power;
5. which inevitably leads to more struggle, especially amongst the poor and marginalized;
So Jesus acknowledged the reality that people struggle and wealth and power, especially, can lead to systems that cause more grief and struggling.
BUT and because of that, Jesus came preaching a gospel - literal good news to the literal poor and marginalized - that offered a different way, a different realm. IF we are encouraging ourselves and others to be gracious, forgiving, welcoming of one another and especially the poor and marginalized, if we welcome the poor to our parties instead of the wealthy, if we look out for the least of these, if we preach literal good news to the literal poor, then we are building a world that is more like God's realm being done on earth, as it is in heaven.
If and when the poor and marginalized are lifted up, then the rest of us will be doing better too - and should we find it our turn to struggle and become more poor and marginalized, then our beloved community will be there to pick up the slack and let that one who is struggling to have a turn at being ministered to and supported!
Does this grace- and joy- and literal debt-forgiving Way mean that we'll eliminate all poverty and struggle? No. Not in this world.
It means that we are part of a beloved community that will go through those struggles with us, sharing all things in common, if we live like the early church tried doing.
And THAT is the answer to your question: ONE instance of the church living in this Beloved Community of Grace way that sides with the poor and marginalized is the very example of the Early Church. Perhaps you missed it. Look in Acts.
And not only that, but when Zaccheus repented of taking advantage of the poor and marginalized and getting wealthy off them, he paid it back. And that is ANOTHER instance of the church living in this Beloved Community of Grace way. Did Zaccheus "fix" poverty? No. But did he make a difference to the poor and oppressed he repaid? I suspect that they would say yes.
And when the Anabaptist churches (and other faith groups) around the world form communities of self-support and barn raising and tending to the ill and giving jobs to the poor and infirm throughout the centuries, those are all ADDITIONAL examples of the church living out this Beloved Community of Grace.
Craig...
Where is the gospel that predictaes salvation on improving one's financial position?
Again, not anything I've said. But where is the Gospel that speaks of aligning with the poor and marginalized in a beloved community of forgiveness of debt, love and grace? It's throughout the Bible and throughout history.
It is literally the Gospel that Jesus taught. You've seen how Jesus multiple times referenced preaching the good news of the realm of God, I'm sure, right? How many times where he spoke of that did he give ANY inkling of some kind of "most of you are doomed to be separated from God and tortured for an eternity, but SOME of you might be saved by accepting a blood sacrifice to "pay" for "forgiveness" to an angry God who can't be appeased in any other way?
I think the answer can be given on less than one finger.
But how many times did the question, "What must I do to be saved?" get answered with, "Be part of the realm of God, the debt-forgiving, beloved community of Grace..."? Ove and over.
Where am I mistaken?
And even if you think I'm ultimately mistaken, can you at least see that I am giving a compelling case from the Bible and Jesus' words and our God given reason for why I think this?
And I get why some might not see that much of a difference between
The point of the gospel is to eliminate poverty
and
The point of the Good News to the poor and marginalized is to create a beloved community that is specifically on the side of the poor and marginalized and is there for one another in good times and bad
But there is a significant, mountainous, chasmic difference. Let me explain why I think so.
If the point of the gospel is just to make the poor, rich and we do that by taking from the wealthy forcibly to give to the poor and marginalized, we've just created a new poor and marginalized class, but one that might be seeking revenge! That would be self-defeating.
If the point of the gospel is just to make everyone rich, then it ignores the reality of human life and the struggles that come from it. It also is focusing on the thing that Jesus precisely warned against - wealth.
"Don’t chase after what you will eat and what you will drink. Stop worrying."
“Watch out! Guard yourself against all kinds of greed. After all, one’s life isn’t determined by one’s possessions, even when someone is very wealthy.”
"God said to him, ‘Fool, tonight you will die."
It just becomes another pointless ponzi scheme or elaborate grand heist. That's specifically and literally NOT what I'm advocating, right? It's the opposite of what I'm saying and I think clearly the opposite of what Jesus is saying.
The Gospel=getting rid of poverty
is a dangerous and materialistic goal, bound to fail and cause harm. We see that clearly in the evidence of human history.
BUT,
The Gospel = Grace, found in an imperfectly loving, sharing, debt-forgiving (monetary and otherwise, just as the word means in Greek) beloved community, that IS attainable. I've seen it myself. We've seen it throughout all of history. And the advantage to this Good News for the poor is that we don't have to have what we'll never have - a perfect world. We just need to embrace it and live into it.
As Jesus invited his disciples,
"Sell your belongings, give to the poor and come follow me."
And what WAS it that Paul said about someone preaching a different gospel?
To answer some of your questions, which appear to be not written with me in mind, since I'm not saying any of this, but just in case...
"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."
It's a gospel of Good News for the poor and marginalized that lived out in solidarity with the poor and marginalized, not in guaranteed liberation. So, as we live in solidarity with the poor, marginalized, women, transgender, black, immigrant, abused, LGBTQ, etc, we can expect to be treated like they are, with demonizations, attacks and oppression, of various degrees. So, it's to be expected if we're living in this Beloved Community of Grace and Debt-forgiveness and Justice.
Craig...
" Where is the gospel that predictaes salvation on improving one's financial position?"
Not a gospel I'm familiar with. Just the opposite.
"What did Paul say about anyone who comes preaching a different gospel?"
What did our Lord, Jesus Christ, say about those who aren't against us?
Well, if one abides the false gospel Dan preaches...as he does now in his latest post at his blog of lies...one is likely the same type of person who rejoices in Biden giving them our money to repay a loan, the terms of which they willingly agreed to meet.
Anon/Dan,
I'm aware of what the prosperity gospel means in the more recent sense, I'm simply pointing out the reality that if one's gospel hinges on Jesus providing a path out of monetary poverty, and into monetary prosperity, it's a prosperity gospel.
"Before I go any further, do you fully understand that NONE of this is what I'm speaking of?"
Given the fact that virtually the only "gospel" you ever refer to is one that is "good news" for the poor (marginalized, etc) then maybe you should be more clear about what specifically you think Jesus meant when he came primarily to peach "good news" to the poor. I know this might shock you, but when you literally have ONE passage that you constantly use to describe "the gospel" and it's Jesus talking about coming to preach to the poor, and you insist that He must only be referring to the materially poor, maybe the problem is that you haven't given enough detail.
"Good News specifically for the poor and marginalized."
What specifically was this "Good News"? That applied "specifically to the poor and marginalized"?
What specifically do you mean by "poor" and "marginalized"?
"Both of these are echoes of the constant theme throughout Scripture that God is on the side of the poor, the oppressed, the foreigners, the orphans and widows and otherwise marginalized."
You keep saying this, yet haven't explained why Jesus and His disciples spread the "Good News" to people of all economic classes, all social strata, and literally made it clear that the "Good News" was for everyone including Gentiles. Some of Jesus' final words to the 11 were, "“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”, yet strangely He doesn't mention the "poor and marginalized".
So, please explain how Jesus and His closest followers preached "Good News" that was "specifically to the poor and marginalized", while simultaneously to "all the world"?
Given the reality that you are certainly not either "poor or marginalized", why would you think that you've received this "Good News"?
"With me so far?"
In the sense that I understand that you keep repeating this mantra over and over again, without having ever explained specifically what you mean or how Jesus statements and actions that contradict your hunch all fit together?
"I AM saying that siding with the poor is how Jesus most often helped illustrate what it meant to be a follower of Jesus."
So, are you saying that Jesus teachings on the "poor and marginalized" are "specifically for the poor and marginalized" or are they merely a way of "illustrating" His message? Is it possible that He was using the language of "poor and marginalized" to "illustrate" something that applies to all people?
"Go, sell your stuff, give it to the poor and come follow me..." is what he told the rich ruler who asked how to be saved."
1. The above clearly indicates that your hunch is that the only way for the RYR to be "saved" was to engage in specific behaviors. Yet the notion that we are saved by our actions contradicts so much of scripture.
2. Are you really suggesting that this specific command, to a specific person, in a specific situation is meant to applied in a woodenly literal way to every person who wants to follow Jesus and "inherit eternal life"?
3. Are you saying that "eternal life" is actually something that we can "inherit" as long as we perform certain actions?
4. Are you really suggesting that the RYR had literally never committed murder, adultery, stolen anything, ever given false testimony or defrauded anyone? That he'd always honored his father and mother?
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor.
Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out,
a treasure in heaven that will never fail,
where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
For me to take this proof text seriously, you'll need to answer a couple of questions.
1. Jesus is clearly teaching that there is a "Heaven" that is an eternal state. Are you suggesting that you 100% agree that here is an afterlife where all of the above will be True?
2. Have you sold all of your possessions and given the proceeds to the poor?
"And WHERE was the treasure of those who followed Jesus' teaching?"
Their treasure would then be in a the place that Jesus described, which most would simply refer to as Heaven.
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor." THAT is where their treasure literally would be, right?"
This makes no sense. You seem to be suggesting that Jesus is requiring a transfer of the proceeds from the sale of "all our possessions" to the "poor" and that our "treasure" will be with/in
the poor", is that what your poorly worded question is trying to suggest?
"The Sheep and the Goats, you know the story. Where was the treasure of the sheep-followers of Jesus? With the least of these. Where was the treasure of the goats in that story? NOT with the least of these."
Really, I must have missed the part where Jesus said that. Again, ignoring the very structure of the parable and the fact that the sheep and goats weren't changed by their actions, but that their actions came out of their nature as sheep/goats.
Where in that parable does it say that a goat can become a sheep by doing certain actions? How is it the the Jesus acknowledges that the goats were doing the same actions as the sheep, yet they had a completely different outcome?
" So, while I'm NOT saying the primary focus of the gospel is "eliminating poverty,""
OK, then, explain what specifically this "Good News" to the poor was, if it didn't involve alleviating their material poverty in any way?
Isn't forcing people to "sell everything they own", and give it to the poor intended to alleviate their material poverty?
"When Zaccheus repented and came to follow Jesus, WHERE did he understand his treasure needed to be?"
I've already addressed this idiocy, and don't recall you dealing with my concerns. Why would I continue to allow you to leave the problems with your hunches unaddressed?
1. Zachheus didn't sell all of his possessions, and give all of that to the poor, did he?
"Tell John that I am hanging out with and helping the sick and marginalized.
Tell him I preach good news to the poor."
Except that's not exactly what Jesus said.
"The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy[b] are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor."
Are you suggesting that Jesus was (as he claims" engaging in supernatural healing of the blind, deaf, and lepers, and that literal dead human being were being literally raised from the dead? Are you suggesting that you know the specific "good news" Jesus was preaching?
"I'm not incorrect in any of this, am I?"
Wow, that's quite a claim, that you've perfectly and without error managed to understand these specific teachings of Jesus. even though Jesus doesn't give the specifics you claim to have.
"These are all just factually, observably the words and teachings of Jesus, right?"
Those are some of the teachings of Jesus, it's when you can't explain how those cherry picked teachings of Jesus must be taken in an extremely woodenly literal manner, when they don't seem to fit in with other teachings and actions of Jesus and of His disciples.
An entire comment purporting to explain the teachings of Jesus, without ever actually using the words of Jesus to do so.
Thankfully this means that these are simply your hunches about what Jesus might have meant, and as such, aren't worth adding to the burden on you to answer the questions already asked.
"No. Not in this world."
Then in what world will this happen? Given your disdainful comments regarding a "pie in the sky when I die" theology, and your insistence that the existence of any sort of afterlife absolutely cannot be known with any degree of certainty, why would you be indicating some sort of future "world" where these wrongs will be set right?
"literal debt-forgiving"
You literally haven't explained how a secular government forcing the taxpayers of said country to assume responsibility for debts freely taken on by individuals bears any resemblance to any "gospel" Jesus taught. You literally haven't explained how this wonderful act is enhanced and made better by lying about it. Your acceptance of the Biden administration literally engaging in a literal false narrative, is consistent with your stance on lying.
"The point of the Good News to the poor and marginalized is to create a beloved community that is specifically on the side of the poor and marginalized and is there for one another in good times and bad."
Really, where does Jesus specifically teach about a specific "beloved community" that includes only the "poor and marginalized" (terms undefined as usual)? Does this mean the the rich who are "marginalized" and who disdain the teachings of Jesus are included? Do those in this "beloved community" need to obey the teachings and commands of Jesus? Or are they just this special "community" with a different set of expectations than others? If so, describe those specifically.
"And THAT is the answer to your question: ONE instance of the church living in this Beloved Community of Grace way that sides with the poor and marginalized is the very example of the Early Church. Perhaps you missed it. Look in Acts."
What specifically in Acts? The fact that Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for selling their property, giving some of the proceeds to the Church, and lying about it? Peter quite clearly affirms that the property they sold was unquestionably theirs to do with as they wished, and they they were under no compulsion to give "everything" they received from the sale to "the poor". Further, there was no indication that they were expected to sell that particular property, let alone other properties they owned? Further, let's look at the fact that in Acts, the focus of this "charity" was almost exclusively to those who were a part of the Church. I don't recall any instance of the Early Church engaging in charity to the "poor" outside of The Church.
Or let's look at some other parts of Acts.
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
No mention of "the poor".
Acts 2 14-41, no mention of "the poor and marginalized". Yet The Holy Spirit caused thousands to believe the Good News.
Acts 2 42-47. Specifically mentions that those who "had need" (which doesn't specifically mean that they were "poor"), were only among "the believers". Further, it says that the hallmarks of "the believers" were devoting themsleves to the teaching of the Apostles, fellowship, and "breaking of bread" (this could mean celebrating Communion or eating together. Either fits the context and works.), there were "signs and wonders", and many people being "saved" daily. Yet "the poor" don't seem particularly prominent in that list.
Again, if you're going to make specific claims, you'll have to avoid broad, general, vague "examples".
"But where is the Gospel that speaks of aligning with the poor and marginalized in a beloved community of forgiveness of debt, love and grace? It's throughout the Bible and throughout history."
As long as you cherry pick certain proof texts, and filter everything else through those interpretive lenses.
"You've seen how Jesus multiple times referenced preaching the good news of the realm of God, I'm sure, right?"
Yes, and I've seen how most of those times don't have anything to do with the material or social standing of those He preached to.
"How many times where he spoke of that did he give ANY inkling of some kind of "most of you are doomed to be separated from God and tortured for an eternity, but SOME of you might be saved by accepting a blood sacrifice to "pay" for "forgiveness" to an angry God who can't be appeased in any other way?"
Enough that it can't be ignored or wished away. How many times did He say that poverty or marginalization is the path to salvation regardless of anything else?
"But how many times did the question, "What must I do to be saved?" get answered with, "Be part of the realm of God, the debt-forgiving, beloved community of Grace..."? Ove and over."
Zero, as near as I can tell. I copy pasted your claim and searched it through Bible software and couldn't find a single match that said exactly what you quoted.
"Where am I mistaken?"
Again, this assumption that you aren't mistaken is pretty impressive. If you'll look at the questions I've asked, provide the specific answers requested, and deal with the examples I've given, that'll give you a place to start.
Anon,
"What did our Lord, Jesus Christ, say about those who aren't against us?"
Good question. I'm not sure how answering a question with a question helps. Jesus was pretty clear that anyone who's for Him will obey His commandments, and that salvation is through His grace, not through our actions.
Dan seems to be advocating for some sort of "social gospel" in which Christians commiserate with the poor and marginalized, advocate for the government to give more stuff to the poor and marginalized, without much detail about what the goal is. But he seems sure that everyone who is not poor is required to "sell everything and give the proceeds to the poor". This seems self defeating to me.
A friend of mine, who was very financially successful, chose to leave his corporate job and give up his salary and benefits. He then was led to run a couple of different non profit organizations. One of them is designed to give children who live in the geographical section of the city with the highest degree of poverty and the worst schools, access to a multitude of things to help them succeed. The second is an organization designed to mentor at risk students and help them succeed.
Both of these organizations rely on donations, and volunteers to succeed.
So let's apply Dan's "sell everything" and give it to the poor to these organizations.
1. If all of the donors "sold everything" they would be incapable of ongoing financial support of the mission.
2. If the volunteers "sold everything", they would not have the means nor the time to volunteer.
3. These organizations have the advantage of various economies of scale, and are able to maximize their donations to provide a wide range of high quality services to those who they serve.
4. If we simplistically followed Dan's "sell everything" theology we'd see the donors and volunteers impoverished, and presumably give all of the "poor" a one time payment with no assistance beyond that.
5. What's more valuable to a poor family with children, a one time check for %50,000, or an organization that will walk along side of them, give them the resources and support to improve their employment situation?
6. What's move valuable to the children of those families? The $50K check as a one time payment or staff and volunteers that will give them the resources and tools to be successful in whatever endeavor that pursue, and the resources and support for free college or trade school?
This is a problem when people take one small facet of Jesus' teaching, run it through their political philosophy, view everything else in scripture through the lens of a couple of cherry picked and/or misinterpreted proof texts likely taken out of context. The notion that Jesus came as a single issue Lord and Savior is simply absurd. Jesus came preaching a Gospel where all of the things that distinguish and divide us, are rendered irrelevant by Him and what He's done. I could be wrong but "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." doesn't sound like the goal is to focus on the very things that are no longer important.
Finally,
As someone who has been involved in all sorts of "mission" or "ministry" activities for many years, I was motivated to do some research into what the experts say about the most effective way to help people.
In short, the experts seem to be saying that "Sell everything you own, and give it all to the poor", is not the best way to actually help the poor.
The most accessible resource on this topic is When Helping Hurts, while I also found Dead Aid to be valuable, similarly organizations like OI and micro lenders have found great success using something other than the simplistic "sell everything, give it to the poor" mantra Dan advocates. In short, there is plenty of research and writings form experts that would disagree with Dan's simplistic, woodenly literal catchphrase.
In short, is it possible that Jesus saying to specific people, and specific time, under specific circumstances was possibly an example of His use of hyperbole as a way to make a specific point to those specific people and others like them?
In the ever popular Matt 25 parable, so many focus of misinterpreting the sheep/goats part that they miss the rest of the parable. In Matt 25:14-30 Jesus literally commends those who take their riches and multiply them through investment, and he literally punishes the guy who doesn't by giving his share to the "richest" guy.
Maybe the lesson to be learned is that woodenly literal, simplistic, one dimensional, theologies based on cherry picking proof texts aren't a good idea.
Craig...
"n short, the experts seem to be saying that "Sell everything you own, and give it all to the poor", is not the best way to actually help the poor. "
and...
"the simplistic "sell everything, give it to the poor" mantra Dan advocates."
1. So you disagree with Jesus suggestion to the rich man and to his followers?
2. OR, is it possible that those commands/teachings were for the purpose of guiding the followers/rich man, not necessarily assisting the poor?
3. OR, can you recognize that this summary of yours is yours, not mine? That I have not ever said that the best way to help the poor is to sell your belongings and give them to the poor, that this is NOT "what Dan advocates..."?
I think what's clearly happening here is, as you repeatedly demonstrate, you simply aren't understanding what it is I am and am not saying. No worries. You needn't always understand everything perfectly well. I can and will clarify further beyond my initial clarifications.
But it may be helpful for you for your sake if you begin by acknowledging, "Well, I guess I'm just not understanding what it is Dan is saying. I'll hold off telling him what he's saying until I do understand it. In the meantime, I'll ask reasonable respectful questions seeking clarity of understanding."
I. First of all, perhaps we can agree on this:
Jesus, in all his teachings in the Gospels... in all the times he talked of preaching the good news... in all his other words...
Jesus never spelled out what the Good News was in an extremely direct manner.
Many of the passages where it mentions Jesus' preaching the good news or the good news to the poor or the good news of the realm of God... he never once spells out what he meant by that, not in a clear, "...and by Good News, here is specifically what I mean..."
II. Likewise and what should be abundantly clear - even more so than the first point - is that Jesus NEVER explicitly teaches "The good news is something like what they'll call 'Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory' one day, centuries from now."
That indeed, there is only one - maybe two - places where Jesus utters a throwaway line that could be stretched to make the reader think "MAYBE he's talking about Atonement there..."
There's the passage where, at the Last Supper, Jesus blesses the bread and wine and says...
“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
It should be noted, there, that there's no mention of "the Good News" in relation to this clear metaphor he's using. Indeed, it seems in fitting with the Servant pouring out his life model of Grace living that Jesus modeled his entire life, not a direct plan of "good news for salvation specifically in this symbolic and soon literal shedding of blood."
Then, there is the passage where the James/John's mother asks Jesus to make them special leaders/give them a special place in the "kingdom of God," and Jesus rebukes that line of thinking gently, saying,
"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
And once again, the term "ransom" is not in conjunction with speaking of the Good News. Once again, he's speaking of a pouring out of one's live that is in fitting with the Realm of God, the Way of Grace.
But regardless of what you think of those two passages, those are (I believe) the ENTIRETY of Jesus' references to anything remotely similar to Atonement theories.
Do we agree on both these points?
cont'd...
III. Then here is a list from a concordance of the times that "Good News" is used in the Gospels (16 times in the four Gospels - well, three, actually, since at least in this search, it doesn't appear in the book of John)...
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NIV&quicksearch=%22good+news%22&begin=47&end=73
Perhaps not surprisingly (at least to some of us), Good News is used ten times in Luke, as compared to 3 each in Matthew and Mark. Luke is the book that makes the most overt and clear references to financial/economic matters in Jesus' "Good News to the poor and marginalized."
As you read through those specific references to the Good News to the poor and marginalized that Jesus said was the reason for his coming, none of those reference any words in any way that resemble Atonement theories.
Additionally, you see that roughly half of them (or more) reference either the poor specifically, or the shepherds, the sick, or the regular people who were outcasts... people who (as was true for most people then) were economic strugglers.
There are a few references to John the Baptist preaching for repentance to receive the Good News. And what specifics were attached to John's Gospel?
“What should we do then?” the crowd asked.
John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
“Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely — be content with your pay.”
He tied repentance in each case with removing one's self from the systems of economic greed and oppression and siding with the poor who'd been oppressed by those systems. Had you noticed that?
Further, in many of these places where the term is used, there are stories/additional words within the context of the passage. Like this one where Jesus addresses the greedy pharisees...
The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.
He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.
Simply put, there is not much of anything in the Gospels to tie Jesus and John's references to "good news" to Atonement theories and a lot to tie it to something to do with wealth and poverty (more on that, later, just taking this in baby steps to keep it clear).
Even if you ultimately disagree with whatever conclusions I and others like me have, can you at least see a little of how we see so much tying Good News to being a part of a Realm of Grace that is led by how we treat the poor and our approach to wealth?
Dan:
"But how many times did the question, "What must I do to be saved?" get answered with, "Be part of the realm of God, the debt-forgiving, beloved community of Grace..."? Ove and over."
Craig:
Zero, as near as I can tell. I copy pasted your claim and searched it through Bible software and couldn't find a single match that said exactly what you quoted.
You all often accuse me of being too strict with word usage when I point out that your opposition to things is not a biblical teaching (and you're mistaken when you make that accusation towards me). Here, you're doing the same thing. Read for understanding:
Jesus and others in the Gospels make a reference in many ways to salvation being tied to one's attitude and actions towards the poor and towards wealth. It just does. Consider:
1. The RICH MAN came to Jesus and asked Jesus: WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?
Jesus told him to observe the commandments. The rich man said he had. Jesus let that slide. Jesus then told him:
In order to be saved, SELL YOUR STUFF, give it to the poor, the come follow me.
If no where else, there is one incredibly direct and unmistakably clear way that Jesus answered "what must I do to be saved?" with "Align with the poor and follow me."
2. John told his followers to repent and accept the Good News. In Luke 3, we see that John...
And with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them.
He was preaching the good news and this good news included repentance and seems extremely pointed towards the Pharisees and oppressors, but also included the regular folks.
“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’
Again, seems fairly pointed towards the Pharisees and powerful.
In response, the people hearing John asked specifically, "What then should we do?" This is where John replied:
“Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
“Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
When asked what specifically they needed to do to repent and receive this salvation, John pointed to the good news (for the poor and oppressed) that the people should share their resources, especially with the needy. If you were one of the oppressors, you were to stop it. Give to the poor and help them, don't falsely accuse them or oppress them. That IS, of course, literally good news for the poor and marginalized.
There is another instance of the Good News being incredibly direct and unmistakably clear way that Jesus and John answered "what must I do to be saved?" with "Align with the poor and follow me."
With me so far?
As a quick aside to deal with your last comment before returning...
"In the ever popular Matt 25 parable, so many focus of misinterpreting the sheep/goats part that they miss the rest of the parable.
In Matt 25:14-30 Jesus literally commends those who take their riches and multiply them through investment, and he literally punishes the guy who doesn't by giving his share to the "richest" guy. "
a. Matt 25:14-30 are not "the rest of the parable." It's a separate parable with a clearly separate intent that precedes the Sheep and the Goats. The sheep and the goats is not a continuation of the prior parable.
b. Jesus does not commend the money investors and punish the third man. The rich man in the story does. You're assuming (are you not?) that the rich master in the story represents Jesus/God. As we know, there are many parables and proverbs that reflect the reality of the world, BUT that do not indicate an endorsement of a behavior or attitude. In a separate parable, Jesus notes the "dishonest shrewd manager" who cheated to try to curry favor. The rich man in the story praises the cheater, but clearly, that isn't an indication that cheating/stealing is a moral option. It's noting that this is how the world is, sometimes and how rich men will endorse that which brings them more money.
It's not in praise of the blind pursuit and gaining of wealth. Indeed, how did the two servants "invest" that money from the rich man? Did they loan to a fellow citizen with interest - usury, which was wrong?
I'm not saying that' definitively the best way to interpret that passage, just noting that it's literally not Jesus who condemned the poor servant with least resources. It was the rich man in the story doing that.
Which, itself, sounds more in line with what Jesus and Mary and James and the Prophets all had to say about the rich, and not in a positive manner.
Craig...
"this assumption that you aren't mistaken is pretty impressive."
Not saying I can't be mistaken. I'm noting that I'm looking pretty literally and contextually at what the text says and I can't see how I'm saying anything beyond what is there in the text. And then I'm asking, "where am I mistaken?" If you can show me that, for instance, Jesus did NOT say he'd come to preach good news to the poor, then show me. But that is what the text says and I'm not mistaken.
If the text did say "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" and the word doesn't actually literally mean, "debt, as in financial and otherwise," then correct me. But I'm literally not mistaken. The Greek word literally means debt, as in financial debt. AND it could have additional figurative meanings, but the word itself is first and foremost a financial meaning.
And on it goes. IF I'm saying that's not factually correct, by all means, point it out.
Another aside (you've made so many false and mistaken conclusions it's hard to address them all!)...
"This is a problem when people take one small facet of Jesus' teaching, run it through their political philosophy, view everything else in scripture through the lens of a couple of cherry picked and/or misinterpreted proof texts likely taken out of context."
I'll remind you that me and people like me were raised as conservatives and held conservative interpretations and political philosophies. It was taken the words of Jesus and other biblical authors seriously that led us to go AGAINST our political philosophies and religious traditions to try to take Jesus' words more literally/more seriously.
And as always, when I say literally, I don't mean woodenly literally. I mean taking it for what it obviously seems to be saying in the text and context. And if it leads you away from your human traditions and parties (as it did me and others like me) then so be it.
One last comment for the night...
"Dan seems to be advocating for some sort of "social gospel" in which Christians commiserate with the poor and marginalized, advocate for the government to give more stuff to the poor and marginalized, without much detail about what the goal is. But he seems sure that everyone who is not poor is required to "sell everything and give the proceeds to the poor". This seems self defeating to me.
1. I'm advocating Good News for the poor and marginalized as I understood Jesus to preach.
2. I do this because I'm a Christ-ian, a poor follower of our Lord, Jesus the Christ.
3. I'm supporting what I understand to be Jesus' Good News for the poor and marginalized as he appears to consistently and plainly teach in a way that's hard not to mistake once you abandon your religious and party traditions.
4. That Good News is a gospel of GRACE. For it is by GRACE that we are saved.
And that Grace is speaking to the Good News of the Realm of God where, by grace, the poor and marginalized of the world - those who are poor and marginalized metaphorically, sure, but first and foremost, the literally poor and marginalized are welcome to the Dinner Table, as Jesus taught us to do (and not the rich, but BEGIN with the poor and marginalized). For, as Jesus taught, those who follow God are welcoming and supportive of the poor and marginalized, the least of these. That is Grace.
5. It is grace and forgiveness precisely because the poor and marginalized ARE the least of these. They are forgotten and abandoned to suffer alone, at best. They are dumped on, demonized, attacked, brutalized, oppressed, impoverished, raped and killed by individual and systemic actions at worst.
5a. THUS, when and as "the least of these" are welcomed and aligned with and loved and have their literal debts forgiven, that is literal good news for them. AND, in such a Beloved Community, then where the least of these are welcomed, it becomes clear that all are welcomed.
5b. Consider: If there is a party where the rick kids all go and it's pricey and exclusive and keeps the poor and marginalized out, then they are literally excluded and further marginalized. That is not good news for them. They literally can't attend if they wanted to and they just aren't welcome, often.
BUT, if the party is INCLUSIVE and it's clear from the get-go that ESPECIALLY the poor and marginalized are going to be included and thus, they can afford to go and know they're welcomed there... the well off rich CAN STILL ATTEND. It's not exclusive to the rich. All are welcomed.
5c. BUT if the rich are too snooty to hang out with the poor and marginalized, or if they want to come and mock and abuse the poor and are kicked or kept out for the safety of the poor, THEY ARE STILL welcome, but only if they join in the Beloved Community.
When it's a welcoming community, party, dinner for the poor and least of these, all are welcome except those who walk away sad like the rich man, who select themselves out. And they have the liberty to do that, much to their own loss.
Thus, it's not a legalistic "You! Give everything you have to the poor or we'll exclude you."
It's grace. ALL are welcome and supported and allied with, and we begin with those most likely to be excluded as our way of knowing that all are included.
I may try to explain this better, more, later, but it's what I have for now.
This is Dan (when i note that it's me, there's no need to refer to me as Anonymous. It's clearly me.)
Found time for another...
"If we simplistically followed Dan's "sell everything" theology we'd see the donors and volunteers impoverished, and presumably give all of the "poor" a one time payment"
Yes I have repeatedly made clear, hope I now you realize that this is not my Theology. You read, but fail to understand.
When I cite Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist or others saying harsh, strong words like sell all you belong and, give it to the poor and follow me, I'm not saying that's the theology we live by. I've been abundantly clear that I'm not a literalist and certainly not a wooden literalist..
What I'm noting when I cite all these abundant references to siding with the poor and marginalized is not some legalistic rule to follow. I'm noting the general grace and welcome and respect for, and expectation to align with, the poor and marginalized. I'm noting an attitude. Not a legalistic set of rules.
See the difference? Do you understand now that what you called my theology is not my theology at all?
Anon,
I'm not a mind reader, and have absolutely zero way to divine the identity of commenters who choose to comment anonymously.
"See the difference?"
Sort of. It seems as if you keep harping on the few places where Jesus said some version of "sell everything and give it to the poor.", and you seem to have decided that Jesus didn't really mean what He said, but that He instead meant something entirely different. It's like some bizzarro world situation where you hinge your theology (or philosophy) on this one statement "sell everything and give it to the poor", while not actually believing that this command is actually a command. Which is convenient since it allows you to use this mantra (roof text) to insist that others should be transferring money to the secular government for the government to provide for the "poor", while not actually living up to the standard yourself.
"Do you understand now that what you called my theology is not my theology at all?"
I understand that it's becoming more clear that you actually have little or no overarching theology, you just have little mantras you've borrowed from Jesus and that you pull out when you are trying to get other people to live up to your arbitrary standards.
I'll say that this helps, because now I know that when you throw out your cherry picked proof text mantra, that you really don't mean anything specific by it, it's just something that you say to sound Jesusy.
Before I go any further, I'm going to note that in my series of comments yesterday, I asked Dan a number of questions. These questions were important to me in terms of trying to understand the somewhat vague and confusing platitudes or mantras that seem to inform his philosophy. The fact that he starts out his very first comment in response with a series of questions for me, does not leave me hopeful that my questions will be answered, or my issues addressed. Yet, I still answer.
"1. So you disagree with Jesus suggestion to the rich man and to his followers?"
No.
"2. OR, is it possible that those commands/teachings were for the purpose of guiding the followers/rich man, not necessarily assisting the poor?"
Anything is possible.
"3. OR, can you recognize that this summary of yours is yours, not mine? That I have not ever said that the best way to help the poor is to sell your belongings and give them to the poor, that this is NOT "what Dan advocates..."?"
Yes, I recognize that I have summarized your incessant repetition of the two or three times Jesus told people to "sell everything and give it to the poor". The problem you have is that you continually repeat these 2/3 instances as if they are something that even you don't seem to believe them to be. Pardon me for concluding that your incessant repetition of these three cherry picked proof texts, indicated that they were foundational to your philosophy. All though these questions do sort of answer my question regarding why you haven't chosen to abide by the philosophy you seem to expect others to live by.
"I'll hold off telling him what he's saying until I do understand it. In the meantime, I'll ask reasonable respectful questions seeking clarity of understanding."
I actually posted multiple comments yesterday where I actually asked reasonable, respectful questions. As noted above, your decision to start by not answering questions, but by asking more questions doesn't seem to bode well.
"Jesus never spelled out what the Good News was in an extremely direct manner."
Thank you for acknowledging that anything you might say about what Jesus meant by the "good news", is simply your hunch filtered through your prejudices, politics, and predilections.
In all honesty, there is unlikely to be anything worth responding to given that you just acknowledged that your insistence that the "good news" is primarily directed to "the poor" is just a hunch.
" "The good news is something like what they'll call 'Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory' one day, centuries from now."
You are correct, that He never used those words, in that order.
"places where Jesus utters a throwaway line"
Yeah, because that whole "last supper" thing and the sacrament of communion that has managed to survive over 2000 years of Church history and practice was just a "throwaway".
"Do we agree on both these points?"
No. Your ability to cherry pick some texts, take them out of context, and use them for proof texts, means absolutely nothing. It also ignores the teachings of Peter, James, John, and Paul.
An entire comment of out of context, proof texts, cherry picked to be eisegeted isn't worth my time.
"Here, you're doing the same thing. Read for understanding:"
Interesting that you sou proudly own your double standard and do as I say not as I do attitude.
Yet, nowhere does Jesus say anything close to your stilted, cherry picked, construct. What you've done is cherry picked some terms that sound Jesusy, and mashed them together into a sentence and claimed it represents the words of Jesus.
"The RICH MAN came to Jesus and asked Jesus: WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?"
No he didn't.
"In order to be saved, SELL YOUR STUFF, give it to the poor, the come follow me."
You did get this one right. Which doesn't address my question from earlier. How is this not Jesus teaching salvation by works? Why is the to be interpreted as a general command for anyone besides this one person at this one time?
"There is another instance of the Good News being incredibly direct and unmistakably clear way that Jesus and John answered "what must I do to be saved?" with "Align with the poor and follow me."
Again, Jesus never actually said this. Again, this is Jesus teaching that these people can be saved by their works.
As an aside, a few thoughts.
1. Jesus never once (presuming the He was a strict pacifist) told ANY Roman soldiers that they should not continue with their service.
2. This presumes that these soldiers were "rich".
3. He's literally telling them to live according to a minimal standard of human decency, essentially: "Don't cheat, don't steal, do your jobs.". Doesn't really sound like the road to salvation.
"Matt 25:14-30 are not "the rest of the parable." It's a separate parable with a clearly separate intent that precedes the Sheep and the Goats. The sheep and the goats is not a continuation of the prior parable."
1, thanks captain obvious for pointing out what's literally written in any version of Matt 25 that I've ever seen. (Instead of answering questions you waste your time on this idiocy)
2. I never claimed that it was "the same parable".
3. Jesus told the three parables at the same time, one after the other, in the same context. It's absurd to conclude that the three parables aren't related, and have nothing to do with each other.
4. The fact that these are 3 parables, has nothing to do with the point I was making, and seems to contradict your "wealth is bad" eisegesis, and your eisegesis of the sheep/goats.
"Not saying I can't be mistaken."
You literally asked multiple rhetorical questions that indicate that you believe that you are "not wrong", and not "factually incorrect"
(I'm not incorrect in any of this, am I?) For example.
Given your multiple rhetorical questions where you presume that you are correct, that you are accurately representing reality, and the like, forgive my condensing your multiple rhetorical questions down to one short sentence. Are you really saying that you are not 100% convinced that you are "factually correct", and that you are accurately representing "reality"?
"The Greek word literally means debt, as in financial debt. AND it could have additional figurative meanings, but the word itself is first and foremost a financial meaning."
Again with the unproven claims. Of course, even if it does, there is no justification for making the leap that this justifies unilateral action by presidential fiat to transfer the debts away from those who assumed them and got the benefit from them to the public debt. There is no way to make the leap that Jesus was advocating that the secular government have the authority to transfer debt. Finally, even if you are correct, it's possible (even likely) that the word debt is being used in a figurative sense. I dealt with this earlier or elsewhere, too bad you missed/ignored/forgot that.
"a poor follower"
Interesting choice of word for someone who always presumes that "poor" only refers to materially "poor", especially as you are one of the wealthiest 5% in the world. If by "poor" you actually mean inadequate, then say inadequate.
"That Good News is a gospel of GRACE. For it is by GRACE that we are saved."
Yet you keep insisting that the RYR was going to be saved by "selling" everything and giving it to the poor", (""In order to be saved, SELL YOUR STUFF, give it to the poor, the come follow me."), so which was it?
"Jesus never spelled out what the Good News was in an extremely direct manner."
So is "a gospel of GRACE" or is it "never spelled out" in an "extremely direct manner"?
"I may try to explain this better, more, later, but it's what I have for now."
In all honesty, don't waste your time with more of your slogans, buzzwords, mantras, and catchphrases, if you aren't going to give detailed explanations of specifically what you mean. But seriously, if you're going to patronizingly tell me that I should ask questions, then answer those that I've already asked first before you spew this bunch of crap.
The problem with this whole conversation boils down to one thing. You are determined to build some sort of the theological construct that allows for at least some degree of theonomy in the instance of the student loan debt transfer. The notion that you're so attached to the lie that these loans are being "forgiven" and your desperate attempt to justify that lie with a bunch of texts, taken out of context, used as proof texts, and cherry picked just for this purpose.
Stop supporting the Biden administrations lies, answer the questions you've baan asked, or find another thread to waste time on.
9 comments, literally not one question answered intentionally.
Craig, because you are having difficulty understanding my actual position, I was trying to be thorough and systemic in my response. ALL of that was the beginning of answer ALL of your questions.
It made sense to me to begin by clarifying your mistaken impressions of what I was saying and by clarifying some basic realities.
That Jesus literally never did explicitly explain what "the Gospel of the Kingdom of God" was that he was preaching. For instance.
Since, when I respond to your questions with short answers, you continually misunderstand... But I'll go back to that. Just a minute.
Craig:
maybe you should be more clear about what specifically you think Jesus meant when he came primarily to peach "good news" to the poor.
Dan:
Good news for the poor and marginalized is a Good news of Grace and welcome, of forgiveness of debt and inclusion. Period.
WHEN WE BEGIN to welcome and give grace to the poor and marginalized (P&M);
WHEN we forgive debts - literal financial and otherwise - of the P&M;
WHEN we invite the P&M to the dinner table, literally and figuratively;
WHEN we fight for Justice and an end to oppression for the P&M;
When these grace-full, forgiving actions are taken for the poor, oppressed and marginalized...
THEN we are creating a world that is more in line with the realm of God (ie, "heaven").
And by beginning with the preferential treatment for the poor, it is a way of more nearly assuring welcome and grace for all. Because if "the least of these" are given first priority - those least likely to be able to get relief or justice or acceptance, then it's more certain to occur for the wealthy and privileged, because they already experience all those good things (albeit sometimes at the expense of the poor and marginalized).
Answered. Understand the answer?
Craig:
What specifically was this "Good News"? That applied "specifically to the poor and marginalized"?
Answered.
What specifically do you mean by "poor" and "marginalized"?
The literal poor, hungry, oppressed, marginalized, orphans, widows, immigrants, those in prison, the sick and disabled and otherwise, the literal "least of these," as Jesus repeatedly spoke of and preached the good news to.
Understand?
Craig:
You keep saying this, yet haven't explained why Jesus and His disciples spread the "Good News" to people of all economic classes, all social strata, and literally made it clear that the "Good News" was for everyone including Gentiles.
I've literally answered this multiple times. And again:
The good news is NOT just for the poor and marginalized. It BEGINS with them. THEY are the focus. When the wealthy and oppressor recognize the need to begin with the P&M and their concerns and they accept that good news and repent (as John and Jesus told "the people" to do), then that becomes Good news for the P&M AND, as a side affect, for the wealthy and oppressor and the privileged.
This is why, when Zaccheus heard and understand the good news for the poor message, he repented, returned money to the P&M and it was literal good news. He recognized this message and found the joy and grace and forgiveness of being part of this real of Good News for the P&M.
Understand?
Craig...
So, please explain how Jesus and His closest followers preached "Good News" that was "specifically to the poor and marginalized", while simultaneously to "all the world"?
Just answered it.
Craig...
Given the reality that you are certainly not either "poor or marginalized", why would you think that you've received this "Good News"?
Because it's not good news ONLY FOR the poor and marginalized. It's Good news for all that BEGINS with the poor and marginalized. For reasons already given.
When the rich man walked away sad, because he was unwilling to embrace the P&M, it saddened Jesus, too (I think). We see this when Jesus said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the realm of God." BECAUSE the rich man was welcome to join with Jesus and the P&M but the rich man chose not to. But he was welcomed to join this Good news for the poor.
Again, Zaccheus did.
Craig...
are you saying that Jesus teachings on the "poor and marginalized" are "specifically for the poor and marginalized" or are they merely a way of "illustrating" His message?
I think that Jesus Good news which HE said was for/to the poor and marginalized is for us all, as I've been making clearer. But it begins with the poor and marginalized.
I don't know in what sense he'd be illustrating his message with the poor & marginalized language. I reckon it's possible. In what way?
Craig...
Is it possible that He was using the language of "poor and marginalized" to "illustrate" something that applies to all people?
As I've been making clear, it DOES apply to all people. It begins with concern for and good news for the poor and marginalized. Look, can you see how Jesus preaching "you should be concerned for the P&M impacted Zaccheus so that he repented from his oppressive ways and RETURNED money to the poor. Can you see how Zaccheus "being saved" and accepting this good news for the poor literally turned into good news for the poor? AND good news for Zaccheus, too, right?
Craig...
1. The above clearly indicates that your hunch is that the only way for the RYR to be "saved" was to engage in specific behaviors. Yet the notion that we are saved by our actions contradicts so much of scripture.
I'm clearly and repeatedly NOT saying we are saved by our actions. I've stated and re-stated that we are saved by God's Grace.
Now, HOW do I think we are saved? By God's grace or by works? (Hint: I JUST gave you the answer.)
Craig...
2. Are you really suggesting that this specific command, to a specific person, in a specific situation is meant to applied in a woodenly literal way to every person who wants to follow Jesus and "inherit eternal life"?
Nope. I'm saying, repeatedly and clearly and succinctly as I know how: WE ARE SAVED BY GOD's GRACE, not by rule-following.
Look, in addition to dealing with money and the realm of God far and away more than anything else, Jesus also spoke of the problems of the Pharisees. They were his main antagonists. Those three topics (economics, realm of God, conflicts with the Pharisees), I daresay make up the vast majority of Jesus' teachings.
Do you recognize that this is a fair estimate? I haven't researched it but I think that it's safe to say it's so.
Jesus speaking about homosexuality, gay marriage, transgender issues, gay folks adopting children, etc? ZERO TIMES that he spoke of these issues. Jesus speaking of the sin of the Pharisees, about wealth and poverty and about the Realm of God (and often, those three topics overlapped and intertwined)? Probably dozens if not hundreds of times.
I point that out because, in addition to the positive side of Jesus' message (ie, Good News for the poor and marginalized, the welcoming and inclusive realm of God, the love and forgiving and just nature of God and God's community), Jesus had a negative message and that was predominantly spoken against the Pharisees, the wealthy and the powerful. And it was spoken of against the Pharisees so much because while they claimed devotion to Scripture, too many of them had become legalists, telling people what their traditions taught them to tell others they must do to be saved. "Loading weights on the shoulders of people."
So, Jesus' Good News for the poor and marginalized that he spoke of is ALSO good news for the poor and marginalized in the way it stands in stark contrast to the Pharisees legalism. Humans are not made for rules. The Sabbath was made for humanity, to help. We're not saved by rule-abiding, we're saved by Grace, by lives of Grace in the Way of God's Grace and that begins with and as Good News to the poor.
So ANY time you ask me something like "Are you saying woodenly literal following of these rules is how we are saved...?" My answer is always no. Nope. No sir. Not in the least, no way, no how.
Understand?
Craig...
3. Are you saying that "eternal life" is actually something that we can "inherit" as long as we perform certain actions?
NOPE
4. Are you really suggesting that the RYR had literally never committed murder, adultery, stolen anything, ever given false testimony or defrauded anyone? That he'd always honored his father and mother?
I don't know. The text literally does not say. Jesus accepted his testimony as factual, without questioning it, so I have no serious reason to doubt it. But then, I would suspect that he probably gave some level of false testimony and some level of lack of honor for his parents... but maybe not. We don't have the answer to that.
What I DO know is that when Jesus heard it, he didn't question it. He just said, "cool. Then sell your stuff, give it to the poor and follow me." Which he appears to have known the man would turn down because he was wealthy and, as Jesus noted, "It's hard for the wealthy to get in the realm of God/be saved."
Do you think Jesus was mistaken?
Craig...
1. Jesus is clearly teaching that there is a "Heaven" that is an eternal state. Are you suggesting that you 100% agree that here is an afterlife where all of the above will be True?
You asked that in reference to this passage:
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor.
Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out,
a treasure in heaven that will never fail..."
The answer is that I nor you objectively demonstrably know that there is an everlasting afterlife like what we conceive of as Heaven. Was Jesus speaking metaphorically or literally here? I DO NOT KNOW and can't prove one way or the other.
Neither can you.
But Do I THINK so, do I believe in an everlasting realm of God in the afterlife where all debts are literally forgiven, a land of grace and welcome? Yes, I do believe in it. I just can't prove it any more than you can.
On the other hand, if you CAN prove it, by all means, do so. I'd love to see the proof of what I hope is true.
What I think is literally true is that, AS we live into this realm of God of Good News that begins with and for and alongside the poor and marginalized (as Jesus taught), then that world comes more into reality.
"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on EARTH, as it is in Heaven."
Like the parable/story of the person tossing starfish stranded on the beach back into the sea: It's making a difference for THAT starfish... for THAT poor person and the wealthy one who accepted this Gospel to the poor and marginalized.
Craig...
2. Have you sold all of your possessions and given the proceeds to the poor?
Nope. But then, as I'm trying to make as clear as possible: I'm NOT a legalist. Because legalism is the way of Death and Grace is the Way of Life.
Craig...
Their treasure would then be in a the place that Jesus described, which most would simply refer to as Heaven.
[Dan]
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor." THAT is where their treasure literally would be, right?"
[Craig}
This makes no sense. You seem to be suggesting that Jesus is requiring a transfer of the proceeds from the sale of "all our possessions" to the "poor" and that our "treasure" will be with/in the poor", is that what your poorly worded question is trying to suggest?
I'm saying that our treasure is in the Beloved Community of God, the community/realm/way that accepts the Good News to the Poor and Marginalized that Jesus said he'd come to preach, and that beloved community IS the body of Christ...
as Jesus noted in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, where they sheep gave to the least of these, they gave to Jesus, to his Person, literally, in that story (or maybe figuratively, but still).
as Paul noted over and over that we are all one body, the body of Christ...
One reason you appear to not be understanding me is that you appear to be thinking of heaven as a place, that "good place" we go when we die.
I think of Heaven as God and God's Body, the beloved community of God.
So that, where our treasure is (with God, with Grace, with Forgiveness, with Welcome and alliance with the least of these, with Jesus) THAT is where our heart is.
God. Jesus. The Beloved Community and Body.
Is that the case that this is one reason you're not understanding me?
Or do we perhaps agree on this point?
"Craig, because you are having difficulty understanding my actual position, I was trying to be thorough and systemic in my response. ALL of that was the beginning of answer ALL of your questions."
How about if you'd just answer the questions asked, which relate to the specific areas of your gobbldygook that I'm having problems with, instead of throwing out more hunches that still don't make sense.
"That Jesus literally never did explicitly explain what "the Gospel of the Kingdom of God" was that he was preaching."
Again with this unsupported claim, about a term that Jesus never actually used.
"Answered. Understand the answer?"
Yes, I understand that you've come up with a conflation of a bunch of things that were said in the NT, and tried to fashion it into some sort of philosophy/theology that sounds vaguely Jesusy, but is really just your hunches filtered through your pre conceptions, political leanings, and eisegesis.
"Understand?"
Yes. I understand that you have put the "literally poor and marginalized" (although vague, nonspecific, undefined terms that can mean anything, everything, or nothing) in some sort of category where they have a different gospel/path to salvation than everyone else. It's the same hunch you've been peddling for years with a tiny bit more specificity. I also understand that you are (artificially IMO) limiting those who might be considered P&M to specifically material wealth, and political/social marginalization.
"Understand?"
Again, I understand that this vague, general, non specific, theory is your hunch. I don't think you've offered any specific reasons to accept it as more than your hunch, and you still haven't explained how it's not salvation by works.
"Zaccheus "being saved" and accepting this good news for the poor literally turned into good news for the poor?"
Not really. It might have been temporary "good news" for some of the "poor", but it Z giving away some of his money wasn't providing salvation for the "poor" who received it. He also didn't limit his restitution to the "poor".
"AND good news for Zaccheus, too, right?"
Presumably.
"When the wealthy and oppressor recognize the need to begin with the P&M and their concerns and they accept that good news and repent (as John and Jesus told "the people" to do), then that becomes Good news for the P&M AND, as a side affect, for the wealthy and oppressor and the privileged."
Interesting notion. That the "wealthy and oppressor" are only saved as a side benefit of their actions toward the P&M. It seems as though you are saying that Jesus will only save the "wealthy and oppressors" IF they say and do the right things, and merely as an aside to Jesus "primary" goal. Yet, you claim that you're not positing a Jesus who's more interested in issues of economics and political power than in spiritual things. You sound a lot like the first century Jews who wanted Jesus to free them from Roman oppression, and poverty. Yet Jesus specifically and intentionally chose a different route.
"I'm clearly and repeatedly NOT saying we are saved by our actions."
Yet you continue to insist that both the RYR and Z were either saved or potentially saved by the actions of "selling everything and giving it to the poor" or the like. Those to assertions seem to conflict. I guess that you not explaining the apparent contradiction doesn't bother you. FYI, I've literally quoted you saying that Jesus required the RYR to sell everything in order to be saved.
"Nope"
Interesting, yet you keep offering this singular example of Jesus requiring the sale of everything in order to gain "eternal life", with no explanation as to why Jesus imposed this condition and no explanation as to how this requirement applies to anyone else.
"Understand?"
Your contradictions, no. But I do understand less than I did when you started this exercise.
"Do you think Jesus was mistaken?"
No, I think you are.
Literally multiple comments with answers to questions, and I'm more confused now that I was to begin with.
I suspect it has to do with the combination of undefined terms, conflation of terms, random jumbling together of Jesusy terms to create new (undefined) terminology, unexplained contradictions, proof texting, cherry picking, and general vagueness of it all. It's all so incoherent and bereft of broad scriptural support that there's no reason to dig into any of it. I think I answered most of the questions, because that's my default. But talk about trying to bury someone in bullshit.
Craig...
It seems as though you are saying that Jesus will only save the "wealthy and oppressors" IF they say and do the right things, and merely as an aside to Jesus "primary" goal.
Ah, ah! Remember: ANY TIME that you think I'm saying "salvation by works," you can remind yourself, "oh, no, that can't be correct, Dan's already told me that clearly isn't the case, over and over again. I must be understanding something wrong. Again."
I'm saying we are saved by Grace and that is GOOD NEWS for the poor specifically, who are so regularly oppressed and dumped upon. This way of Grace that Jesus demonstrated in his life begins with our acceptance and love one for another and especially is recognized/acted out when we are welcoming, affirming, supportive of, allied with the least of these.
It's not about "doing the right things." It's about grace. The grace as Jesus demonstrated in his life and taught in his teachings.
But while we're there, presumably you counsel a salvation by grace, as well. But tell me this: According to at least some Atonement-ists, if we don't acknowledge that Jesus death was an atonement for our sins, literally paying for the literal (sort of) "debt" of our sins... if we don't recognize and acknowledge that, then we're probably (definitely?) not saved. Are you familiar with that being said by some in your camp? Do you believe it yourself?
If so, can you see how that seems like a salvation by works - we are obliged to acknowledge in just the right way and words that Jesus salvation for a limited few is received by acknowledging God's "paying our sin debt," and if we can't acknowledge that or don't recognize that as consistent with Jesus' teachings, then we're not saved?
Craig...
" But talk about trying to bury someone in bullshit."
I started down a path of systemically explaining what I'm saying in a way that would deal with all your questions and misunderstandings and you complained I wasn't answering your questions and you didn't understand what I was saying.
So, I started (haven't finished) directly answering your questions one by one and now you say you're more confused than ever. From your point of view, my answers seem vague and undefined and I hear you saying that you just don't understand my view.
Interestingly, that's precisely why I had to abandon the human traditions in the "atonement"/Calvinist vein - because it was so biblically and rationally confusing and inconsistent. The questions I asked were and remain unanswered by the traditionalists. So, I left (was kicked out, moreso).
What to do? Keep answering your questions and leave you more confused?
Try explaining what I'm saying in a systematic way as I started?
Of course, to get the most out of that approach, you'll want and need to answer the reasonable questions I ask along the way.
For instance, you appear to mock and dismiss me when I note the reality that Jesus never explicitly says, "THIS IS what the Gospel I'm teaching is and what it means..." But I don't think you ever answered my question: DO you agree that Jesus never authoritatively, definitively explained what he meant by "the Good News to the poor" he said he'd come to preach?
Of course, the direct, observable, factual answer is, No, not directly and clearly.
But do YOU recognize that reality?
Conversely, if you DO think that Jesus directly said what this Gospel was, by all means, quote Jesus giving that direct explanation.
You won't because it didn't happen. I'm just wondering if you can admit that much?
It's a starting point to understanding WHY I left your way of thinking/the conservative atonement traditions in the first place.
"It's not about "doing the right things." It's about grace."
1. You were very clear earlier, that the RYR was not going to gain access to "eternal life" unless and until he "sold everything and give the money to the poor".
"Go, sell your stuff, give it to the poor and come follow me..." is what he told the rich ruler who asked how to be saved."
"In order to be saved, SELL YOUR STUFF, give it to the poor, the come follow me."
"If no where else, there is one incredibly direct and unmistakably clear way that Jesus answered "what must I do to be saved?" with "Align with the poor and follow me."
2. You were very clear that Z gave away some of his money to be saved.
3. If your earlier statements are True, then how can you separate the act of "selling everything/giving away" from salvation?
4. Later you suggest that it's all "grace" (given that I'm not sure what the term "grace" means in your philosophy/theology, this isn't particularly helpful) is all that is necessary.
5. If "grace" is the only necessary component of salvation, are you suggesting that Jesus withheld "grace" from the RYR? If so, why would He? If not, then why did the RYR go away sad?
6. Are you suggesting that this "grace" is available to everyone equally?
7. Is there some sort of priority list for "grace"?
You see, when the only illustrations you have are so severely limited (RYR, Z) you are left having to explain why those are the only two illustrations you have to illustrate this alleged principle, while simultaneously denying that those two illustrations have any value to anyone else. You are simultaneously affirming the importance of the RYR/Z as examples, and denying that their actions are required or normative for anyone else.
"According to at least some Atonement-ists,"
If you can't substantiate this statement/claim with names, quotes, and links, I'll simply assume it's just more of your bullshit unsupported claim tradition.
"Are you familiar with that being said by some in your camp?"
No.
"Do you believe it yourself?"
No. In principle I've always argued that what is True, is True without regard to whether or not humans believe The Truth to be True. The most obvious example is the thief on the cross.
"If so, can you see how that seems like a salvation by works - we are obliged to acknowledge in just the right way and words that Jesus salvation for a limited few is received by acknowledging God's "paying our sin debt," and if we can't acknowledge that or don't recognize that as consistent with Jesus' teachings, then we're not saved?"
1. In the absence of any actual evidence of anyone saying exactly what you claim is being said, I have no grounds to really answer your question.
2. As a general principle, anyone who adds anything as a requirement for salvation to the finished work of Jesus the Christ, is at a minimum teaching problematic theology.
3. If someone says clearly, "In order to be saved, SELL YOUR STUFF, give it to the poor, the come follow me.", how can they not be advocating salvation based on a particular action?
I think your problem with the RYR is that you might be missing the possibility that his question wasn't as much a serious question, as it was an excuse for Jesus to ask him why he thought he'd qualify for "eternal life". His answer to Jesus wasn't "grace" it was "I've kept the law perfectly". But there's no way for Jesus to have known what this guy was thinking, and certainly no way that Jesus could have known that money was the one stumbling block this guy had.
Craig...
I understand your philosophy/theology,
So, in SPITE of you repeatedly misstating what I've said and misunderstanding what I've meant, you think that you understand my philosophy and theology.
By all means, tell me what you think these are.
Craig...
if you'd just acknowledge that this is simply a hunch on your part and that it's informed and shaped by your pre conceptions, biases, and social/political views
I've been abundantly clear.
1. I don't think it's "Simply" a hunch. I think it is the extremely reasonable conclusion reasonable people get when they read the Bible and embrace reason.
2. Neither one of us can prove our hunches about what is definitively, authoritatively the correct way to understand the Bible and God, but I find that I think my way is more reasonable and godly and moral and just than yours.
3. Indeed, my understanding HAS been shaped in a great large part by the conservatives who taught me growing up. I got to where I am today nearly 90% based upon the teachings from my conservative, traditional Southern Baptists (or, if you're inclined to be spiritual like I strive to at least a bit, I am where I am today because of following God's Spirit in seeking understanding, for God promised in the Bible to give us understanding).
But from a rational mindset point of view, I got where I am today because conservatives told me to:
a. Take the Bible seriously.
b. Follow Jesus and his teachings.
c. Love one another.
d. Even if human traditions and some scholars may disagree with what I think God is clearly saying, as revealed in the Bible, that I should follow God and the Bible, not human opinions.
THOSE are the traditions that shaped me and led me where I am. THOSE were the pre-conceptions, biases and social/political worldviews I held.
You understand that, right?
I DID NOT READ A SINGLE LIBERAL AUTHOR to get where I got. Not one. I read the Bible.
And when I strove to take the Bible seriously and look at what the great crowd of witnesses who'd gone before had to say (Calvin, Hus, Wesley, Aquinas, Knox, Edwards, etc, and of course, all the biblical authors and later theologians/writers/preachers) and didn't see answers to some questions that arose from taking the Bible seriously (and even literally) and I started asking those questions and no answers were forthcoming, I realized that these humans had holes in their traditions. Which is, of course, to be expected, they're only human.
So, I went where I could to find reasonable answers and found more sense in the anabaptist traditions but still found holes and well, here I am. Reading the Bible and interpreting based upon that great cloud of witnesses in their wisdom and in their silence.
Just to be clear. I know that you all like to fantasize that people like me emerged from post-modern liberal atheist Christians, but no, that's just not reality.
But yes, we are ALL influenced by our upbringing and preconceptions. You, as well.
Correct?
This is it for the week.
Craig...
"because I think it's a cheap cop out to ignore all of the things that Jesus DID say about The Gospel."
Okay. But whatever YOU THINK IN YOUR HEAD doesn't make it reality, you know that, right?
I am in NO way at all trying to cop out or ignore what Jesus did and didn't say. I'm doing the exact opposite, one step at a time. So, your opinions don't influence reality.
I asked a very reasonable question which you promptly dodged and didn't answer...
But I don't think you ever answered my question: DO you agree that Jesus never authoritatively, definitively explained what he meant by "the Good News to the poor" he said he'd come to preach?
You responded...
I'm sure that I have in other places.
Don't tell me. Show me.
The real answer is, NO, you have never answered this question. The same is true for all my traditional conservative forebears who, God bless them, taught me to follow Jesus and not human authorities and when they couldn't answer the questions, as you can't, then I had to follow Jesus, not their lack of an answer.
You continued...
The short version is that Jesus came to preach Good News to "All the world", His Good News is not limited by economic or social status.
That is NOT what I asked. I asked you
DO you agree that Jesus never authoritatively, definitively explained what he meant by "the Good News to the poor" he said he'd come to preach?
Yes? No? It's just literally not there. Do you recognize that reality?
Or, alternatively, show me the quotes from Jesus where he did this.
Craig...
His Good News is not limited by economic or social status.
I Never said otherwise.
He preached the Good News
(and give salvation to both rich and poor during His earthly ministry.
I never said otherwise.
He saved Roman soldiers, the vehicle for "oppression",
without suggesting that they stop serving in the army.
I never said otherwise.
He saved Pharisees and Samaritans.
I never said otherwise.
He never once excluded anyone from His preaching and Teaching.
I never said otherwise.
Even when He rebuked people, He didn't exclude them from the potential of salvation.
And finally, I never said otherwise.
Do you recognize that I never said otherwise on a single one of these points?
Dan...
"Of course, the direct, observable, factual answer is, No, not directly and clearly."
Craig...
Of course, that's you're opinion, not an objective fact.
No. It's objective, measurable reality.
You can look at each and every word that Jesus spoke and he never said any words that were something to the effect of, "...and when I say preach Good news to the poor or when I say 'Preach the good news of the kingdom of heaven' or otherwise reference 'good news...' HERE IS WHAT I MEANT, clearly and with no room for reinterpretation.
Now look, I just made a pretty clear and bold fact claim. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO to disprove me is provide ONE QUOTE where Jesus literally, clearly said "and this is what I mean by 'Good news...'" Not those words, but that intent.
You know what I did? I tried to do your task for you (as I have off and on for the last 30 or so years): I looked (in this case, in various google searches) for...
"What did Jesus say about what he meant by Gospel/Good news?"
"Did Jesus ever define 'Good News'"
"Jesus explains good news"
"How did Jesus view the Good News"
On and on like that. Do you know what I came up with? Take a guess.
I came up with conservative preacher after conservative theologian after religious right blogger who offered to explain "What did Jesus mean by Good News" and they began with Genesis sometimes or sometimes they skipped right to the Pauline epistles, but NEVER ONCE did they offer a quote from Jesus explaining what he meant by Good news.
Not one time.
And not only that, but not one time did they acknowledge that they were skipping the Gospels entirely (to be fair, some people did cite the Gospels, but they never cited Jesus explicitly explaining it... Not one time.)
I wonder if this is a sort of blindness that happens to conservatives (as it happens in any circles, liberal, conservative or otherwise...) They have these - how did you put it? Oh yes - "pre conceptions, political leanings, and eisegesis" and they just don't even see that they're not answering the question or missing the point of a question. They're just entirely blind to not answering it and, as in your case, when pushed on it, just ignore the question as if it is irrelevant.
"I don't have to answer" is not an answer.
"I'm sure I've answered it before" is not an answer.
"Theologians throughout history have answered this..." is not an answer.
Have a blessed weekend.
A few more points for you to consider when you get the chance...
Craig...
My opinion is that you need to believe that your opinion is objectively True because otherwise your philosophy/theology falls apart. If you can't push certain topics into the realm of "I don't know.", things change for your philosophy/theology.
As before, you are free to THINK it in your head, but hat doesn't make it reality. I don't believe Jesus never clearly defined Gospel because I "need" to or because my beliefs fall apart without it. I recognize it as reality because it is reality.
I don't think that there are no purple monkeys riding pink unicorns on the moon because I "need" it or my philosophy falls apart. It's just the reality that I know until someone shows me otherwise.
Do you frame it that way because you have a "need" to demonize me to try to avoid answering an easy-to-answer, reality-based question?
Craig...
When you arbitrarily exclude all available evidence, it undermines the credibility of your question.
Hasn't happened. I never excluded ANY available evidence. It's just not factual or reality-based. I wonder if you can recognize that?
Craig...
No. In principle I've always argued that what is True, is True without regard to whether or not humans believe The Truth to be True. The most obvious example is the thief on the cross.
So, you think that I'm saved? I confess Jesus as my Lord, have repented of my sins and accepting in God's grace through faith in Jesus, so I'm saved, by your estimation?
You recognize that you know conservative after conservative (Neil, Marshal, Stan, Glenn, etc, etc) who clearly reject my claim of being a Christian, right?
WHY do they reject my Christianity?
Is it not because they think that I'm not actually confessing "the right" Jesus?
Or that they think I'm lying about it all (with zero evidence to support the claim)?
Or, if they give me the benefit of the doubt (which most don't), they can affirm the reality that I really do believe what I do, but I don't "believe right..." That because I don't accept the human tradition of Atonement (as conservatives define it) or because I don't accept the human tradition that LGBTQ folk are not okay to get married or join the church without repenting of their "sin," (which they don't consider a sin)? In other words, in some way, I am believing something "wrong" and am SO far wrong as to be beyond the bounds of grace.
You recognize that this is what they're saying, right?
But good for you. I do NOT accept the human tradition that teaches we are "saved" from "an angry god" who WILL destroy forever most of humanity because they were "not called" by god and thus, could not be "born again" and have god "pay" for the forgiveness of their sins with the "blood" of Jesus. But even though I don't agree with that traditional understanding of salvation, I can be saved, just the same.
Very progressive of you. Good on you.
Tell me I'm understanding you correctly.
"Okay. But whatever YOU THINK IN YOUR HEAD doesn't make it reality, you know that, right?"
Okay. But you realize that I never claimed what you say I did.
Unlike you, I usually don't claim things as "reality" unless it's something obvious, or I'm pointing out how ridiculous your repeated claims of your hunches being "reality" are.
"So, you think that I'm saved?"
I have no idea. You claim to be, yet so much of what you say and do would seem to call your salvation into question. I guess it depends of what you mean by "saved"? Saved from what? Saved to what? Saved for what?
"I confess Jesus as my Lord, have repented of my sins and accepting in God's grace through faith in Jesus, so I'm saved, by your estimation?"
Again, I don't think it's my place to make judgements about who is or is not saved.
"You recognize that you know conservative after conservative (Neil, Marshal, Stan, Glenn, etc, etc) who clearly reject my claim of being a Christian, right?"
I really don't care.
"WHY do they reject my Christianity?"
I can't speak for them, and wouldn't presume to. I suspect that it's because of your words and actions, but I'm not them.
"Is it not because they think that I'm not actually confessing "the right" Jesus?"
I'm not them, I don't know what they think. I don't speak for them. I'm no arrogant enough to think that I do speak for them.
"Or that they think I'm lying about it all (with zero evidence to support the claim)?"
I'm not them, I don't know what they think. I don't speak for them. I'm no arrogant enough to think that I do speak for them. I could guess that they think that you're one of the people who says "Lord, Lord, did we not do thus and so in your name?", and Jesus responds by saying the He never knew them. In other words, you might not by lying, but instead be confused and mistaken. But that's just pointing out another alternative that is possible. Not trying to speak for them.
The rest of the recent comments are repetitious, pointless, and unworthy of my time.
"I confess Jesus as my Lord, have repented of my sins and accepting in God's grace through faith in Jesus,"
It sounds to me like you think that you having engaged in those specific behaviors is what "saved" you.
Craig...
"It sounds to me like you think that you having engaged in those specific behaviors is what "saved" you."
As I've noted over and over, I believe I am saved because of God's grace. Period.
What ADDITIONAL must I do to be saved, Craig?
That last comment was from Dan. I'm having technical problems on my phone where I can't post as myself. Nothing sinister at work. Just technical inabilities on my part. I'm sorry I'm not a better person at figuring out technical problems. I hope you can forgive me.
"It sounds to me like you think that you having engaged in those specific behaviors is what "saved" you."
This is a very intriguing comment from you. On the one hand, I hope you're on the right track. That indeed, we are saved by grace and not by works as I believe. But I suspect you mean something different. I suspect that you are one of those who might believe that God chooses those who God will save and there's nothing we can do. Either God saves us and everything's cool, or God doesn't and we're bound for an eternity of torture hell. Our repentance or our acceptance of that grace, none of that matters.
Maybe you could clarify. Once again I ask you, what must I do to be saved?
Craig...
"I could guess that they think that you're one of the people who says "Lord, Lord, did we not do thus and so in your name?", and Jesus responds by saying the He never knew them. In other words, you might not by lying, but instead be confused and mistaken."
Another reasonable question to ask is, it appears you're saying that someone could repeat another sentence and pin other sounds and accept Jesus as Lord and except God's gift of grace and salvation and yet be mistaken about something and therefore not saved. Is that what you're saying?
Does that mean you think there's no way of knowing if we are saved? If YOU are saved?
As to the Marshals and Glenns of the world, I guess perhaps you've missed it over the years. They are pretty clear that they think I'm lying - deliberately lying about what I believe and my salvation. Not that I'm mistaken, but that I'm lying.
But that's great for you.
"What ADDITIONAL must I do to be saved, Craig?"
Where have I ever said that anything ADDITIONAL is necessary?
I'm sorry for my confusion, but when you provide a list of actions on your part that got you saved, it raises questions.
"This is a very intriguing comment from you."
Why, you claimed that certain behaviors or actions on your part were how you were saved. You also claimed that the RYR could have been saved by his actions. It's a reasonable question.
"I suspect that you are one of those who might believe that God chooses those who God will save and there's nothing we can do."
Are you suggesting that God isn't 100% responsible for our salvation? That there is something that we must do in order to be saved? That the scripture references that make this very point are somehow wrong?
"Either God saves us and everything's cool, or God doesn't and we're bound for an eternity of torture hell."
If not "God" (YHWH), then who? Beyond the pictures Jesus paints of Hell, the only thing that I have a high confidence of is that those who are not saved, will be separated from god for eternity. What that looks like, I don't know.
"Our repentance or our acceptance of that grace, none of that matters."
Are you saying that unless we engaged in those specific actions that we are not saved?
"Maybe you could clarify. Once again I ask you, what must I do to be saved?"
Why don't you answer this first?
Dan...
"Maybe you could clarify. Once again I ask you, what must I do to be saved?"
Craig...
Why don't you answer this first?
Okay, but just to be clear: I'M not the one saying I'm not saved. Many conservatives are and you're vague on the topic.
I believe we are saved by God's grace - gift, kindness, love. We are free to reject that Grace if we want, that God won't force it on us. But if we accept it, then we are saved by it. Period.
If you want, I could also add that we are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus, but I sort of think that's redundant and vague. I believe in Jesus. I believe Jesus is God's son. I believe the teachings of Jesus and that they are about a way of Grace, of inclusion, of love, of justice, of mercy. I accept that, I accept those teachings.
I add that point of clarification because merely acknowledging Jesus' existence or even that Jesus is the son of God is clearly not what saves us, biblically speaking. "Even the demons believe that," the Apostle James says. Even the demons believe in and acknowledge God, so it's not merely that. It's accepting that grace by which we are saved and that way of grace.
Now, what do YOU think one must do to be saved?
"Is that what you're saying?"
No. I'm saying that Jesus was very clear on at least two occasions that there were people who claimed to follow Him, who were going to be surprised and disappointing to find out that they were not actually following Him.
"Does that mean you think there's no way of knowing if we are saved? If YOU are saved?"
It means that Jesus made it clear on at least two occasions (more if you include His warnings to the Jews) that there were people who believed that they were following Him, who were going to be surprised to find out that He didn't claim them as followers. Do I think it's possible to "know" to a 100% certainty, probably not. Do I think that there are indicators that we can look for that will give us evidence, yes.
"They are pretty clear that they think I'm lying - deliberately lying about what I believe and my salvation. Not that I'm mistaken, but that I'm lying."
And I should care about this why? My first response when I engage with someone who's beliefs seem to be out of the norm for orthodox Christian thought, is to conclude error not lying. I suspect that there is a point when it's clear that someone holds beliefs that contradict with basic tenets of Christianity, or redefines terms to the point that they mean something completely different, where it's reasonable to conclude that they're lying.
"But that's great for you."
Again, why would I care if you think something is "great for" me.
While I'm waiting...
Craig...
"Are you suggesting that God isn't 100% responsible for our salvation?"
I'm saying that we are saved by God's grace and God's grace alone.
Craig...
"That there is something that we must do in order to be saved?"
I'm not saying there's something that we must do in order to be saved. I'm saying that we are saved by God's grace and God's grace alone.
Craig...
"That the scripture references that make this very point are somehow wrong?"
I don't know what Scripture references or what point you're asking about. "That there's something we must do to be saved..."?
I believe we are saved by God's grace. Period.
Craig...
"Are you saying that unless we engaged in those specific actions that we are not saved?"
No. I'm saying that we are free to reject God's grace if that's what we want. God doesn't force it upon us.
Craig...
"My first response when I engage with someone who's beliefs seem to be out of the norm for orthodox Christian thought, is to conclude error not lying.
I suspect that there is a point when it's clear that someone holds beliefs that contradict with basic tenets of Christianity, or redefines terms to the point that they mean something completely different, where it's reasonable to conclude that they're lying."
But what of those like me who were raised with those human traditions about Christianity and BECAUSE we were taught to follow Jesus/God at all costs and BECAUSE we were taught to take the Bible's teachings seriously, we honestly think that many of our Christian traditions are not biblical, rational and sometimes even moral or just. The reality is that this happens. People like me aren't lying. We're genuinely trying to understand God, Jesus, morality and the Bible correctly. AND we sincerely disagree with many "basic tenets of Christianity" that are part of human traditions and APART from biblical teaching.
As a point of fact, the Bible NEVER teaches sola scriptura. Indeed, it is a mischaracterization of biblical teaching.
The Bible never teaches us to put any serious emphasis on the virgin birth, as if it's a vital part of Jesus' teachings. It's just not, not in the Bible or the words of Jesus.
Jesus, in all of his teachings about his Good News NEVER taught the various atonement theories as essential to his teachings, not in any serious kind of way (other than the offhand comments amounting to about a handful of words).
Jesus CLEARLY taught us about simple living and a preferential consideration of the poor and marginalized, throughout the Gospels and that only echoes what is found throughout Christian scriptures.
The Bible NEVER teaches us that abortion is murder nor that gay folks should not get married.
On point after point, I can make a solid biblical case for why I believe what I believe and it's not a lie that I think this. While you may ultimately disagree with my understandings (as I do yours), you can't say that I'm not basing them upon biblical teaching and the common sense and reasoning that God gave us all.
Craig...
"And I should care about this why?" (in response to the reality that conservatives like Marshal and others regularly make the false claim that I am lying about having been raised a conservative or that I was a conservative or that I am a Christian or that I'm sincere about my beliefs)
WHY should you care that conservatives regularly make these sorts of false claims?
Well, first of all, because facts and truth matter. This should be especially true of Christians.
Secondly, for better and worse, outside of conservative circles, conservatives and especially conservative Christians are becoming known as ungracious, demonizing of others and that they are okay with making false claims that they can't support and sometimes that outright just deny reality.
So, for your own sake as a fellow conservative Christian, you should especially care how other conservative Christians are representing your side. Remaining silent in the face of misdeeds of people on "your side" is not a good look and, just rationally, doesn't make sense.
Seems to me.
I regularly come to the defense of conservatives when they are falsely accused. I regularly give praise to the conservatives who raised me and the values they taught me. Indeed, as I regularly make clear, I am who I am today and believe what I believe today in large part because of what conservatives taught me.
"Now, what do YOU think one must do to be saved?"
Nothing. Salvation is 100% from God, we bring nothing to our salvation. What must a dead man do to live again?
"I don't know what Scripture references or what point you're asking about."
The references in scripture to salvation being something that God does to and for us, and that we bring nothing to the table.
"We are free to reject that Grace if we want, that God won't force it on us. But if we accept it, then we are saved by it. Period."
This is interesting. The implication is that ultimately salvation is under our control, that our acceptance or rejection of "grace" is what actually decides our salvation. Are you really saying that salvation only occurs as a result of our acceptance? That without our action (acceptance), we can't be saved?
"But what of those like me who were raised with those human traditions about Christianity and BECAUSE we were taught to follow Jesus/God at all costs"
Well, I don't know and honestly don't care. I would point out that Jesus taught that we are to follow Him "at all costs", up to and including death. If you are disputing the fact that following Jesus "at all costs" is something that should be done, I'm not sure what to do with that.
"and BECAUSE we were taught to take the Bible's teachings seriously, we honestly think that many of our Christian traditions are not biblical, rational and sometimes even moral or just."
Again, I really don't care about your opinions or hunches about what you call "Christian tradition". I have virtually zero confidence that you can accurately describe these "Christian traditions" you decry accurately. I have a high degree of confidence that you've merely replaced one set of "traditions" with another.
"AND we sincerely disagree with many "basic tenets of Christianity""
The fact that you disagree with something means absolutely nothing. Truth is not dependent on your agreement or disagreement.
As far as your list on hunches, it's the same pablum you've been spouting for years and haven't ever provided any convincing evidence that would make me seriously consider digging deeper.
"On point after point, I can make a solid biblical case for why I believe what I believe"
Yet, I've never actually seen you do so.
"WHY should you care that conservatives regularly make these sorts of false claims?"
As if it's only "conservatives" that make false claims. Hell, if you didn't make so many, it'd give you so much more credibility. But leave it to you to misrepresent my question.
I'll try to make it more specific.
Why should I care about an argument between you and others about a claim that you are unable to prove to be True?
Why are you so obsessed with trying to force me into arguments between you and others?
Please stop with the self serving blather.
Craig...
"Nothing. Salvation is 100% from God, we bring nothing to our salvation. What must a dead man do to live again?"
So, does this mean you're a universalist? You think God is just going to save everyone, regardless if we accept that grace or not? But?
I'm pretty sure this is not your position.
So, does that mean you are a fatalist? That God is NOT going to save the majority of the humanity but God will whimsically save a few, some portion of humanity. Just on the whim. Is that your position?
If so, how is that grace for the vast majority of humanity? How is that love for the vast majority of humanity?
Tell me more about this theory of yours. Help me understand it.
"So, does this mean you're a universalist?"
No.
"You think God is just going to save everyone, regardless if we accept that grace or not?"
No.
"But?"
But what?
"So, does that mean you are a fatalist?"
No.
"That God is NOT going to save the majority of the humanity but God will whimsically save a few, some portion of humanity. Just on the whim. Is that your position?"
What would lead you to believe that God will save a majority of people?
No, that's not my position.
"If so, how is that grace for the vast majority of humanity?"
I never said it was. Are you saying that "grace" must be "for the vast majority of humanity"? Why would you think this? What did Jesus say about the two roads?
"How is that love for the vast majority of humanity?"
Again, I never said it was. Are you suggesting that God is required to show "love" to the "vast majority of humanity"? Is the only possible way for God to show love by saving people? Why would you think this?
"Tell me more about this theory of yours. Help me understand it."
Salvation comes 100% from God, not from anything we do. It's not any radical thing.
But it is a good excuse to divert attention from the questions you've left unanswered, and an opportunity to take this post even further down your off topic rabbit hole.
Fatalist: a person who believes that all events are inevitable, so one’s choices and actions make no difference
Are you NOT saying that it doesn't matter what we do? We'll either be saved by God's grace or not and it's all a whim of God's own choosing. IS THAT YOUR POSITION?
If so, how is that not the very definition of fatalist?
Craig...
"Are you saying that "grace" must be "for the vast majority of humanity"?
Grace, as I think is rightly understood biblically and rationally, is all tied together with Love and Justice and Forgiveness.
IF God created an imperfect humanity and
IF that imperfection means we ought to be punished eternally...
Well, for starters, that's not grace, love, justice or forgiveness.
But setting that aside...
IF it's only randomly available and
IF - regardless of our love for God and desire to follow God - IF we can still be punished an eternity for the "crime" of being imperfect (and note, JUST imperfect... not mass murderer or rapist or abuser or child abuser... just generically imperfect)
Then how is that "grace," a Just and Loving Grace as talked of in the Bible? As talked about by Jesus? As is just reasonable?
So, yes, OF COURSE, for Grace to be just, loving and truly grace, it should be available to all. If not, then it's just a pathetic ploy to pretend to be "grace-full" but is just another way to punish the unaccepted ones who were unaccepted ONLY because a whimsical tyrant god chose to not accept them.
What a hellish, fatalistic belief system, if that's what you believe.
"Why would you think this?"
"For God so loved THE WORLD, that God gave his son, that
WHOSOEVER believes in him
SHALL NOT PERISH
BUT THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE."
For starters.
"What did Jesus say about the two roads?"
In a passage largely directed at the legalism and hypocrisy of the Pharisees, Jesus said...
"“Enter through the narrow gate.
For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction,
and many enter through it.
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life,
and only a few find it."
Jesus is using a clear metaphor as a warning to not take the easy, go along with the Pharisees to get along path, but choose grace, the Way of Grace, which the Pharisees did not represent, by and large.
There's nothing there that says God ultimately will whimsically choose to punish some portion of humanity (the vast majority) that God whimsically decides not to save. You recognize that, right?
Craig...
It's not any radical thing.
To say that there is a god who whimsically decides to save some but not others ALL on that god's whim AND that all the others are heading for destruction, punishment, torture... THAT is a radical thing.
Perhaps this is part of the problem. Perhaps you've been so indoctrinated and had this so ingrained in your thinking that you don't recognize how very ungracious and radical and antithetical it is to the notion of a Just and Loving God it is to believe that there is this tyrant god that whimsically saves some and whimsically punishes others. NOT based on anything they've done but based on the whimsy of this unjust, unloving tyrant god.
Are you not able to see how negatively radical that is?
Craig...
Are you suggesting that God is required to show "love" to the "vast majority of humanity"? Is the only possible way for God to show love by saving people? Why would you think this?
I have two children. If I randomly chose to punish one all their life, torture them and tell them there is no hope for them, and the second one, I randomly rewarded and loved their entire life...
Follow me here:
THAT. IS. NOT. LOVE.
That is sick. Psychotic. Dangerous. Deadly, Diabolical.
You recognize that this is true for a parent, right? That doing that would be a sign of a sick, sick mind?
Don't respond too quickly. Think about it. Look at that scenario. You HAVE to understand that this would be the sign of a sick mind, not a loving parent, right?
it is a good excuse to divert attention from the questions you've left unanswered, and an opportunity to take this post even further down your off topic rabbit hole.
I believe in a grace that is open to all, not just the random whimsical selection of a tyrant god who created imperfect people then (according to your theory) plans to punish some portion of them (the majority? the vast majority?) for being imperfect. My believing in an inclusive welcoming grace is "toxic," but your apparent belief in a whimsy prankster god is healthy?
Again, setting aside your devotion to your traditions, can you see how unhealthy that sounds to the rest of humanity who doesn't share your religious traditions?
Dan...
"On point after point, I can make a solid biblical case for why I believe what I believe"
Craig...
Yet, I've never actually seen you do so.
I've written dozens of posts on topics like the Bible, God and LGBTQ matters. On the Bible and poverty and wealth. On Sola Scriptura. Etc, etc.
And each time I list a volume of biblical texts (and note when there is a scarcity of biblical texts) and explain in great detail WHY my understanding of Biblical text makes sense to me. That's just reality. You recognize that reality, right?
For instance, here I am explaining my reasoning on my position on Sola Scriptura (in short, I don't believe it because it's not in the Bible... it's a self defeating argument and it's anti-biblical and anti-rational)...
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2015/10/i-can-do-no-other.html
And I will note that in that particular entry, I don't list specific texts. Instead, I note that there are no biblical texts that say "sola scriptura" or anything like it so I can't POINT to what isn't there.
Instead, I allude to biblical teachings like, God reveals God's self to us...
a. through Creation,
b. through God's Spirit,
c. through Jesus' direct teaching,
d. through "scripture" (almost always speaking specifically of OT teachings)
e. through "God's Word" or revelation (here, not speaking specifically of Bible books, but the over-arching notion of "every word out of God's mouth..." or the idea of God's Ways)
f. through God's Self revealed in our hearts, minds and/or being,
g. through our God-given reasoning...
etc. These are alluding to actual biblical texts which I give my audience the benefit of the doubt that they recognize. They're there in the Bible and not hard to find.
So my point is, while you can ultimately disagree with my understanding on this topic and the others, you simply can't say I haven't explained myself, biblically and rationally, because I literally have. That you don't find it convincing is different than "I've never actually seen you do so."
It's funny that Dan, despite his protests to the contrary, insist that Scripture or Jesus must say exactly a given principle in order for it to be true. Somehow, we can't know what "the Good News" is without Jesus specifically saying, "This is what I mean by 'the Good News'." It's absurd and not what one expects to hear from anyone who claims to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture.
At the same time, for all that Dan pretends we can't know because Scripture or Jesus fails to express something in just the exact terms/words Dan demands It/He must, we've provided a far better Scripture based argument for our positions. For example, we know from science that from the moment of conception, one is a person just as someone as low character as Dan is, and is thus endowed by its Creator with the same unalienable right to life Dan expects for himself. Does a Christian really need Scripture or Jesus to specifically oppose abortion? Certainly not with all the verses and commands speaking of the value of human life...that we're created in His image and likeness and because of that we're not to murder each other.
The above is just one example of how Dan feigns confusion about what Scripture does teach and/or explain in order to defend his unChristian beliefs.
As to Dan lying about being Christian, I'm really not concerned with what he says about himself in that regard, except that it can't be true given the things he defends...so much of which is in direct conflict with the teachings of the faith, and unequivocally so. Does God/Jesus/Scripture really need to state emphatically an opposition to SSM when the underlying behavior is so clearly and unambiguously prohibited in the strongest possible terms? It's absurd. No true Christian would play such semantic games with the Will of God. Dan does and thus to question his claims of being Christian rings loudly false. As you say, not all who say "Lord, Lord..." "Ye shall know them by their fruits," says Jesus. Dan's fruits are all rotten to the core.
Dan,
If you aren't going to answer the questions asked, then you have no reason to expect answers to your questions.
Henceforth, I will not consider you making a statement and then appending ",right?" to the end of it an actual question.
"I believe in a grace that is open to all, not just the random whimsical selection of a tyrant god who created imperfect people then (according to your theory) plans to punish some portion of them (the majority? the vast majority?) for being imperfect. My believing in an inclusive welcoming grace is "toxic," but your apparent belief in a whimsy prankster god is healthy?"
Good on ya, the fact that you "believe" something doesn't make it True, rational, or Biblical. Since I never called your hunch "toxic" nor mine "healthy", you question is based on multiple false premises and therefore invalid.
"Again, setting aside your devotion to your traditions, can you see how unhealthy that sounds to the rest of humanity who doesn't share your religious traditions?"
Again, if you are going to make shit up and mischaracterize what I've said, I see no reason to take your questions based on a false premise seriously.
I've read your bullshit, and I don't find it compelling or solidly Biblical. The fact the you can cherry pick some proof texts to satisfy yourself, means nothing.
"Are you NOT saying that it doesn't matter what we do?"
I'm saying that salvation is 100% a work of YHWH, and 0% a work of humans.
"We'll either be saved by God's grace or not and it's all a whim of God's own choosing. IS THAT YOUR POSITION?"
No.
"If so, how is that not the very definition of fatalist?"
Because YHWH is an intelligent, loving, being who is sovereign over the entirety of creation, just because we can't understand all of His ways and purposes doesn't mean that His ways and purposes are "random".
"In a passage largely directed at the legalism and hypocrisy of the Pharisees, Jesus said..."
It's always amusing when you put these artificial limits on Jesus words and try to force them into your philosophy/theology regardless of what any experts might think.
"So, yes, OF COURSE, for Grace to be just, loving and truly grace, it should be available to all."
So, if God chooses to limit those to whom He extends grace, then you would judge Him to be not "just," or "loving" or to be fully of "truly grace,". I'm curious as to why you think that God "should" be, do, or act in accordance with what you think is the correct manner.
"To say that there is a god who whimsically decides to save some but not others ALL on that god's whim AND that all the others are heading for destruction, punishment, torture... THAT is a radical thing."
If you can't find a quote (and post it in context with a link) where I've said that, then I'll expect a prompt retraction and apology for lying.
"Are you not able to see how negatively radical that is?"
Given the reality that your entire hunch about what I believe is characterized falsely, almost entirely made up, I see no reason to take your question seriously. Further, given that you haven't demonstrated that your characterization is objectively True, I see no reason to take it as anything more than a hunch.
I find it fascinating that in your treatise on how God speaks that you managed to completely remove the bulk of the NT from the category of "God's Word", and you somehow elevated what you've previously characterized as "myth, revenge fantasies, and ahistoric" as "scripture". Also I do so like how you elevate personal revelation to the same level as Jesus teachings, regardless of whether of not the personal revelation agrees with anything.
Art,
I agree that Dan's insistence on Jesus saying the exact combination of words in order for Him to have addressed something is a little arbitrary to say the least. Thank goodness that serious Bible scholars don't hold to this as a hermenutical principle.
I agree that Dan espouses and defends many things that seem to contradict Jesus/Biblical teachings. I'm open to the fact that Dan is sincere but mistaken, misguided, or overly influenced by things outside of scripture, as opposed to him lying.
Dan:
"Are you NOT saying that it doesn't matter what we do?"
Craig:
I'm saying that salvation is 100% a work of YHWH, and 0% a work of humans.
So, if it's
100% a work of God, then
it doesn't matter what we do, does it?
Our salvation and acceptance of Grace is entirely beyond our control and there is NOT ONE THING WE CAN DO ("0%"). Is that not what you're saying?
Dan:
"We'll either be saved by God's grace or not and it's all a whim of God's own choosing. IS THAT YOUR POSITION?"
Craig:
No.
Dan:
"If so, how is that not the very definition of fatalist?"
Craig...
Because YHWH is an intelligent, loving, being who is sovereign over the entirety of creation, just because we can't understand all of His ways and purposes doesn't mean that His ways and purposes are "random".
Again I ask: If you think it's 100% God and 0% us and God either will or won't save us and there is absolutely nothing we can do, we're either doomed or saved at God's choice, HOW is that not the definition of fatalist?
As to the "God saving us on a whim" part that I think you're objecting to, aren't you projecting a bit? Where is your proof that God doesn't just save people on a whim? You're saying that God is selecting who to save and who not to - and there are MANY (the majority of humanity?) that God is not going to save, according to you - what are God's reasons for picking who to destroy forever and who to save?
You don't know, do you? It's just a hope you have that it's not entirely whimsical, is that a fair assessment? You don't have any biblical support for the notion that God's not destroying billions on a whim, do you?
I'm guessing you're guessing this (that it's not a whim of God's) because you believe in God as a just, loving and perfect God and a just, loving and perfect God wouldn't make such choices on a whim. Is that it?
But if so, then that's my exact same rational argument for my position: That a just, loving and perfect, perfectly gracious God wouldn't choose to destroy billions for no solid reason, just "God's choice..."
Again, I point to my children analogy: IF a parent randomly (or for some unknown and unknowable reason) decided to punish one child their entire life and grace-fully and lovingly accept and support the other child their whole life, that is not a loving parent. That's a sick parent.
Do you agree?
Dan:
"To say that there is a god who whimsically decides to save some but not others ALL on that god's whim AND that all the others are heading for destruction, punishment, torture... THAT is a radical thing."
Craig:
If you can't find a quote (and post it in context with a link) where I've said that, then I'll expect a prompt retraction and apology for lying.
I'm asking you a series of questions trying to get you to be clear on your theories about your god and who that god chooses to punish forever and why. It's not an accusation, it's a series of questions.
So far, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND what you've said, I THINK you think that your
god chooses some people to destroy forever (again, perhaps billions of humanity over the ages) and some people to save and love.
I THINK you don't know the reason, that, from OUR perspective, it may certainly seem whimsical and baseless.
I THINK that, nonetheless, you're guessing that your god has a reason, that god is just not telling us. It's just, in your guess, this god of yours saying, in effect, "I'm going to love Jacob and some of you, while Esau and a great many others of you, I'm NOT going to love. I'm going to save some of you and a great many others of you, I'm going to punish forever. And I'm not going to tell you why I'm picking and choosing who I pick and choose. I'm "god" and I get to choose."
Am I understanding you roughly correctly?
I find it interesting that you seem to be objecting to me characterizing your god in your theory of god and grace as "whimsical," but you don't object to god - with no known reason - choosing to destroy forever a good portion of humanity.
Do you see how that could be hard to understand?
Craig...
I've read your bullshit, and I don't find it compelling or solidly Biblical. The fact the you can cherry pick some proof texts to satisfy yourself, means nothing.
I asked you specifically that EVEN IF you ultimately disagree (don't find my biblical arguments compelling), can you at least see I DO have rational and biblical reasons that I have for holding my views AND that you have no real reason to doubt that I'm being honest when I say I hold these views for these reasons.
WHY would I go to conservative church all those years and listen and learn from what they've said and WHY would I, for decades now, continue going to church and leading in church and continue studying the Bible and talking about what Jesus and the Bible say if I wasn't genuine in my faith? WHO spends half their life devoting thousands (tens of thousands?) of hours for no pay for just an elaborate ruse?
This is not a rational or believable suggestion if anyone's making it.
I'm trying to find these questions you think I've left unanswered. Here might be some...
3. If your earlier statements are True, then how can you separate the act of "selling everything/giving away" from salvation?
Because our actions are a reflection of our beliefs. If we SAY we accept God, or Jesus or God's teachings, but we don't act in a way that shows we "get it," then perhaps we haven't accepted that Grace.
But that doesn't change the fact that we are saved by God's Grace, NOT our actions. The actions are a reflection of our reality and whether or not we accept that Grace.
4. Later you suggest that it's all "grace" (given that I'm not sure what the term "grace" means in your philosophy/theology, this isn't particularly helpful) is all that is necessary.
Not really a question, but Grace, as I understand it:
Grace (in English): A gift, a kindness; courteous goodwill
Grace (Charis, in Greek as used in the NT): Charity, love in action
That is what I mean.
5. If "grace" is the only necessary component of salvation, are you suggesting that Jesus withheld "grace" from the RYR? If so, why would He? If not, then why did the RYR go away sad?
I'm saying quite clearly that the RYR decided he didn't want that grace, he literally walked away from that love in action that Jesus was offering. Jesus withheld nothing. The man opted out. He went away sad, I would guess (the text literally does not say) because he knew (as I think we all know at some level) that he needed salvation, that way of Grace. Perhaps he'd seen Jesus and his followers in action and recognized the great joy and love and life in that Way... but when Jesus put it in those terms, actually sacrificing "HIS" wealth, it sounds like he was torn but went with wealth.
Which is why I think Jesus and other biblical authors make it clear that wealth is a trap making it hard for the wealthy to be saved, as Jesus noted as he walked away.
6. Are you suggesting that this "grace" is available to everyone equally?
Yes.
7. Is there some sort of priority list for "grace"?
I don't know what that means. I think Jesus repeatedly made it clear that it begins with the poor and marginalized as a priority FOR GOD but not because God hated the rich. Just, as I've suggested, that when the least of these have their needs met, we can be more sure that the rest of us have the welcome, the acceptance, the basic needs of life more assuredly.
Craig...
1. The above clearly indicates that your hunch is that the only way for the RYR to be "saved" was to engage in specific behaviors. Yet the notion that we are saved by our actions contradicts so much of scripture.
And it's not what I'm suggesting. I'm pointing out the reality that it's what Jesus told the rich man to do. I think (the text doesn't say) it's because we are saved by accepting Jesus Grace, his Way of Grace, and this was a way to help the rich man make his choice. Jesus was very clearly freely including him. But did the rich man value his wealth more than this way of Grace? Apparently yes. And Jesus then noted, It's hard for the wealthy to be saved. His literal words.
2. Are you really suggesting that this specific command, to a specific person, in a specific situation is meant to applied in a woodenly literal way to every person who wants to follow Jesus and "inherit eternal life"?
Nope.
3. Are you saying that "eternal life" is actually something that we can "inherit" as long as we perform certain actions?
Nope. I AM saying, however, that like the rich man, we can choose to reject that eternal life, that Way of Grace.
4. Are you really suggesting that the RYR had literally never committed murder, adultery, stolen anything, ever given false testimony or defrauded anyone? That he'd always honored his father and mother?
I've answered this one. The text doesn't say.
You seem to be suggesting that Jesus is requiring a transfer of the proceeds from the sale of "all our possessions" to the "poor" and that our "treasure" will be with/in the poor", is that what your poorly worded question is trying to suggest?
Nope. At least not exactly. Also already answered.
I'm saying that our treasure is in the Beloved Community of God, the community/realm/way that accepts the Good News to the Poor and Marginalized that Jesus said he'd come to preach, and that beloved community IS the body of Christ...
as Jesus noted in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, where they sheep gave to the least of these, they gave to Jesus, to his Person, literally, in that story (or maybe figuratively, but still).
as Paul noted over and over that we are all one body, the body of Christ...
"So, if it's 100% a work of God, then it doesn't matter what we do, does it?"
"Our salvation and acceptance of Grace is entirely beyond our control and there is NOT ONE THING WE CAN DO ("0%"). Is that not what you're saying?"
I'm saying that salvation is 100% a work of YHWH, and 0% a work of humans. You can try to add whatever you want, I'll stay with simple, clear, and direct.
"Again I ask: If you think it's 100% God and 0% us and God either will or won't save us and there is absolutely nothing we can do, we're either doomed or saved at God's choice, HOW is that not the definition of fatalist?"
Just because you ask again, doesn't mean I didn't answer the first time.
"As to the "God saving us on a whim" part that I think you're objecting to, aren't you projecting a bit?"
No.
"Where is your proof that God doesn't just save people on a whim?"
If you won't prove your claims, why would you demand that I prove mine? You go first, prove that God gives grace to a "vast majority" of humanity and that the vast majority of humanity accepts it.
"You're saying that God is selecting who to save and who not to - and there are MANY (the majority of humanity?) that God is not going to save, according to you - what are God's reasons for picking who to destroy forever and who to save?"
I'm not God. His ways, reasons, plans and purposes are way above my pay grade. I wouldn't presume to speak for Him.
"You don't know, do you?"
I know that God is a loving, just, God who's sovereign over all of His creation and rules His Kingdom for His purposes. That's enough for me.
"It's just a hope you have that it's not entirely whimsical, is that a fair assessment?"
No.
"You don't have any biblical support for the notion that God's not destroying billions on a whim, do you?"
Yes.
"I'm guessing you're guessing this (that it's not a whim of God's) because you believe in God as a just, loving and perfect God and a just, loving and perfect God wouldn't make such choices on a whim. Is that it?"
No.
Generally, when you're "guessing" about something regarding other people there's a 90%+ chance that your guess is wrong, and that you'll misrepresent others.
"I'm asking you a series of questions trying to get you to be clear on your theories about your god and who that god chooses to punish forever and why. It's not an accusation, it's a series of questions."
Yet the statement in question is a statement, not a question.
"Am I understanding you roughly correctly?"
Generally, when you're "guessing" or think you know what someone is saying about something regarding other people there's a 90%+ chance that your guess or thinking is wrong, and that you'll misrepresent others.
"Do you agree?"
I agree that your analogy presumes facts that you haven't proven to be True, therefore it's a shitty analogy.
"Do you see how that could be hard to understand?"
Yes, I do see how someone like you would have trouble understanding. Yet, I simply don't care. I see no value in you understanding, nor do I see any value in your approving of me or anything I might say.
Where in that parable does it say that a goat can become a sheep by doing certain actions?
It doesn't. Nor does it say that the PEOPLE being represented by the sheep and the goats in the parable are not capable of making up their own minds about whether or not they help/side with the least of these.
How is it the the Jesus acknowledges that the goats were doing the same actions as the sheep, yet they had a completely different outcome?
? The goats in the story did NOT do the same actions.
Goats speaking:
"They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’"
The goats begged ignorance. "DID we see you poor and in need and not help? WHEN? I... I must have missed it!" But Jesus makes it clear that in their lives, they had not helped/sided with the least of these.
Sort of the point of the story.
Look, I get that you might want to say, "the point of the story is NOT whether we help the least of these, the point is that there are SOME of us who just ARE sheep and we can't help being sheep and there are some who are goats and they can't help being goats..." (IF that's what you're saying), but I think that would be a poor understanding of the text and not biblical nor historically accepted in Christianity.
I guess I appreciate the belated attempt to answer some cherry picked questions as if that somehow gets you off the hook for not answering earlier.
You're right. I misspoke about the actions of the goats. Although it doesn't affect my point which was that the sheep were sheep and the goats were goats before they were confronted with the "sick, prisoners, etc". The sheep reacted as they did because they were already sheep. The goats acted as they did because they were already goats.
The point remains, that the separation of sheep and goats had already taken place, and there is no mechanism for goats to become sheep.
Again the belated attempt to answer questions that you've been hiding from/ignoring for an extended period of time, is pretty pathetic.
And I'm out until next week.
Craig...
You go first, prove that God gives grace to a "vast majority" of humanity and that the vast majority of humanity accepts it.
I'll go you one better. God's love and grace are not for "the vast majority..." but for ALL. God gives grace to ALL, biblically speaking. God loves ALL, biblically speaking. God is not wanting ANY to perish, biblically speaking.
I already provided the obvious one
For God so loved
THE WORLD [not some secretly chosen portion of the world, but THE WORLD]
that God gave God's only begotten son that
WHOSOEVER BELIEVES [not some limited subset of the world, but WHOSOEVER BELIEVES]
in Jesus shall not perish
but have everlasting life.
How is that not extending grace to ALL?
Other obvious biblical passages include:
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life... ~John 3
For God has consigned all to disobedience, that God may have mercy on ALL. ~Romans 11
[God] who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all —
how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?
Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen?
It is God who justifies.
Who then is the one who condemns?
No one. ~Romans 8
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and
life for all people. ~Romans 5
For as in Adam, all die. Even so, in Christ, shall ALL BE MADE ALIVE. ~1 Cor 15
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to
reconcile to himself
all things,
whether things on earth or things in heaven... ~Colossians 1
God is patient with you,
not wanting anyone to perish, but
everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3
WHOEVER loves has been born of God and knows God. ~1 John 4
Just for starters. That's a whole lot of ALLs and WHOEVERs and ANYs.
So, yes, there is a verse that has God saying Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated, but moreso, over and over, we see that God's love is for ALL, not just some. That God is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL will be saved.
For, as noted in the book of Titus,
"For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.
I don't know whether or not "everyone will be saved," but clearly, God's grace is offered to all, and God's salvation is offered to all people.
It would be a cruel and capricious god, indeed, who offers that salvation and grace to ALL (as the Bible repeatedly says) but then jerks it back and says, "BUT, not YOU! Psych! What a loser, why would I offer grace and salvation to you?"
It's not a rational, moral or biblical place to stand.
Craig...
The point remains, that the separation of sheep and goats had already taken place, and there is no mechanism for goats to become sheep.
Actually, the point remains: The sheep WERE A METAPHOR and the goats WERE A METAPHOR and the metaphor was about our actions or lack thereof, not about, "once a goat, always a goat."
Why would Jesus, John, etc, etc, offer the out, "Therefore, repent..." if there was no hope of change? Why would they encourage anyone to repent IF God had already made the choices and there was 0% anything any humans could do??
Again, that would be cruel and unjust and immoral and irrational. Clearly more like the acts of cruel trickster gods in other stories, not a Just, Loving, God who loves all as described in the pages of the Bible.
If we accept that ALL means ALL. I see no reason to doubt it.
Craig...
Again the belated attempt to answer questions that you've been hiding from/ignoring for an extended period of time, is pretty pathetic.
? I've been part of this conversation for a little over a week and I've answered many questions along the way. Some of the ones I didn't answer I placed a lower priority on simply because the answer was an obvious, "Nope..." which should have been obvious. I don't have limitless time so, I'd hope for something more like a bit of grace from someone who perhaps believes in it...
But perhaps not. Since it's all dependent on whether your god "chooses" you or not... so, not so much grace as luck of the draw? It's hard to tell because you so rarely clearly answer questions and so often only respond with vague non-answers, answering some OTHER question but not the one I asked.
A few summary points:
According to Craig, there's nothing any of us should do to be saved. It's all dependent on whether or not his god chooses us.
Thus, it would seem that repenting or accepting God's grace doesn't matter, because it's 100% up to God and 0% up to humans. If so, what's the point of repenting? Of seeking God?
Craig doesn't consider himself a fatalist but he also doesn't believe there's one single thing any human can do to be saved or to prevent themselves from being tormented for an eternity.
Craig doesn't consider this whimsical or random for his god to choose some and not others, but he won't say why.
Craig SAYS he has bible verses to support this hunch of his about his god, but he won't provide them, or at least hasn't yet.
Craig doesn't approve when people ask questions and guess at what he's saying, but at the same time, won't respond with clear answers or support.
Craig doesn't think that the parent/children analogy I offered is apropos to his god in this scenario, but doesn't say why. In fact, he calls it a "shitty analogy," but doesn't make clear why.
End of summary. That last one reminded me of another point dodged by Craig...
My analogy:
IF there was a parent who had two children and
IF that parent loved one child and supported that child as a good parent should
BUT
IF that parent also hated and abused and told the second child that they would be separated from the family forever to be held in a prison and tormented
THEN
That parent is NOT a good loving parent.
To which, Craig responded...
I agree that your analogy presumes facts that you haven't proven to be True,
therefore it's a shitty analogy.
??
WHAT "facts" does that analogy presume? It's a rational hypothetical syllogism, seeking clarification. I didn't GIVE any facts. It's an analogy seeking a clarifying response.
There is NO factual "parent" or children in my analogy. I'm asking IF there were a parent like this... What "facts" could I possibly be presuming?
Craig...
Although it doesn't affect my point which was that the sheep were sheep and the goats were goats before they were confronted with the "sick, prisoners, etc". The sheep reacted as they did because they were already sheep. The goats acted as they did because they were already goats.
The book of Luke, the 3rd chapter...
[John the Baptist went out, saying] “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
...when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them:
“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
And do not think you can say to yourselves,
‘We have Abraham as our father.’
I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
The ax is already at the root of the trees, and
every tree that does not produce good fruit will be
cut down and thrown into the fire.
“What should we do then?” the crowd asked.
John answered,
“Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and
anyone who has food should do the same.”
Even tax collectors came to be baptized.
“Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
“Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
He replied,
“Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
Why tell them to repent? If they were goats, then it would do no more good to tell them to repent and produce fruit than it would do to tell actual goats, "Get in automobiles and take a drive to the ocean."
Why give them specific actions to take if it was all meaningless?
My answer is NOT, "because those works will save them," as I don't think that's in fitting with the whole of Jesus' teachings or the Bible.
My answer is, "We repent, we take specific actions, we side with the poor and marginalized because that's what Grace looks like. That's what Love looks like, according to Jesus and the other biblical authors.
"They will know you are my followers if you love one another."
We freely accept the Way of Grace that Jesus gladly offers to ALL and that looks like actually accepting that grace in concrete ways. But it is the GRACE offered and given by God/Jesus that saves, not the actions.
I'm stuck on the "no known reason" why God might punish anyone. This from a "serious and prayerful" student of Scripture.
I've read all of Dan's rationalizations for believing the goofy things he believes. The flexibility necessary to contort one's self to believe as he does is far beyond my ability. I can't imagine spending all the time of one's life Dan claims to have spent forcing nonsense into Scripture to rationalize one's beliefs. Seems like a lot of unnecessary work when the Truth is not so mysterious or difficult to divine. But then, that narrow path is another area Dan corrupts in order to continue believe what he finds more personally appealing.
"It doesn't. Nor does it say that the PEOPLE being represented by the sheep and the goats in the parable are not capable of making up their own minds about whether or not they help/side with the least of these."
The argument from silence, always a very powerful riposte.
"I'll go you one better. God's love and grace are not for "the vast majority..." but for ALL. God gives grace to ALL, biblically speaking. God loves ALL, biblically speaking. God is not wanting ANY to perish, biblically speaking."
1. It's interesting that as "proof" you're offering cherry picked, out of context scriptures.
2. It's interesting that you think that the scriptures that show limits, actually support your claim.
"Actually, the point remains: The sheep WERE A METAPHOR and the goats WERE A METAPHOR and the metaphor was about our actions or lack thereof, not about, "once a goat, always a goat.""
Thanks for the first point captain obvious, and the second point is one more unproven claim.
"Why would Jesus, John, etc, etc, offer the out, "Therefore, repent..." if there was no hope of change?"
Where have I said that there is "no hope for change"?
"Why would they encourage anyone to repent IF God had already made the choices and there was 0% anything any humans could do??"
Before I answer this, you appear to be suggesting that there is some human action that is required for someone to be saved, can you be more specific about what that action is and how vital that action is for salvation?
Your question assumes that Jesus only saved those that "repented" first. It also assumes that repentance is a one time thing, not an ongoing process. It further assumes that repentance is 100% the responsibility of the human, and is 100% necessary for salvation.
My answer would be that repentance is a lifelong process that begins at salvation, and continues, not a prerequisite for salvation.
"I've answered many questions along the way."
Many is not all. The fact that you placed a lower priority on then than I do is irrelevant, just one more excuse for not answering questions.
"But perhaps not. Since it's all dependent on whether your god "chooses" you or not... so, not so much grace as luck of the draw?"
Not luck of the draw at all. Unless you consider that a sovereign God who created everything engaging in His own plans and purposes to be "luck of the draw". I don't.
It's always interesting when you try to impose your limited understanding on an unlimited God. When you try to hold God to your hunches about fairness, caprice, and the like. Why would anyone accept that God is subject to your hunches about His sovereignty?
"If so, what's the point of repenting?"
If someone is repenting in order to earn salvation, then there's no point.
"Of seeking God?"
To the extent that people might seek God (YHWH) as opposed to gods, it's still in God's hands as to how He responds.
"WHAT "facts" does that analogy presume?"
It presumes that parents have an objective duty to treat their children a certain way. It presumes that the "children send away..." are 100% innocent of having done anything to warrant such a response. It presumes that YHWH and a human parent are 100% analogous. It presumes an objective standard of "love". Just to name a few. It also presumes that any standards and definitions you might come up with are somehow binding on YHWH.
"Why tell them to repent?"
If you're asking me why in this specific instance John said this specific thing, I couldn't say for sure. But I'm confident that he wasn't telling them how to earn their way to salvation by engaging in certain actions as a prerequisite.
"If they were goats, then it would do no more good to tell them to repent and produce fruit than it would do to tell actual goats, "Get in automobiles and take a drive to the ocean.""
That's correct. Yet your question presumes that there were no "sheep" in the crowd.
"Why give them specific actions to take if it was all meaningless?"
Where did I say that repentance is "meaningless"? What I've pointed out is that scripture is clear that we don't achieve salvation by our actions. Yet you keep insisting that certain actions are necessary prerequisites for salvation without explaining how that's not salvation by works.
Art,
The fact that Dan chooses to believe that all of humanity is good, and that no one deserves any sort of punishment is something he's never explained well enough that I can understand it. He has been pretty clear that he doesn't think that anyone can ever do anything to warrant any sort of eternal punishment of any sort.
Craig... (with A., B. and C. being something I've added for clarity's sake)
The fact that Dan chooses to believe that
[A.] all of humanity is good,
and
[B.]that no one deserves any sort of punishment
is something he's never explained well enough that I can understand it.
A. The "fact" that Dan believes that all humanity is good?
B. That "no one deserves any sort of punishment?
Those are "facts..."? Where did you get these "facts" from, since I have never said that and do not, in fact, believe these notions?
By all means, let's begin by you acknowledging that these are not facts at all, because those sorts of false claims are NOT GOOD. (See? I don't believe that you did a good thing there)
The facts are that what I believe about humanity is that we're all - every last one of us:
1. created in the image of God.
2. have the ability to choose to do good and bad.
3. are imperfect and not able to be perfect, so far as I can see recorded in history (with the exception, perhaps, of babies and those without the intellectual/emotional wherewithal to make informed decisions about right and wrong).
I further believe that
4. The (vast?) majority of us will never commit atrocities - we won't murder, rape, abuse, molest, attack innocents or otherwise intentionally take part in the deliberate, immediate, intentional oppression of others.
Which leads us to your third guess/hunch:
[C.] He has been pretty clear that he doesn't think that anyone can ever do anything to warrant any sort of eternal punishment of any sort.
I'm pretty clear that rationally speaking, it is an injustice to have a punishment that far exceeds the "weight" of the misdeed.
Nearly all rational people can agree that to chop off the hand of a 3 year old for taking a cookie that wasn't his is 1. Not only wrong, but 2. Would be a great horror and evil.
To punish your son by putting him in a prison and beating him daily for the rest of his life for being imperfect, loud and smelly would be unjust and a great evil.
You almost certainly do NOT disagree with these two examples.
A punishment MUST be in fitting with the misdeed for it to be good or just. Otherwise, if it's TOO over the top, the punishment becomes an evil, itself.
Again, you almost certainly don't disagree with this principle. It's a basic principle of justice.
So, to your third point, do I think that most people having committed typical misdeeds of an imperfect humanity - lies, gossip, slander (you know, like you all do all the time), etc... These are clearly not rationally properly punished by an eternity of torment. The punishment would not be fitting to the misdeed in the extreme.
And before you say, "well, but God thinks it so maybe you shouldn't tell God that God's wrong..." STOP. GOD did NOT say this. It is YOUR human tradition's way of explaining it, but it's not from God.
And before you say, "well, these are only your opinions, not something that you can prove objectively..." STOP. You can't prove your wild hunches objectively, either, so that's not in question. What's in question is it morally (and biblically, if you want) reasonable to think that the majority of humanity "deserves" to be tormented for an eternity?
It's not and you can't make a rational case for it.
You just can't. Odds are, you won't even try because it's silly on the face of it.
It's probably pointless to mention, but I can't help but notice that Dan's rebuttal is based on his misrepresentation of my position. It doesn't actually offer his view on the subject, nor any Biblical references to support his corrections. Nor any Biblical support for his hunch that I'm wrong. Just the same old stuff.
Craig...
"I can't help but notice that Dan's rebuttal is based on his misrepresentation of my position. "
??
????!
You said...
The fact that Dan chooses to believe that
[A.] all of humanity is good,
and
[B.]that no one deserves any sort of punishment
is something he's never explained well enough that I can understand it.
I took that to mean that YOU were claiming that it was a "fact" that "Dan believes" that "all of humanity is good." and that "no one deserves any sort of punishment."
WHAT SPECIFICALLY have I "misrepresented..."?
Can you see that I was just taking you at what you literally said? How, when you said you thought in your little head that it was a "fact" that I believed that "all of humanity is good," that this is what I assumed you meant? What DID you mean if not, well, what you exactly said?
What have I possibly misrepresented?
Craig...
I don't have to engage with it.
You made stupidly, clearly false claims. Now, you don't have to deal with those stupidly false claims. You don't have to admit that reality when confronted with it, but you should. A good and reasonable person would.
Craig...
It presumes that parents have an objective duty to treat their children a certain way.
1. I NEVER SAID anything about an objective duty. YOUR word, not mine.
2. What it presumes that it is REASONABLE to the point of smacking yourself in the face with a 2x4 if you don't agree position to take that parents should treat their children in a loving way and NOT in a monstrous way.
Do you disagree with this REASONABLE position, even if you can't prove it objectively (and you can't)?
Craig...
It presumes that the "children send away..." are 100% innocent of having done anything to warrant such a response.
It presumes that a parent had no reason to "hate and abuse and tell their second child that they would be separated from the family forever to be held in a prison and tormented." Yes, it does. Because, well, that's the reality for 99.9999999% of all children. Or maybe 100%, even.
Do you think we have some common problem with children in general that some good portion of them deserved to be hated, abused and locked away for their whole life?
Good God! What world do you live in? Tell me you don't think this is a serious common problem in ANY POSSIBLE SENSE.
It presumes that YHWH and a human parent are 100% analogous.
Nope, it doesn't. It DOES presume, whoever, that we can have a reasonable idea about what is and isn't moral, what is and isn't a moral atrocity.
Do you disagree? Do you think morality and justice are wholly a mystery to humanity and we have no way of reasonably understanding these principles?
It presumes an objective standard of "love".
Nope. It just doesn't. It presumes a REASONABLE standard of love. That love should NOT include "hate" and "abuse" and "locking them away for their whole lives." Now, you can't prove this nor can I, but it IS reasonable. Because of course it is.
Do you disagree?
Why do you make conversation so difficult? You have to dispute that it's reasonably "knowable" that we should not choose one child to abuse, molest, hate and imprison for life?!
Craig...
What I've pointed out is that scripture is clear that we don't achieve salvation by our actions. Yet you keep insisting that certain actions are necessary prerequisites for salvation without explaining how that's not salvation by works.
I, likewise, have been abundantly clear that we are saved by GRACE, not our works. I'm just noting that God doesn't force salvation on anyone and we are free to reject grace if we want.
THIS is why calls for repentance are there, it seems to me. Because these are our opportunities to embrace grace or reject grace. The rich man walked away sad because he chose to reject grace. Zaccheus changed because he repented and accepted that grace. BUT it is the GRACE that saves. Not our good deeds.
Are you saying that people can't choose to reject God's grace? Are you saying that there are some who would be glad to embrace and receive that Grace, that salvation, but God won't choose some of those?
You seem to be pretty clear that God is choosing some based on some unknown notion in God's head - not because of anything other than God's unknown-reasoning choice - but God does NOT want to choose others. Am I mistaken on this? Indeed, it sounds like you think that God deliberate creates some people specifically to send them to hell and they won't have a chance to embrace God's grace ever. Just God said, "you're born and now, I'm going to send you to hell to suffer an eternity..."
Am I understanding you correctly?
And I still refer you to my children/parent analogy. You say, with no support, that it's a bad analogy. I would just point out that it's an analogy that JESUS used.
"If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"
It sounds like you're saying that God WON'T give the good gift of grace to those who seek it, even though even an awful parent would know that's the right thing. Is that what you're saying?
WHY is the parent who chooses on their own to decide, "THIS child I will love and accept, but THAT child, I will hate, abuse and torment forever..." NOT an awful, diabolical, SICK parent?
It's a reasonable question.
This is Dan:
While I patiently wait for Craig to respond, some questions for him to clarify...
"that Dan's rebuttal is based on his misrepresentation of my position. It doesn't actually offer his view on the subject..."
1. What position are you referring to? Your position that I believe all people are good? That I believe no one deserves any punishment?
I've been quite clear that these literally, factually are not my positions.
2. On My view on those subjects, I've been quite clear.
A. People are, as created by God, imperfect and flawed to varying degrees.
B. That, biblically speaking, we are created a little lower than God and in God's image to do good works in God.
C. By and large, most people have not committed crimes where a just punishment is an eternity of torture.
What have I misrepresented? What have I not been clear about.
"Can you see that I was just taking you at what you literally said?"
If you say so.
"How, when you said you thought in your little head that it was a "fact" that I believed that "all of humanity is good," that this is what I assumed you meant?"
Since you've argued for years that all of humanity is born "Good/sinless/etc" and that the vast majority of humans have only committed a very few "minor/ordinary" sins and don't deserve much if any punishment, and that not even Hitler deserved "eternal punishment". So excuse me if I didn't express your previously expressed views with exacting precision
"What DID you mean if not, well, what you exactly said?"
What I said was a broad generalized summary of many of the things you've been quite serious about over the yeas.
"What have I possibly misrepresented?"
Too much for me to list here.
"1. I NEVER SAID anything about an objective duty. YOUR word, not mine."
No you didn't. Perhaps you missed what I actually said, and responded to something you imagined that I said.
"2. What it presumes that it is REASONABLE to the point of smacking yourself in the face with a 2x4 if you don't agree position to take that parents should treat their children in a loving way and NOT in a monstrous way."
"loving and NOT in a monstrous way", presumes an objective standard for both loving and monstrous. It further presumes that your definition or understanding of REASONABLE is the only possible correct understanding/definition of REASONABLE. It presumes a 100% perfect analog between the parent/child relationship and the Creator/creation relationship. I know the parent/child example is used in some specific instances, but it's not the only example used in scripture. Finally it presumes that the things that a child might be punished for are 100% analogous to the sins committed against YHWH.
"Do you disagree with this REASONABLE position, even if you can't prove it objectively (and you can't)?"
There are too many presumptions, unproven claims, and poor analogies used to even begin to agree or disagree with any "specifics". I tend to disagree with things so full of bad analogies, unproven claims, and presumptions, on general principle.
"Do you think we have some common problem with children in general that some good portion of them deserved to be hated, abused and locked away for their whole life?"
No.
"Good God! What world do you live in?"
The world created by YHWH, corrupted by sin, and in the process of being reconciled through the finished work of Jesus the Christ.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes. If for no other reason that because your idiotic habit of appending "Do you disagree/agree?" to random sentences annoys the hell out of me.
"Do you think morality and justice are wholly a mystery to humanity and we have no way of reasonably understanding these principles?"
No.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes. See above.
"Why do you make conversation so difficult?"
Just trying to untangle your web of unproven claims, poor analogies, and seemingly contradictory positions.
"You have to dispute that it's reasonably "knowable" that we should not choose one child to abuse, molest, hate and imprison for life?!"
I've never made a claim even remotely close to the above, therefore I don't have to do anything but ignore it.
"While I patiently wait for Craig to respond, some questions for him to clarify..."
Pardon me for putting my family and my work in a higher priority than responding to your comments. I could point out the vast number of threads where you've disappeared without answering questions, but it would be pointless.
"1. What position are you referring to? Your position that I believe all people are good? That I believe no one deserves any punishment?"
Just the specific instances I've already pointed out in this thread, as well as your general tendency to misrepresent my positions. Although I do suspect that you've taken my broad generalized summary of what you've espoused over the years in a woodenly literal way that gives you permission to get raise your hackles because I generalized instead of went into specifics.
"I've been quite clear that these literally, factually are not my positions."
If you say so.
"2. On My view on those subjects, I've been quite clear."
If you think repeating yourself helps.
"A. People are, as created by God, imperfect and flawed to varying degrees."
Please be specific as to what these "varying degrees" are?
"B. That, biblically speaking, we are created a little lower than God and in God's image to do good works in God."
Which should mean that our understanding of YHWH, His ways, His standards, His plans, His purposes, and His judgement, are less than that of YHWH. Which leaves quite a bit of room. Of course, the term "little lower" remains undefined by you. How much lower?
"C. By and large, most people have not committed crimes where a just punishment is an eternity of torture."
Can you list anyone who deserves an "eternity of torture"? That's quite an unproven claim, based on what exactly? What about an eternity of separation from YHWH? What about simply ceasing to exist? (Even though ceasing to exist isn't Biblical at all) Do the "good people" deserve an "eternity" within the presence of YHWH?
"What have I misrepresented? What have I not been clear about."
Asked and answered.
Craig...
Please be specific as to what these "varying degrees" are?
Sigh. Just what is observable. There are many people - probably the vast majority - who never kill, who never rape, who never abuse children, never molest women, never steal from the poor or really, never steal in any meaningful way.
Do you doubt that reality?
There are also some people who DO kill innocent people. Who drop bombs on cities killing hundreds/thousands/ tens of thousands of innocent people. Who rape and molest children. Who mock the disabled and boast and laugh about molesting women.
There ARE truly bad people.
Do you doubt that reality?
I'm noting the vast difference between those who opt to kill dozens/hundreds/thousands of people and those who never kill anyone. I'm noting the vast difference between those who rape women - who serially molest women and children - and those who never molest women or children.
You DO see the difference, right?
Is it the case that you think that a person who lives a basically decent life - adopting orphans, helping the poor, loving their neighbor, giving money to immigrants, Living in solidarity with the marginalized, loving their family and lending support to them - AND who also told 10,000 lies (about their weight, about taking a cookie, about spreading a rumor, etc) and who stole a total of $125 worth of stuff (a package of cookies when they were a teenager, a pen from the office, etc) and otherwise committed "typical" imperfections/sins... that they "deserve" to be tormented for an eternity? For even a life time?
I'm answering your questions. How about actually answering mine, directly, clearly, without the self-serving snark?
Craig...
Just the specific instances I've already pointed out in this thread, as well as your general tendency to misrepresent my positions.
You LITERALLY and clearly just misrepresented my positions and yet, you dodge and excuse, rather than simply apologize. What should we do with that?
I clearly NEVER said nor do I believe that all people are good. Why not just say, "You're right. I misspoke. I was wrong. It was a false and a stupidly false claim. I apologize."?
Dan continues to speak of "justice" according to his rules and criteria, insisting what offends him and how much it offends him must be the limits restricting God's response. I hope God is paying attention and taking notes so as not to run afoul of Dan's sensibilities.
Not every person responds to offenses in the exact same manner. This is even true when there's widespread agreement on what is offensive. I may find offensive a thoughtless disregard for my property. I may take greater offensive at its willful destruction. Others may be equally offended regardless of intention. I might take greater offense at the destruction of some of my property and less regarding others. After all that, some may question my taking offense at all. Dan doesn't care how others...including God... might be offended by a given transgression. Dan is the Supreme arbiter, dictating how anyone....including God...must respond to transgressions against them because determines what is or isn't just.
Craig...
Of course, the term "little lower" remains undefined by you. How much lower?
I do not know. No one does. Do you disagree?
God did not tell me nor you. A "little lower" doesn't sound like much, to me, but perhaps you take that to mean "We are created a HELLUVA lot lower than God, unable to understand God and unable to be decent people in any sense at all..." I don't read that into that poetic turn of a phrase.
You tell me what you take it to mean.
Craig...
Can you list anyone who deserves an "eternity of torture"?
I DO NOT KNOW. GOD HAS NOT TOLD ME. GOD HAS NOT TOLD YOU.
That's quite an unproven claim, based on what exactly?
Basic reason? Common sense? The Bible, which tells us that God is a just God?
What about an eternity of separation from YHWH?
What about it?
What about simply ceasing to exist? (Even though ceasing to exist isn't Biblical at all)
What about it?
Do the "good people" deserve an "eternity" within the presence of YHWH?
I think God is clear in the Bible that this is what GOD desires. "God is not willing that ANY should perish."
Do you disagree?
If there were a loving parent, would that parent not want their imperfect children in their presence? Isn't that precisely part of what being loving and forgiving and grace means?
If your answer is No, why would you think such a hellish thought? Your human traditions?
Again, I'm answering your questions directly and clearly. How about having the decency to do the same?
Craig...
Which should mean that our understanding of YHWH, His ways, His standards, His plans, His purposes, and His judgement, are less than that of YHWH. Which leaves quite a bit of room.
Yes, it does. A LITTLE lower. Literally speaking. How do you define "a little lower..."?
Craig...
"What have I misrepresented? What have I not been clear about."
Asked and answered.
That is to say, I caught you making a false claim, a stupidly false claim, and you didn't have the intellectual wherewithal to simply admit it: "I misspoke."
Be a good man. Admit your error.
"Sigh"
This is an indication that my questions isn't going to be answered with even a modicum of specificity.
"Do you doubt that reality?"
What reality? The "reality" that you think that "reality" revolves around your observations and your biased conclusions based on your observations, absolutely I doubt that "reality" is limited to what you can observe.
"There ARE truly bad people."
Thanks, captain obvious.
"Do you doubt that reality?"
No, some people are "worse" than others.
Of course none of this explains in detail how YHWH judges these "varying degrees", how YHWH judges the things that aren't observable, and how YHWH deals with these people.
"You DO see the difference, right?"
Yes. I just don't see how you can make these judgements regarding how YHWH judges people, by extrapolating from your personal, biased, flawed, human opinions.
"I'm answering your questions. How about actually answering mine, directly, clearly, without the self-serving snark?"
I've literally answered every one of your questions that I've seen, and me pointing out that I've already answered isn't snark, it's reality. When I answer your questions, and you don't respond to those answers, or don't ask specific follow up questions, I can't help you. I'm a finite man with even more limited time than usual, I'm not going to answer things twice.
"You LITERALLY and clearly just misrepresented my positions and yet, you dodge and excuse, rather than simply apologize. What should we do with that?"
Well, maybe we should wonder why I should be held to a different standard that you hold yourself to. Maybe we should wonder why you don't present your self as the better person and set the example for the rest of us to follow. Maybe we should acknowledge that my great "sin" was to generalize your position in a way that you can nitpick as being incorrect on some jot or tittle. If my generalization wasn't specific enough, I apologize.
"I clearly NEVER said nor do I believe that all people are good. Why not just say, "You're right. I misspoke. I was wrong. It was a false and a stupidly false claim. I apologize."?"
Maybe you missed my explanation. Or maybe you read my explanation and chose to ignore it.
"I do not know. No one does. Do you disagree?"
It's interesting to see you argue with such certainty about our alleged position relative to YHWH, from a position of ignorance. What's especially confusing is that if we accept the premise that YHWH is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and any other "omnis", then what exactly is "a little lower" than being omnipotent? Or how much (expressed as a %) is a "little lower" than omniscient? What does 10% "lower" than infinite look like?
FYI, doesn't scripture say that we're a "little lower" than the angels, not YHWH?
"You tell me what you take it to mean."
You used the phrase as part of an unproven claim. Why is the burden on me to prove your claim? You used the term, it's on you to define it.
"Basic reason? Common sense? The Bible, which tells us that God is a just God?"
That's not an answer. It's a random series of questions. Maybe you were unaware that it's a faux pas to answer a question with a question. Of course, anything to avoid proving your claims, is fair game.
"What about it?"
Is eternal separation from YHWH too harsh for you? Is it fair?
"What about it?"
Is simply ceasing to exist too harsh for you? Is it fair?
"I think God is clear in the Bible that this is what GOD desires. "God is not willing that ANY should perish.""
1. This doesn't answer the question as asked.
2. Are you suggesting that everyone ends up in the eternal presence of YHWH?
3. Are you suggesting that the "desires" of YHWH are somehow thwarted?
4. Are you suggesting that those who don't accede to the "desires" of YHWH are forced to spend eternity with Him anyway?
"Do you disagree?"
I agree that you've cherry picked one snippet of scripture out of context and used it as a prof text.
"If there were a loving parent, would that parent not want their imperfect children in their presence?"
As a reasonably loving parent, one of my primary goals was to raise my children to be independent adults and to be able to follow their own path in life. While I appreciate spending time with them, I think it's unhealthy for me to limit their lives to being in my presence. But then, I'm not the God who created the universes, and who sent His Son to separate me from my sin so that I could be in His presence.
"Isn't that precisely part of what being loving and forgiving and grace means?""
Given your lack of precision in defining your terms, explaining what this even means, and in the context of you not answering the question as asked, no. It might be a small part, but given your vagueness, I couldn't really say.
"If your answer is No, why would you think such a hellish thought? Your human traditions?"
No. More because of your lack of explanation, proof, definitions, and clarity.
"Again, I'm answering your questions directly and clearly. How about having the decency to do the same?"
I've already addressed this and see no reason to repeat myself.
It's kind of pitiful to think the not answering questions as asked and answering with a series of vague questions is "directly and clearly", but as long as your self esteem is intact...
"There are many people - probably the vast majority - who never kill, who never rape, who never abuse children, never molest women, never steal from the poor or really, never steal in any meaningful way."
Wow.
Dan supports the unjust killing of the unborn, each a creation of God made in His image and likeness. He rationalizes this by the absurd notion we can't know they are persons endowed by God with the same unalienable right to life he claims for himself. His complicity, then, makes him as guilty of murder as someone like John Wayne Gacy. In the same way, he is guilty of abuse, as well as in his defense of exposing children to all manner of sexual immorality.
He steals by his insistence that some must be taxed at higher rates under some perverse notion of "fairness", which puts the lower classes at economic risk by limiting the ability of the greatly productive to be greatly productive and thereby employing more people who need employment.
He supports policies, like Biden's open border, which puts many women and girls at risk of rape and death. He also defends the "right" of women and girls to dress in a manner which arouses the prurient interests in the worst of men and pretends he's helping them.
He sounds like a truly evil person. I'd say he is.
Art,
While I agree that Dan is superimposing his limited, human, flawed, sinful, opinions about what constitutes justice (which he filters through his political views as well), onto what scripture tells us about YHWH. He's ignoring what scripture tells us about the afterlife. Hell, I don't remember if he's every taken an unequivocal position on the existence of an afterlife. He seems very adamant that any sort of eternal negative consequences isn't "fair" but seems to think that if humans don't cross some arbitrary threshold of to many or too big sins, that they deserve to earn their way into something that involves being with god. I've never gotten him to take a firm position on if this "heaven" scenario (whatever that means to him) is eternal or not. But it seem reasonable to think that if we can earn eternal reward, that we could earn eternal punishment of some sort.
It's all shrouded in vagueness, and claims that we "just can't know" things.
But none of it is surprising.
Art,
Obviously Dan's positions have some unintended consequences he hasn't thought out.
For example he's been pretty clear that an unborn child in the womb very late in the pregnancy does not have a right to life (he's said "doesn't have all the rights of an adult [or something similar]" but he's never enumerated what rights a baby at 278* days of gestation has) so it's a presumption that a baby at 278 days of gestation does not have the right to life under Dan's construct. Yet he also claims that human babies are born sinless. Which raises the question, "If a human baby born after 280 days of gestation is sinless at birth, isn't it sinless at 278 days of gestation in the womb?".
I don't know if I'd say evil as much as I would say he's deeply confused.
I'm not afraid to suppose evil is present in anyone who does or supports evil, such as we see with a person like Dan. Evil can compel even the best of us. It's not so much an judgement thing as the term is abused these days, but a matter of knowing them by their fruits.
I've always been more on the side that thinks that any time a term is over used, it loses it's meaning and effectiveness. It's like when Dan uses any variation on the term racist, at this point it's clear that it's just one of his go to insults that has no actual relationship to the Truth about what someone has actually done or said.
Ah, but there's the difference. "Evil" is everywhere and spreads more easily when not exposed. Better it be nipped in the bud by exposure in its infancy than allowed to metastasize as it does so easily. I think a problem with the use of the word is related to the cultural notion that it must signify only the most egregious manifestation of it. But the reality is the most egregious manifestation is the subtle form which is tolerated. A "little white lie", for example, is still a lie. Stealing a candy bar is still stealing. Allowing either leads to worse forms of each and therein lies true evil. Relevant to this discussion is that Dan is WAY beyond the subtle and instead supports, defends, celebrates and enables blatantly sinful behaviors as good things.
Art,
I agree in principle, yet in practice still believe that calling everything evil dilutes the meaning of evil.
So long as what is called "evil" is actually evil, I see no problem. This is a case where there is so much of it, it needs to be called out and addressed. If one chooses to do so without using the word, yet still gets the point across, that's fine. But if one chooses to do so without using the word and the evil of the behavior is not firmly and blatantly attached to the evil, the potential for it becoming no worse than a choice or preference some or most might find personally distasteful results in another evil worming its way into acceptability.
As such, I'm not seeking to use the terms loosely, but as is appropriate and to make sure in such cases it's actually called out as such. Pussy-footing around not only doesn't help, it compounds the problem.
I certainly have not problem calling evil out as such when it's warranted. Unfortunately, I see much of these things as selfishness, ignorance, stupidity, vanity, hubris, and the like instead of evil.
I can't help but note that after I didn't answer Dan's comments/questions for a couple of days, he got worried enough to start with the passive aggressive snark. While Dan disappears for almost a week, and leaves multiple questions unresponded to. I guess it's more double standard.
"Unfortunately, I see much of these things as selfishness, ignorance, stupidity, vanity, hubris, and the like instead of evil. "
I would insist most of those are manifestations of evil, particularly selfishness, vanity and hubris. Again, evil works best when subtle as opposed to its more obvious forms from which even evil people flee.
Dan is who he is. That's the problem.
Just wondering...are you deleting comments? I keep seeing the comment total number changing on this thread. Curious.
I would disagree that those things are always manifestations of evil.
I prefer to think of it as cleaning the pond scum off of the thread, although I occasionally miss some of it and have to delete it after publishing. It's possible that Dan sneaks in to delete some of his comments, although I don't keep track.
"I would disagree that those things are always manifestations of evil."
When is selfishness not evil? When is vanity not evil?
I've been on vacation and am still catching up. But let me address this:
Marshal said...
"When is selfishness not evil? When is vanity not evil?"
Selfishness can be, of course, a spectrum. I suppose someone could be so selfish that they wanted to be entirely alone and so they set off a series of nuclear explosions and move to a fallout shelter. That would, truly, be an evil bit of selfishness.
But more typically, selfishness is an often temporary moment of self interest - taking the last cookie that you knew your wife wanted because you also wanted it; choosing to spend the little bit of your saved money on something you want rather than something your children or friend wanted; choosing to ignore the homeless, perhaps mentally ill homeless person approaching you for unknown requests, etc.
These truly are not ideal responses. But evil?
Evil is defined as:
"profoundly immoral and wicked."
Do you really think that taking the last cookie that you knew your wife wanted is PROFOUNDLY WICKED?
The problem with making relatively minor shortcomings "evil," is it diminishes what the word "evil" means. If the husband who took the last cookie and Hitler who killed millions of innocent are both "evil," well heck, what does evil even mean? At that point, nearly EVERYTHING becomes evil.
Same for vanity.
Part of the problem is that it is reasonable and moral to have SOME degree of self-interest and self-regard. It is not healthy to think of yourself as a wormy toad, wholly pathetic and despicable and everyone's needs should always come before yours. It's just not healthy in the real world. We should have some regard and respect for ourselves and we have to take our needs and concerns into consideration IN ORDER for us to be giving, unselfish, healthy people.
And thus, it becomes more of a spectrum between healthy, moral self-respect and self-care on the one side to more and more narcissistic, sick, dangerous neglect of others' concerns and needs on the other side.
Likewise on many of Marshal's words. Sometimes ignorance and stupidity just are what you know (and don't know) and there's nothing inherently evil in being ignorant or stupid. You can't know what you don't know. At some point and to varying degrees, we have a responsibility to learn empathy and educate ourselves (and having some self-respect and self care can help there), but we can't be experts or well-versed in every area. Ignorance and stupidity as "evil..."? Seems a bit harsh.
Now, ignorance and stupidity can and perhaps often do lead to some truly evil results. The ignorance and stupidity of racism and white privilege, for instance, making one blind to the dangers or reality of systemic racism, for instance.
But I don't think it's accurate to call these shortcomings "evil," for reasons already explained.
Well, now we know where Dan disappeared to. I guess it is possible to wonder about someone's absence from commenting in the middle of a thread with no explanation without resorting to snark.
But, hey at least the cookie theft analogy came back, that's always a good one. Every chance we have to minimize sin, we should take.
That was a bit snarky, but at least it's directed at the "substance" of your point.
Prediction. Dan is going to come back with a vengeance and deluge my moderation folder with an ungodly number of comments which will be very unlikely to address any of the questions left unanswered or add anything substantial to the thread. It'll likely be repeating himself, nitpicking, and marginal analogies.
I can't wait. I'm honor bound to post them, not to respond to everything that gets spewed.
This is such a weird response from you. Ignore the weighty commentary from me and instead fixate on imaginary unanswered questions. Ignore your outright false claims and try to focus on something - anything - else.
Why not just admit you misspoke and made stupidly false claims?
I suspect, given your comments, that you and I may even agree that it's pretty silly to call a lot of what happens in selfishness as "evil," but it's hard to say, because you don't address the depth and weight of the serious commentary and focus on nothing of import.
I've answered your questions. You just opt for more questions instead of just accepting my clear and unequivocal answers.
Craig...
1. This doesn't answer the question as asked.
I respectfully disagree. But if you can point to anything that isn't addressed, please do.
2. Are you suggesting that everyone ends up in the eternal presence of YHWH?
I've been abundantly clear that God doesn't force anyone to do anything against their will.
Do you disagree?
3. Are you suggesting that the "desires" of YHWH are somehow thwarted?
I've been abundantly clear that God doesn't force anyone to do anything against their will.
Do you disagree?
I think that God's will is that EVERYONE accept grace, but God is not going to force ANYONE to accept grace against their will.
Do you disagree?
4. Are you suggesting that those who don't accede to the "desires" of YHWH are forced to spend eternity with Him anyway?
? Not sure what you mean here. None of us perfectly accedes to the "desires" of God. But we're not saved by "acceding to God's desires." We're saved by God's grace.
Do you disagree?
And no, as I've been abundantly clear: GOD IS NOT FORCING ANYONE TO BE SAVED/accept Grace. God is not forcing anyone to be tormented/tortured for an eternity if they don't want to be saved.
Do you disagree?
See how easy it is to address answers clearly and directly? Want to give it a try yourself?
There's a difference between a single selfish act and selfishness, which is putting one's self above all else. There's no "spectrum" as self-interest is not selfishness.
Dan has the same problem understanding vanity, as if a vain person isn't vain most, if not all, of the time.
Ignorance can be willful, purposely avoiding learning truths or facts. Worse, it can be fraud, as if pretends not to have known what one knew all along.
Stupidity is a tougher one. A truly stupid person can't necessarily help being stupid. But constantly making stupid mistakes is typically a result of being less than concerned with doing things the right way. The evil is in how such an attitude results in consequences harmful to others.
Craig "spewed..."
Every chance we have to minimize sin, we should take.
I noted that there is a VAST difference between selfishly taking the last cookie for one's self on the one hand and killing millions of people on the other. That seems to me to quite accurately and reasonably maximize the seriousness of great evil and, at the same time, note that it's just factually not comparable to taking the last cookie.
Do you think accurately assessing and considering actual behaviors is "minimizing sin," somehow? Do you think that is not substantive (ie, your scare quoted "substance...")?
Enlighten me. How?
Hey, maybe you're right. Maybe selfishly taking the last cookie IS a great and horrible evil, unimaginably destructive and eviscerating and I just can't understand how. By all means, explain. IF you want to try to attack and try to mock, you should be prepared, as an adult, to support your attacks.
On the other hand, perhaps we agree and you were just being selfish and cranky and misspoke. You tell me.
"Why not just admit you misspoke and made stupidly false claims?"
When appropriate, I do. Of course you pretending that you don;t regularly leave unanswered questions in virtually every thread you comment in is an incredible example of denial.
"I've answered your questions. You just opt for more questions instead of just accepting my clear and unequivocal answers."
When you actually answer questions as asked, clearly and unequivocally, I either acknowledge that or move on. When you don't I ask follow up questions, or clarifying questions. Unfortunately, it's often necessary.
Craig...
1. This doesn't answer the question as asked.
I respectfully disagree. But if you can point to anything that isn't addressed, please do.
Then you are wrong.
"I've been abundantly clear that God doesn't force anyone to do anything against their will."
Thanks for finally giving a clear and concise answer.
"Do you disagree?"
No, I just wanted a clear and concise answer.
3. Are you suggesting that the "desires" of YHWH are somehow thwarted?
"I've been abundantly clear that God doesn't force anyone to do anything against their will."
This is not an answer to the question I asked. I asked if humans have the ability to thwart the desires of YHWH, not if He forces people to do what He wants.
"Do you disagree?"
Since you didn't answer the question, this is irrelevant.
"I think that God's will is that EVERYONE accept grace, but God is not going to force ANYONE to accept grace against their will."
Does this mean that humans have the power to thwart YHWh's will? Or that YHWH is powerless in asserting that His will is done?
"Do you disagree?"
Your statement isn't clear enough to agree or disagree with.
4. Are you suggesting that those who don't accede to the "desires" of YHWH are forced to spend eternity with Him anyway?
"? Not sure what you mean here. None of us perfectly accedes to the "desires" of God. But we're not saved by "acceding to God's desires." We're saved by God's grace."
Stop with the stupid ? at the beginning of sentences. Since your answer indicates that you didn't understand the question, I'll try again. If YHWH desires or wills that EVERYONE spends eternity in His presence, does that mean that EVERYONE will end up in His presence eternally regardless of what they do, say or how they act?
"Do you disagree?"
Again, nothing to agree or disagree with.
"And no, as I've been abundantly clear: GOD IS NOT FORCING ANYONE TO BE SAVED/accept Grace. God is not forcing anyone to be tormented/tortured for an eternity if they don't want to be saved."
Interesting. Are you really saying that God wants EVERYONE to spend eternity in His presence, but that we as humans have the ability to thwart His desire, and the our choice has absolutely zero eternal consequences? Are you saying that those who thwart YHWH's desires will spend eternity completely separated from his presence?
"Do you disagree?"
Again, nothing clear enough to agree/disagree with.
"See how easy it is to address answers clearly and directly? Want to give it a try yourself?"
Then why not do so more often? I make every attempt to answer virtually all of your questions in a way that the answer and the question are together. I've previously noted that after the second or third time answering the same question, I'll stop answering it if asked again. I've also noted that I don't answer questions that are rhetorical or appear to be. I've also noted that when a question requires additional information to be answered, that I'll ask the questions necessary to try to get that information. If you don't answer the follow up/clarifying questions, that's not my problem.
But keep living in your fantasy world.
Appending "Do you disagree?" to your statements is a lazy, pointless, ridiculous rhetorical device which makes it seems as though you believe your statements to be objectively True and beyond disagreement.
"I noted that there is a VAST difference between selfishly taking the last cookie for one's self on the one hand and killing millions of people on the other. That seems to me to quite accurately and reasonably maximize the seriousness of great evil and, at the same time, note that it's just factually not comparable to taking the last cookie."
You seem to be suggesting that your analogy represents YHWH's view of the seriousness of sin with 100% accuracy. The problem is that you are conflating theft with murder. In general all murder is a more severe sin than all theft. So the question is, "Does YHWH grade on a curve?". Does YHWH acknowledge that theft of a cookie is less sinful than the theft of $1000? Does the cookie theft become less sinful when a starving, poor, illegal immigrant, steals the cookie to feed his/her children? Obviously we as humans categorize crimes according to a number of factors. We in our human justice system codify these differences. But, does YHWH treat sin the same way humans treat crimes? When we sin are we not sinning against YHWH?
"Do you think accurately assessing and considering actual behaviors is "minimizing sin," somehow?"
Not necessarily. I think that treating sin the same way we treat crime minimizes sin. I think that using stealing cookies as your go to analogy minimizes sin. I think that assuming that you can accurately assess the severity of a sin in the same way the YHWH does is minimizing sin. I think that in so far as we have the ability to accurately asses actual behaviors, that we can and should do so. But thinking that our accurate assessment is on the same level as YHWH seems presumptuous.
"Do you think that is not substantive (ie, your scare quoted "substance...")?"
What are you referring to? My point is that you frequently focus on minutia and nitpick details' while ignoring more substantive issues. But to answer your question directly, I don't think that much of what you say is in response to the substantive issues being discussed, nor do I think that your opinions and hunches have much substance at all.
"Enlighten me. How?"
If you can't focus on the substance of the issue without digressing into minutia, I'm not sure I can help you. Nor is a bog post the place to do so.
"Hey, maybe you're right. Maybe selfishly taking the last cookie IS a great and horrible evil, unimaginably destructive and eviscerating and I just can't understand how. By all means, explain. IF you want to try to attack and try to mock, you should be prepared, as an adult, to support your attacks."
More accurately, my position could be expressed as "Maybe theft is evil, regardless of what is being stolen. Maybe it's the attitude and motivation that tells one that it's Ok to steal that is the problem instead of the specific action. But then you've always seemed to be on the side of those who say that we are sinners because we engage in particular actions, rather than our sinful nature motivates us to engage in sinful actions. I guess it depends on how you view the root of sin.
"On the other hand, perhaps we agree and you were just being selfish and cranky and misspoke. You tell me."
I think we do agree that Art is somewhat overstating his position. But I think that that agreement is fairly shallow.
"I think we do agree that Art is somewhat overstating his position."
Actually, our positions aren't so different. You speak of sin, I speak of evil. I say those words are synonymous. I don't see "evil" as being overused at all, but rather, that to say it is overused also minimizes what evil is. Again, a white lie is still a lie and lying is evil (I'm not speaking of things like lying to a criminal to protect the innocent). That is most certainly true without having to get into discussions of degrees.
Degrees is something upon which Dan so often hangs his pointy hat. How God responds to any behavior is a matter of human speculation where His words on such a thing aren't provided. I'm willing to buy into the prospect that a white lie won't result in great punishment, whereas a Democrat lie about life or sexual morality might. All in all, I think it's more a matter of simply being sinful, evil (or "wicked") without having accepted Christ as Lord because of His sacrifice on our behalf.
But worse, Dan once again fails to consider the difference between us and God and how God might feel about sin in terms of how it offends Him. Imagine someone using the term "fag". To the homosexual...or to Dan...there's no word more offensive (because of "a history of oppression" or some such crap). But despite knowing the unambiguous sinfulness of living a homosexual lifestyle, I would still not be so greatly offended to be called a "fag". It simply wouldn't bother me. One can speculate about why a homosexual...or Dan...would be greatly offended (because of "a history of oppression" or some such crap), but as a sticks-and-stones kinda guy, those things just don't bother me so much. How much God is offended by sin is something Dan doesn't seem all that concerned about and He insists God must be offended exactly as Dan is by things which do and don't offend Dan. I can't be offended by being called a "fag", because I see words as impotent without my granting them power to offend me. Why God would be offended by anything is not necessarily that to which we are perfectly privy. Our job is simply to obey and abide what we do know regarding human behaviors. Don't lie. Don't steal. Don't call people "fag". Basically, don't sin, don't reject Christ and don't suppose God must bend to our will. Doing otherwise is wicked, sinful, evil.
More often than not...if at all...to that which Dan would regard "a great evil", it's simply "evil" if it's truly evil at all.
Craig...
I think that treating sin the same way we treat crime minimizes sin.
I'm noting that there are some behaviors/patterns that we might call sinful that, in the real world, have more negligible impacts and are not as problematic and are, in the real world, indicative of our reality as imperfect human beings.
For instance, selfishly taking the last cookie (not even stealing it, just taking the last cookie in our own household!) when someone else might want it is a VERY minor character quirk... perhaps not even a flaw or a sin, but if it is, it's a minor sin, nothing serious.
At the same time, selfishly wanting to cling to power so much that you start a war to stay in power, killing thousands of people would be a GREAT and terrible sin, rising to the level of evil.
In discussions of morality and philosophy, I think it is rational and biblical and Godly, even, to note the distinctions between mere human foibles and great evil.
And now, I wonder if you can agree to something so very reasonable and commonsense, but you've criticized me for asking, "Do you agree?" (or sometimes, "do you disagree...?")
On that point...
Appending "Do you disagree?" to your statements is a lazy, pointless, ridiculous rhetorical device which makes it seems as though you believe your statements to be objectively True and beyond disagreement.
I ask because, YES, I think what I'm stating (just above in this comment, for instance) is reasonable in the extreme and believe you can probably agree, but because of your continued pushback to what seems reasonable to me, I don't know. And so I ask.
How will I know if you and I are in agreement if I don't ask and if you don't respond to my actual points, which is why I ask?
Craig...
You seem to be suggesting that your analogy represents YHWH's view of the seriousness of sin with 100% accuracy. The problem is that you are conflating theft with murder.
I'd raise a question mark, but you've complained about that, too. What I'm suggesting is that:
1. In a discussion about morality and relative morality,
2. It is reasonable in the extreme to note the distinction between "bad behaviors..."
3. That it is reasonable in the extreme to note that merely taking the last cookie (not stealing it, just taking your own dang cookie from your own dang cookie jar that perhaps your wife might have wanted) is not reasonably called an evil and
4. That calling taking your own last cookie an "evil selfishness" minimizes evil and muddies the water when we talk about actual serious evil.
I've not said anything in these comments about what God thinks about such behaviors.
Having noted that, this IS part of a larger conversation about God and "punishing sin" as the traditionalists in Christianity have long associated with God. The problem is that neither you nor I can prove that God views taking the last cookie as a great evil, worthy of eternal torture.
A. Do you agree that neither of us can prove this? (I ask because I don't know what you'll say. You appear to go back and forth on this point.)
B. Do YOU personally think in your head that God thinks that selfishly taking the last cookie is a "sin" serious enough to deserve to be punished with eternal torment?
C. Do you see how that it's a reasonable question to ask, that this would seem to portray that sort of god as an irrational cosmic bully, not a perfectly loving and just God?
D. Do you see how people like me ask that BECAUSE we value the biblical teaching about God and God's perfect love and justice, and not because we're discounting what the Bible says?
If you don't see that, why not? It's just the reality, you know?
Craig...
I think we do agree that Art is somewhat overstating his position. But I think that that agreement is fairly shallow.
"Somewhat..."? I'd say that to describe selfishness as evil would be a gross overstatement in 90% of instances, just to guess at a number. Thus, I would suggest that he is greatly overstating his position. In what sense do you think he's only "somewhat" overstating it? Is it the case that you think the vast majority of instances of selfishness are evil, but it's just not always the case?
Of course, recognizing that neither of us has any way (that I know of) to quantify how often selfishness rises to the level of "evil," if ever.
+++++
Revisiting an earlier question that you don't think I answered satisfactorily...
Craig asked...
Do the "good people" deserve an "eternity" within the presence of YHWH?
The other questions in this series were:
Can you list anyone who deserves an "eternity of torture"?
That's quite an unproven claim, based on what exactly?
What about an eternity of separation from YHWH?
What about simply ceasing to exist?
I responded...
I think God is clear in the Bible that this is what GOD desires. "God is not willing that ANY should perish."
My point in that answer and in my answers to this series of questions is that...
A. God is a perfect, perfectly loving, perfectly just God and this, I affirm and believe.
B. The Bible is abundantly clear on the points in A.
C. As a perfectly loving and just God, God is not willing that ANY should perish, any more than you would be willing for a loved one of yours to perish or be tortured for an eternity.
D. AND THUS, you asked me a question and referred to "the good people," whereas I'm speaking merely of The People - ALL of humanity - beloved of God whom God desires to see ALL saved.
D1. So, when you ask
Do the "good people" deserve an "eternity" within the presence of YHWH?
I'm stating that the Creator God of the Universe, the Almighty perfect, just and loving God who is not willing to see ANY perish, but ALL come to eternal life (ie, not be tortured for an eternity, DESERVE to be with God by virtue of this is God's will, what God wants.
D2. IF this is what God wants, who am I to say that there is some segment of people who don't deserve an eternity with God?
It's God's call to make, in other words, not mine.
I'm not God enough to speak against a perfectly loving, perfectly just God, that way.
If you truly loved your family and were not willing or wanting ANY of them to be tortured and someone asked me, "But Dan, are some of Craig's family not deserving to be loved and accepted that way by Craig...?" I'd respond the same way. Who am I to tell Craig he ought not love and seek the best for his family?
Does that help explain? I do apologize if it was not clear enough. I thought it was abundantly clear.
This is Dan.
Craig...
""Maybe theft is evil, regardless of what is being stolen. Maybe it's the attitude and motivation that tells one that it's Ok to steal that is the problem instead of the specific action. But then you've always seemed to be on the side of those who say that we are sinners because we engage in particular actions, rather than our sinful nature. I guess it depends on how you view the root of sin..."
1. We are literally sinners because we sin. Just objectively, factually so. If we didn't sin, we could not accurately be called sinners. A newborn baby is literally without sin and can't correctly be called a sinner. For instance.
2. Now, there is the question of WHY we sin. Some like to refer to the theory of having a "sin nature." That's a theory, but unproven. I don't necessarily object, but I prefer to call it simple human imperfection. More observable and demonstrable, less theory.
3. I was referring to the low grade selfish act of taking the last cookie, not any sort of theft. This was in the context of considering whether or not some flaws like selfishness are rightly called evil.
Just to clarify.
Craig...
So the question is, "Does YHWH grade on a curve?"
We don't know and neither of us speaks for God. For my part, I'm not saying that God "grades on a curve..." or what that even would mean in context of some sort of "eternal judgment.
What I'm stating quite clearly is that I believe God to be a just and loving God and God will not punish people in a way that is irrational, unjust or unloving.
I will further clarify that we (you, I, any of us) may not be able to PERFECTLY understand justice or God's sense of justice AND that we can reasonably understand it.
I'm stating that I don't think God's justice is a mystery wholly impossible for humanity to understand.
Do you think that is so?
Does YHWH acknowledge that theft of a cookie is less sinful than the theft of $1000?
Again, neither of us can speak for God. I certainly don't know if God would say that stealing a cookie is less sinful than $1000, but I suspect that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God would take into consideration circumstances.
Do you think you can speak for God to answer that question?
Does the cookie theft become less sinful when a starving, poor, illegal immigrant, steals the cookie to feed his/her children?
Again, neither of us can speak for God. I certainly don't know if God would say that stealing a cookie is less sinful than $1000, but I suspect that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God would take into consideration circumstances. So I SUSPECT that the answer is that, Duh! OF COURSE God would view the starving person stealing food to feed their family vastly different than a billionaire using tax and bankruptcy laws to legally avoid paying his debts. For example.
I suspect - given the WHOLE of biblical teaching and just basic human understanding about what is and isn't decent and just - that of course God would have compassion on the starving family and want to vomit upon the cheating billionaire.
Do you think differently?
Obviously we as humans categorize crimes according to a number of factors. We in our human justice system codify these differences. But, does YHWH treat sin the same way humans treat crimes?
I suspect that, IF poor pitiful humans can understand the difference between stealing bread to feed a starving child and a billionaire abusing laws to avoid paying debts to middle class employees... if WE can understand that - and we do - then a perfectly just and loving God understands it even more.
It sounds rather like you're arguing for a completely unknown sense of justice and love from a completely unknown and unknowable god who created us wholly unable to understand basic decency and justice.
I don't believe in that sort of godling. Do you?
When we sin are we not sinning against YHWH?
I don't know. I would not think always. There may be some philosophical sense to that, but I don't know that it's a given at all.
The child who knows nothing about God who takes a cookie that doesn't belong to him... that child almost certainly is not in any real sense sinning against this God that the child doesn't know.
Back to the husband taking the last cookie from his own cookie jar. In his mind, it was a mint cookie and he knew his wife doesn't like mint. But later he finds out that she was really craving that last cookie, even though it was mint! The husband didn't know this. Is there ANY sense where that was a sin of selfishness or a sin against his wife?
I don't think we can reasonably make that case.
Craig...
Obviously we as humans categorize crimes according to a number of factors.
We in our human justice system codify these differences.
But, does YHWH treat sin the same way humans treat crimes?
No. Absolutely not.
From the Gospel of John:
[The Pharisees brought the "sinning" woman before Jesus...]
“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
Jesus asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”
Jesus declared.
“Go now and leave your life of sin.”
In this example, we can see that Jesus literally did NOT treat her behavior in the same criminal sense that those death-dealing legalists did. What did Jesus say to her?
Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.
Neither do I condemn you, he said, saving her life instead of following the "law" and condemning and killing her for her "crime."
Literally NOT what the legalists were doing.
Why is that not a valid model for us to consider how God treats sin?
Was that Just for Jesus to do? I think so. Do you?
Even though it violated their "laws," that they thought they got from God, I think Jesus was loving and just in doing that. Indeed, I think Jesus was also loving and just for shaming the accusers instead of the accused, the "criminal..." Because context matters to God, I think.
"I'm noting that there are some behaviors/patterns that we might call sinful that, in the real world, have more negligible impacts and are not as problematic and are, in the real world, indicative of our reality as imperfect human beings."
I don't care what you're noting, it has no relationship to my point that trying to categorize sin based on some magical human grading on a curve nonsense, minimizes the seriousness of sin.
"For instance, selfishly taking the last cookie (not even stealing it, just taking the last cookie in our own household!) when someone else might want it is a VERY minor character quirk... perhaps not even a flaw or a sin, but if it is, it's a minor sin, nothing serious."
Taking what one owns is not theft or sin, hence a stupid example. As you have never demonstrated that the category of "minor sin" is actually a thing outside of the fantasy world you inhabit, I see no reason to accept your unsupported, unproven premise.
"At the same time, selfishly wanting to cling to power so much that you start a war to stay in power, killing thousands of people would be a GREAT and terrible sin, rising to the level of evil."
Again, given that you have provide no grounding other then your imagination for your categories of sin, and no explanation of those categories, I'll simply dismiss this as more of your imagination. Unproven, unsupported, unworthy of discussion. It's interesting that killing millions is onny a "GREAT and terrible sin" if it's done for very specific reasons.
"In discussions of morality and philosophy, I think it is rational and biblical and Godly, even, to note the distinctions between mere human foibles and great evil."
So. This might be an issue if anyone was suggesting that all human foibles were sinful.
"And now, I wonder if you can agree to something so very reasonable and commonsense, but you've criticized me for asking, "Do you agree?" (or sometimes, "do you disagree...?")"
Yes, I have. Because it's merely a lazy rhetorical gambit, and when I've responded, my response has virtually been dealt with.
"I ask because, YES, I think what I'm stating (just above in this comment, for instance) is reasonable in the extreme and believe you can probably agree, but because of your continued pushback to what seems reasonable to me, I don't know. And so I ask."
I don't care how you try to justify your lazy rhetorical gambit, I've written a great lengths in the past, and rarely gotten an acknowledgement, let alone as response. The problems you have is that assuming that "reasonable to" you, actually means something outside of the world you've constructed in your mind. Your assumption that "reasonable to" you, is anything but an unsupported, subjective hunch, is where the problem lies.
"How will I know if you and I are in agreement if I don't ask and if you don't respond to my actual points, which is why I ask?"
Maybe if you read what I do say, instead of playing lazy rhetorical games. Or just assume that I will not agree with something simply because it sounds "reasonable to" you, with no actual proof that your hunch is True.
"I'd raise a question mark, but you've complained about that, too. What I'm suggesting is that:"
Because it's stupid and pointless.
"1. In a discussion about morality and relative morality,
2. It is reasonable in the extreme to note the distinction between "bad behaviors..."
3. That it is reasonable in the extreme to note that merely taking the last cookie (not stealing it, just taking your own dang cookie from your own dang cookie jar that perhaps your wife might have wanted) is not reasonably called an evil and
4. That calling taking your own last cookie an "evil selfishness" minimizes evil and muddies the water when we talk about actual serious evil."
No one is arguing that taking something that belongs to you is a sin, a crime, or anything else. It's a stupid example and we've wasted too much time on it already.
"I've not said anything in these comments about what God thinks about such behaviors."
OK.
"Having noted that, this IS part of a larger conversation about God and "punishing sin" as the traditionalists in Christianity have long associated with God. The problem is that neither you nor I can prove that God views taking the last cookie as a great evil, worthy of eternal torture."
The problem is that you can't prove anything you say. Of course no one has said that taking one's own cookie is problematic in any way shape or form.
"A. Do you agree that neither of us can prove this? (I ask because I don't know what you'll say. You appear to go back and forth on this point.)"
I agree that it's virtually impossible to prove anything to your satisfaction. I agree that taking one's own cookie, is not problematic in the least. I agree that this is a stupid example and that I'm wasting my time trying to explain that taking one's own property is not wrong in any possible way. If it's a problem then make more damn cookies.
"B. Do YOU personally think in your head that God thinks that selfishly taking the last cookie is a "sin" serious enough to deserve to be punished with eternal torment?"
Asked and answered at least 3 times.
"C. Do you see how that it's a reasonable question to ask, that this would seem to portray that sort of god as an irrational cosmic bully, not a perfectly loving and just God?"
No, because no one is suggesting that taking one's own cookie is a sin. Nor is anyone suggesting that a human has ever existed who has only committed one sin.
"D. Do you see how people like me ask that BECAUSE we value the biblical teaching about God and God's perfect love and justice, and not because we're discounting what the Bible says?"
Yet, you ignore, explain away, and otherwise minimize so much Biblical teaching, or fail to offer an alternate explanation that actually fits the text. It's idiotic to pretend that the entirety of scripture doesn't repeatedly teach that there is some form of afterlife and that some in that afterlife will be punished (separated, etc) because of their sin. Yet you seem to equivocate and waffle on the subject, pleading ignorance on the other.
Once again, Dan wants to define reality.
" I'd say that to describe selfishness as evil would be a gross overstatement in 90% of instances, just to guess at a number. Thus, I would suggest that he is greatly overstating his position. In what sense do you think he's only "somewhat" overstating it? Is it the case that you think the vast majority of instances of selfishness are evil, but it's just not always the case?
Of course, recognizing that neither of us has any way (that I know of) to quantify how often selfishness rises to the level of "evil," if ever."
If you have no way to quantify something, why would you quantify the thing you say can't be quantified?
I would argue that selfishness is the root of many, of not all sin.
"Of course, recognizing that neither of us has any way (that I know of) to quantify how often selfishness rises to the level of "evil," if ever."
What's the difference between "selfishness" and "greed"? They're almost synonymous. In any case, Dan measures by degrees. One can be a little selfish, a little greedy (or maybe not) and in Dan's mind, such a person shouldn't suffer forever (as if a single act is what leads to eternal suffering). But I'm talking about selfishness, not a single selfish act. I'm talking about greed, not a single greedy act. We all have moments of weakness when we succumb to selfish or greedy desires. But a single act doesn't define us. We're imperfect and that is why we need Christ. Yet without Christ, no single act with save or condemn us as acts aren't what's important. We can't indulge our sinfulness and pretend we've accepted Christ at the same time.
As to Dan's bad analogy, the selfishness of taking that last cookie, regardless of who owns it, is in the total disregard for whether or not someone else had designs on that cookie, or not caring that anyone might have, and simply taking the cookie regardless because one's own desire is all that matters. THAT is how selfishness works. It's sinful every time.
"D2. IF this is what God wants, who am I to say that there is some segment of people who don't deserve an eternity with God?
It's God's call to make, in other words, not mine.
I'm not God enough to speak against a perfectly loving, perfectly just God, that way."
Ahhhh the "I don't know" dodge. Strangely enough, you are willing to speak for Gog on other matters ("God blesses gay marriages"), yet on this matter you are clueless. It's almost like YHWH, Jesus, and the Biblical authors said nothing else except "God wants everyone to be saved", therefore we'll just have to accept Dan's woodenly literal interpretation of one passage as the only word on the subject.
"If you truly loved your family and were not willing or wanting ANY of them to be tortured and someone asked me, "But Dan, are some of Craig's family not deserving to be loved and accepted that way by Craig...?" I'd respond the same way. Who am I to tell Craig he ought not love and seek the best for his family?"
The problem is that I am willing to allow people to make their own decisions and to experience the results of those decisions. My acknowledgement of the reality that I don't control other people, is no indication that I don't love and care for them.
"Does that help explain? I do apologize if it was not clear enough. I thought it was abundantly clear."
You'll note the specific questions above, those represent things that you are unclear about, or need to provide further details about.
"We don't know and neither of us speaks for God. For my part, I'm not saying that God "grades on a curve..." or what that even would mean in context of some sort of "eternal judgment."
You appear to be saying that we have absolutely zero possible way to form an opinion of how YHWH judges sin, and that we are simply wallowing in ignorance in the hopes that we'll be OK when we sit before His judgement. Is that correct?
"What I'm stating quite clearly is that I believe God to be a just and loving God and God will not punish people in a way that is irrational, unjust or unloving."
So you appear to be saying that YHWH does punish some people, just not in a way that you find "irrational, unjust, or unloving", am I understand you correctly?
If I am, then wouldn't this contradict your earlier assertion that "I'm stating that the Creator God of the Universe, the Almighty perfect, just and loving God who is not willing to see ANY perish, but ALL come to eternal life (ie, not be tortured for an eternity, DESERVE to be with God by virtue of this is God's will, what God wants."?
"I will further clarify that we (you, I, any of us) may not be able to PERFECTLY understand justice or God's sense of justice AND that we can reasonably understand it. I'm stating that I don't think God's justice is a mystery wholly impossible for humanity to understand."
Then answer the question, "Does YHWH grade on a curve?". If you now think that you can reasonably understand how YHWH judges, then apply that understanding to the question, instead of asserting that you don't know.
"Do you think that is so?"
No.
"Does YHWH acknowledge that theft of a cookie is less sinful than the theft of $1000?
Again, neither of us can speak for God. I certainly don't know if God would say that stealing a cookie is less sinful than $1000, but I suspect that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God would take into consideration circumstances."
Interesting, you've reverted back from "reasonable understanding" to "I have no idea". Given your assertion that there are "minor sins" and "major sins" wouldn't you be able to categorize the two options above?
Where, BTW, does YHWH specifically delineate these "minor sins"? Where does YHWH give us these different categories of sins? Or are you speaking for GOD when you insist that "minor sins" are something that He ignores or excuses?
"Do you think you can speak for God to answer that question?"
No. But it's the wrong question.
"Does the cookie theft become less sinful when a starving, poor, illegal immigrant, steals the cookie to feed his/her children?"
I'd argue that it's just as sinful, even though there are mitigating circumstances. Does any theft become less sinful when the thief has an excuse? Please explain where the line is? Please explain where YHWH has given you this secret knowledge?
"Again, neither of us can speak for God. I certainly don't know if God would say that stealing a cookie is less sinful than $1000, but I suspect that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God would take into consideration circumstances. So I SUSPECT that the answer is that, Duh! OF COURSE God would view the starving person stealing food to feed their family vastly different than a billionaire using tax and bankruptcy laws to legally avoid paying his debts. For example."
Interesting that you think that someone availing themselves of protection allowed by US legal code, by engaging in a perfectly legal activity under the supervision and control of the court system is engaging in sin. Where did YHWH say that declaring bankruptcy is a sin, or that it's only a sin for certain people?
"I suspect - given the WHOLE of biblical teaching and just basic human understanding about what is and isn't decent and just - that of course God would have compassion on the starving family and want to vomit upon the cheating billionaire."
I don't care what you suspect.
"Do you think differently?"
Yes.
"I suspect that, IF poor pitiful humans can understand the difference between stealing bread to feed a starving child and a billionaire abusing laws to avoid paying debts to middle class employees... if WE can understand that - and we do - then a perfectly just and loving God understands it even more."
Excellent non answer. Please point out where YHWH has told us this? Or are you trying to speak for God, without having the courage not to equivocate?
"It sounds rather like you're arguing for a completely unknown sense of justice and love from a completely unknown and unknowable god who created us wholly unable to understand basic decency and justice."
OK, then you must be 100% correct in your hunch.
"I don't believe in that sort of godling. Do you?"
Given that "godling" isn't a word and has no actual meaning, the answer would be no.
"The child who knows nothing about God who takes a cookie that doesn't belong to him... that child almost certainly is not in any real sense sinning against this God that the child doesn't know."
It seems as if you are saying that ignorance of YHWH is an excuse for sin, is that what you are saying? Or are you back to children below some magical age are perfectly sinless and incapable of sin again? (The previous question was phrased in a sarcastic way)
"Back to the husband taking the last cookie from his own cookie jar. In his mind, it was a mint cookie and he knew his wife doesn't like mint. But later he finds out that she was really craving that last cookie, even though it was mint! The husband didn't know this. Is there ANY sense where that was a sin of selfishness or a sin against his wife?"
Again with the idiotic cookie crap. If he owned the cookie, then it's not a sin. It's his cookie to do with as he will. He can always buy more cookies.
I love how your examples evolve over time and how you add elements to try to shore up a stupid analogy.
"I don't think we can reasonably make that case.'
You are right. Eating a cookie that belongs to the person who ate is it not problematic in any way. That's why the example is stupid and trivializes sin.
I've wasted too much time with this idiocy. I'll simply point out that Dan is now hanging his entire theology (or seemingly so) of how sin is judged on a passage of scripture that is lacking in the provenience of the rest of the book.
Therefor it would be idiotic of me to waste time arguing with Dan's hunches about a passage of scripture that might not actually reflect reality.
Art,
I agree with you about this notion of degrees, or the foolishness that anyone has only committed one sin throughout their entire life. As Jesus taught us, some of the vitriol that gets spewed is tantamount to murder, and given the notion that this "minor sin" classification is foreign to scripture, the whole construct is incoherent. It seems to be saying that if someone can live their life while only committing a small number of "minor sins" that they'll be OK. Which seems to be a recipe for spending one's life in constant fear of committing a "major sin" or too many "minor sins".
Again, my problem with the cookie analogy, is that it's literally not selfish for someone to eat a cookie that is their private property. It's further idiotic to judge the actions of one person (the eater) based on the unknown, potential, future actions of another person. Yet even further, cookies are literally not a finite commodity. Under Dan's construct, the initial eating of the cookie might be sinful IF a second party might have wanted to cookie, but wouldn't the introduction of more cookies to the equation eliminate the initial sin? What if the eater actually ate the last cookie SO THAT, they could open a new package and supply others with cookies.
The whole thing is stupid and absurd. It trivializes sin down to the level of eating cookies. It makes stealing cookies perfectly OK under certain circumstances, and a grievous sin under others. It's trying to make using one's private property as it was intended to be used sinful, and to make an actions sinful based on later acts or thoughts of others.
It's one more instance of Dan construction an analogy intended to support his hunches, then having to modify it as the flaws are pointed out.
I'm fully on board that selfishness (or self centeredness) is the underlying root of all sin. It's placing our own desires ahead of what YHWH has ordained. The problem is that we are free to follow our self centered/selfish desires anywhere they might lead us, but that course has consequences that are potentially harsh.
This is Dan.
Perhaps you're having a hard time following.
1. MARSHAL made the claim that selfishness is an EVIL.
2. I gave a simple example (not an anology) of selfishness - a husband taking the last cookie that he knew his wife wanted.
3. This IS clearly an instance of selfishness.
4. I gave that EXAMPLE to demonstrate that while such selfishness is wrong, not ideal, maybe even a sin, if you want to look at it that way... that it would be irrational to call that selfishness evil.
Follow?
I suspect that you and I agree that this example of selfishness doesn't rise to the level of "evil" and indeed, it would be ridiculous to call it evil.
Craig...
"literally not selfish for someone to eat a cookie that is their private property."
But my example, a man taking the last cookie THAT HE KNEW HIS WIFE WANTED is literally a real example of selfishness.
You're just mistaken. Perhaps you simply lost track of what I actually said.
"Eating a cookie that belongs to the person who ate is it not problematic in any way. That's why the example is stupid and trivializes sin."
But selfishly taking the last cookie YOU KNEW someone wanted IS an example of an actual trivial sin. Ignoring the difference between trivial sins and actual evil, THAT is what trivializes sin.
Craig..
"It seems as if you are saying that ignorance of YHWH is an excuse for sin, is that what you are saying?"
1. I thought you were opposed to asking clarifying questions.
2. No. It's literally not what I'm saying. I'm saying that an action that one does not know is wrong that offends a God one does not know exists is literally not a sin against God. How can it be?
In hindsight, one might realize it's wrong and offended this God, but at the moment, it just can't be.
If I'm standing at an elevator door and press the button to get on, but the button was rigged to make the elevator explode and kill the passenger, the one who pushed the button in NO WAY sinned against the dead person.
Craig...
"it has no relationship to my point that trying to categorize sin based on some magical human grading on a curve nonsense, minimizes the seriousness of sin."
So, for the record, YOU think in your head that noting the vast chasm of difference between minor misdeeds - like selfishly taking the last cookie when you know someone else wanted it - and actual evil actions like rape or murder somehow minimizes sin.
I think just the opposite... that failing to distinguish between minor misdeeds and great evil minimizes sin AND that it wrongly greatly maximizes relatively minor misdeeds.
Fair enough.
But how? How does noting the great difference somehow minimize sin?
Craig...
"Interesting that you think that someone availing themselves of protection allowed by US legal code, by engaging in a perfectly legal activity under the supervision and control of the court system is engaging in sin. Where did YHWH say that declaring bankruptcy is a sin, or that it's only a sin for certain people?"
Um, throughout the whole Bible? Over and over, biblical authors make clear that the injustice of the wealthy and powerful is especially a stench in the nostrils of God. For the one who has been given much, much will be expected. For the wealthy who only gave a little out of their excess gave nothing in comparison to the poor widow's mite.
Using wealth and position and power to create laws that allow the wealthy to abuse the laws and actual justice to avoid paying money they owe was a great crime to biblical authors.
An action being legal does not make it moral.
And I'm sorry, but I have to ask: you honestly DON'T find it a great evil and moral injustice for a billionaire to use laws to avoid paying his employees?? If so, that makes me question your moral reasoning.
James 5...
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the ymiseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten.
Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure bin the last days.
Behold, cthe wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and dthe cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of ethe Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and gin self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in ha day of slaughter. You have condemned and imurdered jthe righteous person.
Craig...
"Then are you suggesting that God is unable to actually bring His "desire" into existence?"
This is not some bizarre, unheard-of position I'm taking, even within mainstream traditional circles . Are you actually not understanding this?
I don't believe God will do anything not in God's nature.
God won't command you to rape children.
God will not force people to fly off cliffs.
And Go will not force people to accept Grace against their will.
It's God's will that all be saved but God doesn't force it.
This is not an uncommon view within traditional Christian circles.
And also, within those who use their God-given reasoning.
Do you think God forces some people to be saved, accept grace against their will?
I know conservatives often love to hate the passage about the "adulterous woman" and Jesus telling her, "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU..." Y'all just hate it and say it's dubious, EVEN THOUGH it's a perfect example of actual Grace of the sort that Jesus taught, grace beginning with and especially for "the sick," the poor and marginalized sinners so often neglected and abused by the Pharisees in their day and the Church, in our day and throughout history.
But it's not like that's the only story of grace and no condemnation for the worst of sinners. Look at murderous, adulterous David, for instance: A man after God's own heart.
Or, look at the men who KILLED JESUS, mocked him, hung him on a cross and killed him. What did Jesus have to say about THEM?
"“And Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ And they cast lots to divide his garments.”
Dang, that grace. "For they know not what they do." Apparently Jesus thought understanding the wrong being done was pretty important.
And what of James' words, after he berated the proud and oppressive wealthy, warning them of the horrors waiting them, James reminded...
"“But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.'”
Or how about all these passages of being gracious and loving towards the poor...
“Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the LORD delivers him; the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies.” Psalm 41:1-2
“Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed.” Proverbs 19:17
“Whoever gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.” Proverbs 28:7
“For the needy shall not always be forgotten, and the hope of the poor shall not perish forever.” Psalm 9:18
“Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:19
“The rich and the poor meet together; the LORD is the Maker of them all.” Proverbs 22:2
“All my bones shall say, ‘O LORD, who is like you, delivering the poor from him who is too strong for him, the poor and needy from him who robs him?'” Psalm 35:10
“‘Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise,’ says the LORD; ‘I will place him in the safety for which he longs.'” Psalm 12:5
“Who is like the LORD our God, who is seated on high, who looks far down on the heavens and the earth? He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes, with the princes of his people.” Psalm 113:5-8
“A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge.” Proverbs 29:7
“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.” Proverbs 22:16
“Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate, for the LORD will plead their cause and rob of life those who rob them.” Proverbs 22:22-23
“The wicked draw the sword and bend their bows to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose way is upright; their sword shall enter their own heart, and their bows shall be broken.” Psalm 37:14-15
“Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner, but blessed is he who is generous to the poor.” Proverbs 14:21
“Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.” Proverbs 21:13
“Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor.” Proverbs 22:9
I reference Jesus' words to the "adulterous woman" because it perfectly sums up all the instances of Jesus opting to not condemn, but to give grace, as he does in all these places with the poor.
Continuing on the grace, not condemnation theme. 1 John 3:
By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.
But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need,
yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?
Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him;
for whenever our heart condemns us,
God is greater than our heart,
and he knows everything.
Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God...
Romans 8...
"What then shall we say to these things?
If God is for us, who can be against us?
God, who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all,
how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?
It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?
Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised
who is at the right hand of God
who indeed is interceding for us.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?
Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution,
or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?"
[and, I would add, lack of perfect knowledge? Failure to have heard about God in the first place? Not believing that the conservatives and the Pharisees are right in their understanding of God? Shall these things separate us from the one who is not willing for ANY to perish? - Dan]
Or Psalm 103:
"The Lord works righteousness and justice
for all who are oppressed.
God made known his ways to Moses,
his acts to the people of Israel.
The Lord is merciful and gracious,
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
God will not always chide,
nor will he keep his anger forever.
God does not deal with us according to our sins,
nor repay us according to our iniquities."
More from Psalm 103...
"For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him;
as far as the east is from the west,
so far does he remove our transgressions from us.
As a father shows compassion to his children,
so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him.
For he knows our frame;
he remembers that we are dust."
God knows we are imperfect, poor children in comparison to God. And God therefore shows compassion to us, knowing how are frames, our poor bodies and minds are imperfect, "dust." And so, God shows compassion, not willing that any should perish.
I suspect you know I could go on all day citing passages that speak about God's grace and mercy, especially for the poor and marginalized and imperfect "sinful" humanity, seeking to especially defend these against the rich and powerful oppressors. And yet, God is not willing that the rich and powerful oppressors perish either, he invites them to surrender their wealth and power and come, follow him. But God doesn't force them, does he?
Free will and all that.
The thing is, and I suspect you will acknowledge this, there are verses that can be taken this way and that way. More leaning on grace and more leaning on judgment. Some more leaning on God isn't willing for ANY to perish and some more leaning on "the way is narrow and few enter it." Some more leaning on "We're all evil worms" and some leaning more on "humans were created just a little lower than God."
It's not like anyone can say there are not verses that at least seem to speak to one way or the other. It's just this: Which side do you come down on? One that leans more on grace and welcome to ALL or one that leans more on the notion that all of humanity are evil worms, deserving of eternal damnation and torture.
I lean towards the passages that speak to grace and welcome, because that's where I think the great emphasis of the biblical story is and I think that is precisely the great Good News taught by Jesus clearly in the gospels.
I think you lean more towards great condemnation of an angry god, impotent to be in the presence of "evil" where you define "evil" as merely imperfect. But you tell me.
One more passage, 1 John 2...
"My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.
But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous.
He is the propitiation for our sins,
and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
And by this we know that we have come to know him,
if we keep his commandments.
Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar,
and the truth is not in him,
but whoever keeps his word,
in him truly the love of God is perfected."
We can know that the passages that speak of merely "acknowledge Jesus Christ and you will be saved..." is not the whole point, because, as you know, the Bible says that even the demons acknowledge he is the son of God and that doesn't help them.
No, knowing God or accepting Jesus as the son of God is not speaking about merely being able to say, "Yes, I believe in a God and that Jesus was God's son," because that isn't what it means to be "in Christ."
Being in Christ - not just us, "but the whole world!" - means accepting his way of Grace. And this grace shows up in siding with and working for the poor and marginalized. It shows up in the love we have for one another. The way of Grace, of welcome, of forgiveness and mercy and work for justice. NOT works, but acknowledging that WAY, accepting that GRACE.
And not just for us, but the whole world.
Yeah...Dan's got a real problem with crafting analogies. He just doesn't get it.
Not to belabor the cookie thing too much more, but even where one owns one can be selfish in the sense of refusing to share...so there's that. But really, it's not the act, but the attitude which is sinful. The act is the manifestation of one's sinful nature, which is what requires Christ for our salvation. We can't help ourselves. We're naturally scumbags. We may do fairly well with controlling ourselves and living a more Christian life. But we're still scumbags in need of Christ.
As to what God is willing to see or bear, there's this:
https://www.gotquestions.org/not-willing-for-any-to-perish.html
One would think the above is obvious to one who seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture.
Art,
This is my problem with trying to apply human categories to sin. If someone chooses to eat the last cookie, that they own, without knowing that someone else wanted it, it is selfish but not a sin (IMO). If one eats one's own cookie, knowing that someone else wants it, that would seem to be selfish as well as possibly sinful. Unless, the eater has a new package of cookies, or goes to buy more. The problem is that it's not necessarily the action (in and of itself) that is sinful. Which brings us back to a question I've asked before. Are we sinful because of our actions, or are our actions a result of our sinful nature?
Dan,
"Perhaps you're having a hard time following."
I'm having a bit of difficulty following you logging in under multiple different accounts or as anonymous. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you.
I'm not having problems following your poor example, I'm merely pointing out the flaws in it, and the fact that it keeps changing.
Dan,
I'm not going to spend time going through your multiple comments point by point, as most of what I've seen has already been explored. I'll hit the high points, and on the off chance that you
"But selfishly taking the last cookie YOU KNEW someone wanted IS an example of an actual trivial sin. Ignoring the difference between trivial sins and actual evil, THAT is what trivializes sin."
1. I pointed out the problem with this idiotic example, The "sinfulness" of the act is completely dependent on others, and is easily mitigates by simply buying more cookies.
2. You still haven't grounded this notion of "trivial" or "minor" sins in anything outside of your own imagination. If you can't demonstrate with objective evidence external to yourself, then I will simply ignore any further references to these made up categories.
"1. I thought you were opposed to asking clarifying questions."
Why would you think that? I frequently ask them, I almost always answer yours, and I frequently point out the fact that you rarely answer clarifying questions.
"2. No. It's literally not what I'm saying. I'm saying that an action that one does not know is wrong that offends a God one does not know exists is literally not a sin against God. How can it be?"
So, if one is ignorant of God, and ignorant that a particular action is sinful (murder?), then that person just gets a get out of jail free card? God's existence, and attributes are not dependent on us being aware of them. As scripture points out, no one has any excuse for being unaware of God and His law.
It's like you saying that If someone was unaware that murder is a crime in Canada, and murdered someone in their ignorance, that they could ask "How can it be illegal?"
In hindsight, one might realize it's wrong and offended this God, but at the moment, it just can't be.
If I'm standing at an elevator door and press the button to get on, but the button was rigged to make the elevator explode and kill the passenger, the one who pushed the button in NO WAY sinned against the dead person.
"So, for the record, YOU think in your head that noting the vast chasm of difference between minor misdeeds - like selfishly taking the last cookie when you know someone else wanted it - and actual evil actions like rape or murder somehow minimizes sin."
So what if you think the opposite of your false characterization of my views. Who cares. As long as your position is grounded only in your imagination, I really don't care.
"Fair enough."
As long as you don't try to apply your arbitrary, subjective, categories beyond yourself, i don't care.
"But how? How does noting the great difference somehow minimize sin?"
I've addressed this, again, above.
"Um, throughout the whole Bible"
I was unaware that the Bible spoke authoritatively on US bankruptcy code. I guess I missed that.
"Over and over, biblical authors make clear that the injustice of the wealthy and powerful is especially a stench in the nostrils of God. For the one who has been given much, much will be expected. For the wealthy who only gave a little out of their excess gave nothing in comparison to the poor widow's mite."
None of those relate to US bankruptcy code in any way shape or form. If there was some secret bankruptcy code that only applied to the "rich" and excluded everyone else from availing themselves of bankruptcy protection, then those proof texts might apply. But there isn't and they don't.
"Using wealth and position and power to create laws that allow the wealthy to abuse the laws and actual justice to avoid paying money they owe was a great crime to biblical authors."
Again, there is no secret bankruptcy law that only applies to the "rich". It doesn't exist, it's not a real thing. Bankruptcy is available to everyone.
"An action being legal does not make it moral."
Ahhhhhhhhhh, yet I never said it was moral. The problem is that your statement, requires a subjective moral code that applies equally in all times and places for it to have any significant meaning. The notion that it's immoral for a "rich" person to avail themselves of bankruptcy protection, while it's "moral" for a "poor" person to do so is incoherent. In either case legitimate creditors are potentially being denied the ability to collect legal debts.
FYI, since I doubt you are familiar with the specifics of any particular individual's bankruptcy proceedings, or the process in general, making these broad generalizations from a position of ignorance probably isn't helpful.
"And I'm sorry, but I have to ask: you honestly DON'T find it a great evil and moral injustice for a billionaire to use laws to avoid paying his employees?? If so, that makes me question your moral reasoning."
If you can't articulate an absolute moral code that applies to everyone, in all til=mes, and all places, I can't answer your question definitively.
If you're asking me if my personal, subjective, moral code finds that (theoretical) act problematic, I'd say subjectively yes. But, since I have no actual specifics of the case, or of the law, I can't really go beyond that.
What's interesting, is that the problem isn't "the rich", it's the law.
Craig...
"2. You still haven't grounded this notion of "trivial" or "minor" sins in anything outside of your own imagination. "
How about just our own God-given plain common sense? OF COURSE, selfishly taking the last cookie you knew your wife wanted is INFINITELY trivial as compared to raping a child. OF course it is.
You can't possibly disagree with this, can you?
And that is a clarifying question, not an accusation, not a misrepresentation. I'm seeing if you and I can't agree on something as blatantly obvious as the difference between taking the last cookie selfishly and raping a child.
I am guessing what you're saying is that, in your head, you imagine that in your god's head, that god views the taking of the cookie as the same as raping a child.
If so, your little tyrant god is dumb as a very stupid rock and immoral as hell.
But by all means, clarify. Is that what you're saying? That for US, we can recognize the chasm of difference in morality in taking the last cookie and raping a child, but YOU think that YOUR god views them the same?
Good God in heaven have mercy, if so.
"weep and howl for the ymiseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten." "will eat your flesh like fire"
It's amusing when Dan uses proof texts to make one point, when they actually argue against other points he's tried to make. What kind of God would treat people like that? What kind of God would rain "vmiseries" on people that would make them "weep and howl", and burn their "flesh like fire". What if they honestly didn't know that God existed, and that He forbade those things? What about the cultures who's moral and legal codes allow that sort of exploitation?
Again, I'm not going to waste time on Dan's proof texts as a whole.
Craig...
If you can't articulate an absolute moral code that applies to everyone, in all times, and all places, I can't answer your question definitively.
Then you're a damned weasel and coward. Shame on you for dodging a reasonable question and pretending you have some objective moral code that is not known to the rest of the world, but you're going to pretend in your head you have it so you can act smug and arrogant in your secret knowledge.
Seriously, brother, be a better man than this.
And when bankruptcy laws are more available and used by the wealthy, then it's a problem that the wealthy are abusing such laws that way.
But you see, the obvious point you're missing is: The billionaire who has billions of dollars in assets who uses bankruptcy laws to avoid paying a million dollars is abusing the system. It's apparently legal the way the system is set up (a system designed by wealthy men, by and large). But the poor or middle class man who DOESN'T have billions of dollars who goes into bankruptcy does so because he can't afford to pay out his debts. That's a HUGE difference and why it's immoral for a wealthy person to abuse the system that way.
Again, read the book of James. It's not unclear on the topic.
AND EVEN IF the Bible was silent on the topic of the wealthy avoiding payments (it's not), it can STILL be immoral. Listen and understand:
WE, who are created in God's image, a little lower than God,
given moral reasoning BY God
can use our God-given common sense to understand morality.
WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO DO SO.
Understand? Do you disagree? Well, if you do, then that's your opinion and it's not a very wise or astute or biblical one. And I don't need the Bible to tell me that.
On our bankruptcy laws:
Rich people can afford to get bankrupt. They have enough financial means to get over it. But what about those people who struggle every day to put foods on the table?
First of all, poor people don’t have plenty of choices. A few fortunate ones qualify for Chapter 13 bankruptcy whereas others have to strip off their assets and pay back creditors through Chapter 7 bankruptcy...
Earning power does make a huge difference in bankruptcy
Economic power plays a major role in the bankruptcy. Poor folks are obviously treated differently than the wealthy people. I’ll give you a small example to elucidate my point.
When your monthly income is $2500, and you file for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court will scrutinize minutely your kid’s soccer lessons and deliberate if this falls under the necessary expense category. But, when your monthly income is $10,000, the bankruptcy court may scrutinize your living expenses little lightly and deliberate less.
It is difficult to say who is right and who is wrong. But one point is clear. Poor folks are not as fortunate as rich guys. It’s quite natural for low-income families to feel that their kids are entitled to soccer lessons just like a family who is making $160,000 a year.
https://www.ovlg.com/blog/rich-vs-poor-who-suffers-and-who-enjoys-in-bankruptcy.html
Watching a rich man stiff his creditors while walking away with millions can grate on people. Yet a gaping loophole in the bankruptcy laws routinely allows that to happen.
That loophole enabled such people as Martin A. Siegel, the former investment banker who was convicted of insider trading; Bowie Kuhn, the former baseball commissioner, and Burt Reynolds, the actor, to emerge from bankruptcy with ample assets -- sometimes valued in the millions -- even as their creditors suffered huge losses.
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/09/opinion/editorial-observer-bankruptcy-reform-that-spares-the-wealthy.html
Yes, the problem is in how the laws have been written. But EVEN IF a law allowed me to legally avoid paying back a debt I owed in full while I retained a million dollars in wealth, I would pay it back because it would be wrong to do so. We don't need to limit morality to what is and isn't legal.
We are rational, moral adults with the ability to use moral reasoning.
I'm surprised you didn't know this.
Dan,
My noting that you can't/haven't articulated a moral code that is universal, objective, and binding on all people in all times and in all places, IS NOT an invitation to try to do so in this thread. Any comments attempting to do so will be deleted and not published.
Dan:
"But how? How does noting the great difference somehow minimize sin?"
Craig:
"I've addressed this, again, above."
Bullshit. You're a liar. Copy and paste where you answered this and I'll apologize, but in the meantime, I'm calling a spade a spade and a liar a liar.
Here is the only thing I can find where you ADDRESS (but don't answer) the question:
I think that treating sin the same way we treat crime minimizes sin.
HOW?
I think that using stealing cookies as your go to analogy minimizes sin.
HOW?
I think that assuming that you can accurately assess the severity of a sin
in the same way the YHWH does is minimizing sin.
I have not said that we can assess sin the way God does. But thinking that we can REASONABLY assess behavior and morality, HOW does that minimize sin?
I think that in so far as we have the ability to accurately asses actual behaviors,
that we can and should do so.
But thinking that our accurate assessment is on the same level as YHWH seems presumptuous.
I have not said that we can assess sin "on the same level as God."
But thinking that we can REASONABLY assess behavior and morality,
HOW does that minimize sin?
You see, my question was HOW does reasonably noting the moral difference between taking the last cookie and rape or murder minimize sin?
You saying, "I think that using the example of cookies minimizes sin..." is NOT an answer to the HOW DOES IT question.
Understand?
Craig...
My noting that you can't/haven't articulated a moral code that is universal, objective, and binding on all people in all times and in all places, IS NOT an invitation to try to do so in this thread. Any comments attempting to do so will be deleted and not published.
I'm just addressing YOUR claims about the topic that YOU made in this thread. I'm noting that YOU are not able to present a universal, objective, binding moral code. You're just not. If you could, you would. You can't. None of us can. That's just the reality.
You hide behind this vague accusation which vaguely suggests that you have a secret knowledge that you're not willing to share and it's a cowardly dishonest attack on decency and polite conversation.
You deleting me pointing out your impotence and cowardice on this point, your slander and dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy on this point doesn't change that fact.
("Then are you suggesting that God is unable to actually bring His "desire" into existence?")
"This is not some bizarre, unheard-of position I'm taking, even within mainstream traditional circles . Are you actually not understanding this?"
Since you haven't answered the question above, so far, and haven't clearly articulated your position, I don't understand your position. Since you haven't articulated anything clearly, I think calling your hunch "mainstream" is a bit of a stretch.
"I don't believe God will do anything not in God's nature."
Ok, that's a start. But it assumes that you understand YHWH's nature with a high degree of accuracy.
"It's God's will that all be saved but God doesn't force it."
This literally makes no sense. Are you saying that God is unable to ensure that His will is done? When Jesus prayed, "Thy will be done", are you suggesting that Jesus knew that YHWH was unable or unwilling to do His (YHWH's) will?
"This is not an uncommon view within traditional Christian circles."
If you say so.
"And also, within those who use their God-given reasoning."
Ahhhhhhh, ascribing something based on your hunches,your fallible, imperfect, human reasoning to YHWH. Interesting take, and placing a high value on your "Reasoning".
"Do you think God forces some people to be saved, accept grace against their will?"
No.
Do you think that God is unable to ensure that those who He chooses will "accept grace"?
"I know conservatives often love to hate the passage about the "adulterous woman" and Jesus telling her, "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU..." Y'all just hate it and say it's dubious, EVEN THOUGH it's a perfect example of actual Grace of the sort that Jesus taught, grace beginning with and especially for "the sick," the poor and marginalized sinners so often neglected and abused by the Pharisees in their day and the Church, in our day and throughout history."
It's very helpful when Dan starts a comment with something like the above. The fact that he starts with an egregious lie, then doubles down on it means that whatever follows is "fruit of the poison tree", and therefore to be avoided.
As per recent practice, I'm not going to waste a bunch of tile on some out of context, cherry picked, proof texts which don't appear to have any specific relevance.
"He is the propitiation for our sins,"
Interesting that Dan is now acknowledging the above as true.
"And by this we know that we have come to know him,
if we keep his commandments."
Yet Dan insists that YHWH doesn't have "rules" that we must obey.
"Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar,
and the truth is not in him,
but whoever keeps his word,
in him truly the love of God is perfected."
Again, it seems like there's a great deal of concern over those who "know Him" following His "rules".
There are a jillion places where one can find an explanation of "irresistible Grace", along with ample Biblical support for that doctrine. I'm not going to cut/paste it all here.
On the topic of traditionalists recognizing that God won't force anyone into salvation: From the very traditional, Got Questions biblical website...
"God’s act of creating us can be compared to a husband and wife who are perfectly happy and content in themselves, but they decide to have a child. That decision brings with it the potential for exceeding joy and exceeding sorrow.
By simply having a child, a vulnerability now exists that was not previously there. As they love and care for that child, they long for the child to love them back.
But they won’t force the love,
because forced love is not love at all.
Why doesn’t God just save everyone? Because our love for Him must be voluntary...
But He won’t force salvation on the unwilling.
Why doesn’t God just save everyone?
Because gifts must be willingly received."
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-save-everyone.html
And I'm aware of the human theory/theories about "irresistible grace," and indeed, those same Got Questions people affirm that.
The problem is, I've never seen any IG theorists support it biblically or rationally. I've never seen you all deal with the How? question. If God doesn't FORCE some of us to accept grace, then how is that selective little god ensuring that some (the few that this little godling chooses to save for unknown and unknowable reasons, this godling theory goes) (and yes, of course, godling is a word. Look it up. It perfectly describes the little box some humans try to put upon an awesome God.) ...ensuring that SOME of the children of God that this godling chooses to save. If it's not forced, then how is it impossible for God to be sure that they're saved?
It's such an irrational and convoluted human theory that I never found to be biblical at all. Rather, it has for quite some time come across to me as someone trying to build a ridiculous toothpick and cotton house with all kinds of weird corners and circles and entirely incapable of supporting even the slightest weight or even breeze.
The other hole in your thinking is that if God is so strange and unknowable and beyond our comprehension, HOW do you know you're understanding God aright? Because of your personal tradition of human traditions about how to rightly understand the Bible? But what if your human traditions are wrong and you're mistaken in your interpretations and hunches?
It's a house of cards that you all pretend to be an impenetrable castle.
Marshal...
Dan's got a real problem with crafting analogies. He just doesn't get it.
Not to belabor the cookie thing too much more, but even where one owns one can be selfish in the sense of refusing to share...so there's that. But really, it's not the act, but the attitude which is sinful.
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.
2. It was an example I gave to demonstrate that there are certainly instances of selfishness (and that WAS selfish and wrong, let me be clear, to take that cookie, I'm not saying it wasn't wrong) where the "sin" committed was extremely minor. It was WRONG and it was a SMALL WRONG.
Calling that small wrong an evil is irrational. That was the point of the perfectly fine example I gave.
Do you all understand?
Can you agree that calling that selfish cookie taking an "evil" is just dumb. That it minimizes sin? Or do you need me to explain further why calling that minor wrong an evil is wrong and how it minimizes sin and actual evil?
You said, in yesterday's post (that you requested we not comment on, yet)...
"He's also back to introducing this notion of "trivial" or "minor" sins. These categories haven't been defined, supported, explained, or the like. Dan just acts like they are official categories and the YHWH agrees with him."
I've dealt with some of your questions on my blog, but just to help you understand:
1. Do you truly have a hard time understanding the notion of degrees of morality between, say, the selfish taking of the last cookie on the one end and genocide on the other?
I don't understand your confusion. This seems exceedingly self-evident.
2. If you want a definition, though, how about
Trivial sin: misdeeds that are relatively small and commonplace. Actions that may be considered slightly bad, but which produce relatively small or no harm. See also, minor sins.
3. I'm not acting like they are official categories. I'm saying that they are blatantly obvious categories that, no doubt, the bulk of humanity understands.
I've also never given a definition for light vs heavy exercise, shallow vs deep cuts or other terms that are self-defined. In other words, by saying minor sins, that IS the definition... sins that are relatively minor.
And I've not said that God agrees with me about minor sins or light exercise. But I have no rational or biblical reason to guess God wouldn't. Nor do you.
Again: DO you not understand the chasm of difference between taking the last cookie and genocide??
Craig said...
"Dan has been dragging a thread out for about 5,000 comments while he's trying to demonstrate that YHWH saves everyone, or that WHYH wants to save everyone, but can't because He's at the mercy of His creation, or something else that I don't understand..."
1. I haven't said that God saves everyone.
2. I think the Bible is clear that humans have free will and can choose grace and salvation and can choose to reject it.
3. That a parent doesn't try to force their child to love them doesn't mean they're at the mercy of their children and that God chooses not to force humans to accept salvation doesn't mean God's at the mercy of the creation.
You said, on the post that you asked me to not comment on yet...
The problem is that we want to treat sin like crime
(varying degrees of criminal acts),
when sin is simply sin.
Can you support EITHER of these claims or are they just hunches (that in this case, are mistaken)?
That is, WHO SAYS that noting there are degrees of sin or wrong-doing is treating sin like crime? On whose authority can we say that noting the very real reality of degrees of awfulness of sin must be considered treating it like crime?
It seems you have a presumption that is unproven and wrong, that we can reasonably think of crime in terms of degrees of "bad-ness," but we can't reasonably do the same for sin. My question is: Says who? On whose authority?
Likewise, you say, "sin is just sin..." First of all, what does that mean? That in your head, you don't think there are degrees of sin? Okay if so, but why is anyone else obliged to agree with what is in your mind?
It's as if you've made an assumption that you are guessing that all the world agrees with your hunch and there is just no data to support it.
WHO SAYS there are no degrees of sin?
No one with credibility or proof that I know of.
I've said this before, but sin is rooted in self contentedness that tells us that when YHWH said don't steal, that He really had some exceptions to the rule.
Again, says who? Where is the proof that "sin is rooted in self contentedness"?
Where is the proof that this alleged self-contentedness "tells us that when God said don't steal, that he had some exceptions to this rule"?
Or are these just your guesses? Which is fine, just understand that no one is obliged to heed your unfounded hunches or take them seriously.
For my part, I'd guess that wrong-doing or "sin" is rooted in multiple ways of thinking and not thinking and as often as not, has more to do with thinking the wrong we're doing is right, or "right for me."
Think of the white man who refuses to let his son marry a black woman... and he does this because he is convinced that God doesn't want racial intermarriage. He thinks he's doing the right thing and he's not.
Or the soldiers dropping a bomb killed thousands of civilian men, women and children. He's thinking he's doing the right thing, but it's actually a war crime and an evil.
For instance.
Sometimes I get so caught up in these digressions and rabbit trails that Dan introduces, that I forget what the thread was actually about. I just re read the post, and 5000 comments later I still haven't seen any examples of Jesus or the early church doing anything to lift people out of material poverty on a sustained, systematic level.
1. You also haven't said that He doesn't, nor have you said what happens to those who aren't saved. It's almost like you want to straddle the fence and not express an unequivocal position on the subject.
2. Which doesn't answer the question about whether human free will is more powerful that YHWH's plans.
3. That's a lovely hunch, but it's just an unsupported hunch.
"How about just our own God-given plain common sense? OF COURSE, selfishly taking the last cookie you knew your wife wanted is INFINITELY trivial as compared to raping a child. OF course it is."
How does our human, fallible, imperfect, "common sense" lead us to these sin categories that are binding on YHWH? How does your "common sense" ground anything beyond yourself? You can certainly make the above claim for yourself, but you have zero grounding to apply it to others.
"You can't possibly disagree with this, can you?"
Yes, I disagree that your individual, imperfect, fallible, human "common sense" can actually ground any sort of universal (let alone binding on YHWH) categories of "minor" or "trivial" sins. Obviously, the effects of those two extremes are different, but that doesn't automatically prove your notion of "trivial" or "minor" sins is a category that YHWH is bound by. Nor does it indicate that you are able to categorize sins with 100% accuracy, even according to your subjective, personal standard.
"I am guessing what you're saying is that, in your head, you imagine that in your god's head, that god views the taking of the cookie as the same as raping a child."
Then once again, your guess would be wrong. Stop guessing, it only makes you look stupid. The question is what is your justification for claiming that YHWH agrees with your subjective categories of "minor" or "trivial" sins, and that His categories and yours are exactly the same?
"But by all means, clarify. Is that what you're saying?"
In the future, you can be assured that when you make shit up and try to assign your made up shit to me, that I am NEVER saying whatever shit you just made up.
"That for US, we can recognize the chasm of difference in morality in taking the last cookie and raping a child, but YOU think that YOUR god views them the same?"
I've never actually addressed this, because I'm trying to focus on what you have said and what your grounding is for claiming that YHWH's view of sin includes these categories of "minor" and "trivial" sins. Although I just realized, that you have absolutely no clue nor do you really care what YHWH thinks about sin. It's enough that you have come up with these subjective, undefined, vague, categories and decided that if you thought this up then YHWH must agree with you.
"Then you're a damned weasel and coward. Shame on you for dodging a reasonable question and pretending you have some objective moral code that is not known to the rest of the world, but you're going to pretend in your head you have it so you can act smug and arrogant in your secret knowledge."
Not at all. I am simply pointing out the reality that if you are going to refer to something as "moral", then it is completely reasonable to ask for the moral code that is binding on all people, in all places, and at all times, that you have used to reach this conclusion. On the other hand, if this is merely your subjective hunch about what you personally think should be moral, then I simply don't care. I've addressed my thoughts on an objective moral code multiple times, the fact that you've chosen to simply reject my views (as opposed to prove them wrong, or offer an alternative), isn't my problem and doesn't obligate me to jump through your hoops every time you want to divert attention away from your lack of an objective, universal, moral code.
"And when bankruptcy laws are more available and used by the wealthy, then it's a problem that the wealthy are abusing such laws that way."
The above makes literally zero sense. If the laws are "available" and the wealthy follow those laws (and are supervised by the courts to verify compliance), then by definition they are NOT "abusing" the laws that they are following. The Bible talks about not showing partiality to anyone under the law, but I guess you'd prefer to ignore that.
"But you see, the obvious point you're missing is: The billionaire who has billions of dollars in assets who uses bankruptcy laws to avoid paying a million dollars is abusing the system. It's apparently legal the way the system is set up (a system designed by wealthy men, by and large). But the poor or middle class man who DOESN'T have billions of dollars who goes into bankruptcy does so because he can't afford to pay out his debts. That's a HUGE difference and why it's immoral for a wealthy person to abuse the system that way."
This is just a longer, more convoluted, version of the sentence I just responded to. But if you want to hang on to that conspiracy theory, and ignore the Biblical injunction against partiality under the law, go right ahead. None of this demonstrates that anything is objectively immoral.
"Again, read the book of James. It's not unclear on the topic."
I've studied James multiple times, I've never seen a reference to US bankruptcy law, or to applying US law differently to people based on their financial situation.
"AND EVEN IF the Bible was silent on the topic of the wealthy avoiding payments (it's not), it can STILL be immoral. Listen and understand:"
And the goal post gets moved. I'm out when that happens.
WE, who are created in God's image, a little lower than God,
given moral reasoning BY God
can use our God-given common sense to understand morality.
WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO DO SO.
"Understand? Do you disagree? Well, if you do, then that's your opinion and it's not a very wise or astute or biblical one. And I don't need the Bible to tell me that."
The problem is that I do understand that you have this compulsion to apply your subjective, personal standards to others and define morality by your personal, subjective, flawed, imperfect, human reasoning. That doesn't mean that your subjective moral code applies to anyone else. Nor does you using all caps, and vaguely Biblicaly sounding language to assert your opinions as if they were facts.
I also understand that "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO...", tells me much more about you than you realize.
"The problem is, I've never seen any IG theorists support it biblically or rationally."
That's not a problem. Because you haven't seen something (or claim to) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Just because you reject someone's explanation, doesn't mean that they're explanation is wrong. The problem with this assertion is that it's meaningless. You don't point out specific flaws, and demonstrate why they are wrong, and provide a correct answer. You just make idiotic blanket statements based on your personal experience as it that carries any weight at all.
"I've never seen you all deal with the How? question. If God doesn't FORCE some of us to accept grace, then how is that selective little god ensuring that some (the few that this little godling chooses to save for unknown and unknowable reasons, this godling theory goes) (and yes, of course, godling is a word. Look it up. It perfectly describes the little box some humans try to put upon an awesome God.) ...ensuring that SOME of the children of God that this godling chooses to save. If it's not forced, then how is it impossible for God to be sure that they're saved?"
I'm sorry you haven't seen anyone deal with this, maybe you should do some more research. I'm not going to try to summarize a topic that's been written extensively on by people much more qualified that you or me, because you make these vague, general, complaints. I'm a finite person, with limited time, I'm not going to waste it on something you'll ignore when there are so many resources available which you'll ignore anyway.
"It's such an irrational and convoluted human theory that I never found to be biblical at all. Rather, it has for quite some time come across to me as someone trying to build a ridiculous toothpick and cotton house with all kinds of weird corners and circles and entirely incapable of supporting even the slightest weight or even breeze."
Again, Dan is the arbiter of Truth and falsehood. Yet, you don't offer an alternate theory supported by scripture to the level that IG is. You simply assert your personal hunch, assert "WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO...", and act as if you simply asserting something is some great feat.
"The other hole in your thinking is that if God is so strange and unknowable and beyond our comprehension, HOW do you know you're understanding God aright? Because of your personal tradition of human traditions about how to rightly understand the Bible? But what if your human traditions are wrong and you're mistaken in your interpretations and hunches?"
You see, when you start with a false premise, then base your conclusions and questions on a false premise, everything after the false premise becomes pointless.
"It's a house of cards that you all pretend to be an impenetrable castle."
Yet, you haven't actually taken even one specific aspect of this doctrine, and the extensive scriptural support, and demonstrated even one facet to actually be wrong. You haven't offered a coherent, alternative supported by scripture.
You have asserted clearly that you "DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO DO...".
"1. Do you truly have a hard time understanding the notion of degrees of morality between, say, the selfish taking of the last cookie on the one end and genocide on the other?"
A. I have a hard time understanding how one gets to "degrees of morality" when one doesn't have a defined, objective, universal, consistent moral code as a starting point.
B. I don't understand how you can apply your subjective, undefined, vague, personal, hunches about morality to YHWH and assert that He agrees with your subjective, undefined, vague, personal, hunches about morality.
C. I don't understand how you don't get that YHWH isn't limited by your biases, limits, imperfection, lack of knowledge, etc, and that He might not agree with your hunches.
D. I don't understand why you can't just acknowledge that these are just hunches you have, that satisfy you, and stop trying to act is if your hunches have any meaning beyond yourself.
"I don't understand your confusion. This seems exceedingly self-evident."
Your hunches do not equal God's standards, or a universal moral code. It's pretty simple.
"2. If you want a definition, though, how about
Trivial sin: misdeeds that are relatively small and commonplace. Actions that may be considered slightly bad, but which produce relatively small or no harm. See also, minor sins."
I don't give a shit about your definition, I'm asking you for YHWH's definition or YHWH's endorsement of yoru definition, or explicit Biblical support for your hunches.
"3. I'm not acting like they are official categories. I'm saying that they are blatantly obvious categories that, no doubt, the bulk of humanity understands."
Yet you are. You've said things like "God isn't going to do X or Y for/to someone who's only committed a few "minor" sins.". So when you start to tell us what YHWH is or isn't going to do, you are acting as if these are official categories.
Now, if you to explicitly say that these categories are yours and yours alone (regardless of your hunches about the "bulk of humanity" and your qualifications to speak for them), and that you have absolutely zero clue if YWHW actually treats sin according to your hunches, and that you have no intention to apply your standards to anyone beyond yourself, that would solve a lot of problems.
Personally, I'd love to be present when you stand before the Judgement Seat and tell The Christ that you've only committed a few "minor" and "trivial" sins and the you "DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO" know about what is and is not sin. I think that'd be worth paying to see.
I'm really torn. I know that I've promised to publish Dan's comments. My keeping my word is very important to me. I also know that if I close comments on this thread, that Dan will continue to post comments on other threads because he's proven that he will not post comments where he's asked not to. I also know that If I simply post Dan's comments, without response, that I'll be reviled by him. Hell, I've responded to virtually every comment and question in this thread and he went after me with all sorts of vitriol because I wouldn't answer his question without some clarification/background. I can only imagine what will be unleashed if I stop commenting on this thread.
I'm a limited man, with finite time, who is very busy with areas of my life that are much more important that Dan's whims, and frankly I'm bored with his inability to articulate a coherent, universal, moral code or to explain in detail this common view that he refers to in vague terms.
Rest assured that no matter what, I will keep my word and post Dan's comments, even if this means another 5000 instances of him repeating his vague, general, unproven hunches.
Craig...
How does our human, fallible, imperfect, "common sense" lead us to these sin categories that are binding on YHWH?
I've never said that these "sin categories are binding on God." YOUR words, not mine. I'm stating that we, who are created in God's image, a little lower than God, upon whose hearts and minds, God has written God's Word on our hearts (If you're a bible believer). It's biblical and reasonable and observable (that we humans have moral reasoning).
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?
Make yourself clear. Take a stand and be clear on your positions. Then, if they're irrational on the face of them, then support them with data.
How does your "common sense" ground anything beyond yourself?
For the last time:
1. We do not have an objective, authoritative source to state objectively provably that THIS set of rules and beliefs are moral and others are not. We don't have that. You don't have that. If you say you do, you're a damned liar and a coward because we SEE you keep up with this milquetoast bullshit.
2. But that we can't objectively prove in some authoritative manner DOES NOT MEAN that we can't be reasonably moral. Not PERFECTLY moral, but reasonably moral. By and large, all of us recognize the moral value of the first great law: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. This is moral common sense. We all recognize it, by and large, universally around the world, in nearly every culture and religion and non-religion. We don't always live up to it, but we generally all recognize it.
Do you deny that reality? (Noting: I'm not saying we ALL recognize it down to every last person, but GENERALLY, that is an accepted truth. If you disagree, put up some data to prove it.)
3. For the last time, make yourself clear: DO YOU ADMIT that you have NO objective, authoritative provable moral system? If you don't admit that and apologize for not making that clear already, then support the claim.
3a. You saying some wishy washy bullshit, "I can't prove it to YOU" is just so much more vomit. You can't prove it authoritatively to ANYONE. Not a damned person. If you could, you would. You can't.
Pissant. Apologize. Repent. Be a better person.
Post a Comment