Despite the title I'm not a Judas Priest fan, and I don't think they belong in the Rock HOF, but the title was too good to ignore.
I'm going to start with this premise. The terms rule, law, and command(ment) are functionally identical, and can be uses interchangeably for the most part. The second premise I'm going to start with is that sin is (at least in part) the breaking of the rules THWH has given us to follow.
So, on a very basic level breaking a rule, is us concluding that our judgement is superior to the entity that promulgated the rule. Even in the case of breaking a rule for a "good reason", we're essentially saying that the entity that promulgated the rule wasn't really intending that the rule be followed in this particular circumstance.
So let's look at the rules that YHWH gave us to follow. I'm going to focus on the top two only for this post. Mainly because Jesus Himself was very clear that these two rules are the foundation for every other rule YHWH promulgated. Those rules can be summarized as follows.
Love YHWH with all of your being, and love your neighbor the same way you love yourself.
Let's look at the first one first.
It seems safe to say that no one in the history of the world, except Jesus, has succeeded in loving YHWH with the totality of their being, every minute of their life. If there is someone else who's done this, I'd like to meet them. I think it's interesting that Mother Theresa (someone who many would offer as an example), was pretty adamant that she'd failed to adequately love YHWH or others. So, can we agree that any discussion of sin and it's seriousness starts from the place where we've all failed to follow the first and greatest commandment? Can we agree that failing to follow this commandment is a sin against YHWH?
I'm going to use Dan''s cookie example, because it points something out that subverts the point Dan thought he was making.
In Dan's example, some guy eats the last cookie, even though he knows that his wife really wanted to eat the last cookie.
The conclusion that Dan draws is that while the guy might be a bit of a cad, he's (at worst) committed a "minor" or "trivial" sin, which isn't big deal in the grand scheme of things. It's not like he raped anyone, right?
But, hasn't this guy really broken the second greatest commandment, and chosen to love himself more than his wife? Going a little deeper, didn't Paul (as a seeming extension of rule #2) command husbands to love their wives as He loved the Church? Which would, minimally, consist of sacrificing the husbands desires on the alter of elevating the wife's desires?
But, in all seriousness, is violating the second greatest commandment, to love others the way we love ourselves, really "trivial"? It's not a stretch to say that literally every single negative thing that plagues our world (war, murder, rape, slavery, theft, fraud, lying, etc) would not be a problem is we simply loved others as we love ourselves.
Let's go a level deeper in this. What the cookie eater is essentially communicating by his actions is that he doesn't have to follow rule #2. More than that he's communicating that he's really not that interested in following rule #1 either. How do we get here you ask? It's simple. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep My commandments.". One one level, as the second person of the Godhead, YWHW's rules are literally Jesus' rules. On another level, when Jesus confirmed that these rules were #'s 1&2, He was making those rules His as well. Which leaves us with this guy who's self contentedness has led him to conclude that he doesn't need to follow rule #1 or rule #2.
All of a sudden, it's starting to seem like calling his sin "trivial" or "minor" might be understating things a bit.
So, what is the common denominator to violating rules in virtually every situation? It seems like it is the human tendency to focus on one's self, and what's best for one's self at any given moment. It's the tendency for humans to conclude that this rule doesn't really apply to me, because I really need to break if for a really good reason. It's our focus on our selves.
But don't worry, focusing on and grounding our behavioral standards on ourselves, is "trivial". Why, because we do not need the Bible to tell us what the right thing to do is.
77 comments:
Craig asked...
So, can we agree that any discussion of sin and it's seriousness starts from the place where we've all failed to follow the first and greatest commandment?
No. I think any discussion of sin needs to be understood (at least for Christians) of an understanding of the Way of Grace that God operates within. For a God of Grace, he's not operating under a criminal law/rules/gotcha! system. This seems rational and obvious and biblical, as well.
"The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath." We weren't made to be little rule followers. We were made to love, forgive, enjoy, celebrate and live within the Way of Grace.
But I do agree that it's a good question to ask.
Can we agree that failing to follow this commandment is a sin against YHWH?
No. Certainly not universally.
Again, the person who is entirely unaware of a relatively unknown (to them) "rule," can't be held accountable in any rational sense for "breaking" that "rule." They literally didn't break it.
The person who goes to a new country that has a cultural rule or law that demands you take off your shoes when you enter a particular room should not be held accountable for not taking off their shoes. A judge or jury who would punish them for breaking the "rule" that they didn't know about would be an unjust judge or jury.
The newborn child doesn't know there is a "rule" that says they "must love God with all their hearts..." The irreligious person who is not familiar with the teachings of this particular religion who doesn't follow that rule can't reasonably be held accountable. Etc.
Having said that, what of those of us who are aware that there is a line in a sacred book that says "Love God with all your heart," and what if we accept that we believe we should do so.
I think it's safe to say we agree that no one perfectly loves God, even those of us who want to. But is it a "sin" for imperfect people to not love perfectly? What would loving God with our whole hearts look like if we were doing it perfectly? What are the sub-rules around that rule that would enable us to "follow the rule" "Perfectly..."?
Again, none of this is rational if you're operating out of a system of Grace.
Humanity was not made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for humanity. In a system of love and grace, I'm not angry or judgmental against my children if they fail to "love me with their whole hearts" in "perfect" manner (again, what does that look like?).
Maybe some of our differences is that I'm fundamentally believing we are under a system of life, love and grace, while you perhaps are operating under a more "criminal" mindset when it comes to "sin" and more of a rules based religion rather than a grace-based one?
And I know you'll reject that out of hand (I hope you will) because that's contrary to even conservative beliefs. But think about it... is it possible you're approaching sin in the Pharisaical, "YA GOTTA FOLLOW THE RULES AND WE WILL TELL YOU HOW TO FOLLOW THEM!" approach?
I'm not making an accusation. I'm asking a question.
Craig...
But, in all seriousness, is violating the second greatest commandment, to love others the way we love ourselves, really "trivial"?
Of course, it can be. Because of course it can be! Again though, I'm operating from a place of grace (and fortunately, my wife is, too, if I were to take the last cookie that she wanted!) and does NOT in any way at all possible consider taking that one cookie that one time a serious sin against her!
Because what rational adult would do that, ESPECIALLY with someone they loved?!
ESPECIALLY when we recognize the reality that we are all imperfect human beings. Is my wife going to be angry at me and think I've committed a deeply serious crime because I, in my selfish poor judgment, took the last cookie when I knew she wanted it?
No. Of course, she wouldn't.
Have you ever answered: Do you think that taking this last cookie is a serious deeply wrong sin? As serious as rape or other actions that are actually evil? Do you think taking the last cookie is evil?
Again, humanity was not made for these rules... these rules were made for humanity.
At any rate, that's my answer to your question.
Craig...
What the cookie eater is essentially communicating by his actions is that he doesn't have to follow rule #2.
Prove it. I don't think it communicates that at all. Especially if, once it was pointed out ("Dan! You KNEW I wanted that cookie!") he realized what he had done and apologized for it, sincerely. What I would say such an action in the real world would generally communicate is, "Yeah, I ought to save this for my wife... but gee... it smells SO good! I shouldn't, but I'm gonna..." and he eats it, but he knew he shouldn't. He knew he should save it and should "follow that rule," but then, in their healthy marriage, they weren't operating out of a FOLLOW THESE RULES system, but a system of love and grace.
You have said that you think considering such minor misdeeds as minor minimizes "sin." I say, the more I hear you talk about this, is your refusal to recognize minor sins minimizes grace.
Craig...
t seems safe to say that no one in the history of the world, except Jesus, has succeeded in loving YHWH with the totality of their being, every minute of their life.
I. Is it surprising to you that an imperfect humanity, created imperfect but in God's image, are not perfect?
II. Is it surprising to you that imperfect people, created imperfect, are not able to perfectly love humans or God?
III. If so, why does that surprise you?
IV. If you can agree that we were created as imperfect people, and that we act predictably in imperfect ways, then can you agree that it would be irrational to expect us to act perfectly?
V. How could we, being imperfect?
VI. If you can agree that it would be irrational to expect we, who are created as imperfect, would act or love perfectly, do you see how it's irrational for we who are imperfect and who were created as imperfect, to be perfect?
VII. Can you agree that it's irrational to punish people who were created as imperfect for being imperfect?
VIIa. And to punish we who were created imperfect for being imperfect for an eternity of torture/torment for acting in a manner consistent with how we were created?
Where is the grace or justice or love or basic decency in that?
Craig...
It seems like it is the human tendency to focus on one's self, and what's best for one's self at any given moment. It's the tendency for humans to conclude that this rule doesn't really apply to me, because I really need to break if for a really good reason. It's our focus on our selves.
Do you acknowledge that you can, in no way, prove this?
Couldn't it also be that we're doing our best we can to follow the Right and Good and God's ways, even, and do so imperfectly, NOT because we're focusing on ourselves but just because we're not perfect?
If it can't be that, well, can you prove that claim, or is it just a hunch you have?
Craig...
It's the tendency for humans to conclude that this rule doesn't really apply to me, because I really need to break if for a really good reason. It's our focus on our selves.
Of course, this raises the question: Is it wrong to "focus on ourselves..."? Is it wrong to take time to take care of ourselves? To consider what we need so that we can better be friends and helpers to others?
If it is okay to, at least some degree, focus on ourselves (and I say the answer to that is obviously, Yes, as well as many health and mental health experts, sociologists and others), then we imperfect human beings have to balance being selfless and giving for the sake of God and others with also taking care of ourselves in a healthy manner.
And you know what? People who are not perfect and not able to perfectly juggle such delicate, hard-to-define notions will sometimes choose to take actions that land on the "too selfish side."
Maybe I've had a really bad day and I know my wife wants that last cookie, but it strikes me that, at this moment, I need that cookie for my mental health. It will make me feel just a little better over all the chaos that happened that day. Is that landing on the selfish side? After all, we can always get cookies tomorrow (as you noted several times) and it's not a make or break cookie for my wife.
You see, there's the thing: There is NO ONE CLEAR "MESSAGE FROM GOD" answer to that question. It's vague and perhaps not answerable and, in this case, pretty trivial, literally pretty trivial.
Do you have any hard data to suggest otherwise? Do you have some message from God that says it's NOT trivial?
I don't think you do.
Craig...
Why, because we do not need the Bible to tell us what the right thing to do is.
Of course, the Bible LITERALLY does not answer this question in any clear, authoritative manner. The Bible LITERALLY never says that it's a great evil and great level of selfishness to take that last cookie and it is a deep offense to the Almighty God, a betrayal of God and the world, worthy of punishment for a lifetime. For an eternity!
Correct?
We literally do not need the Bible to try to figure this last cookie conundrum out.
Do you really think the almighty and everlasting God is outraged if I take that last cookie?
That sounds like a rather petty and puny godling, if so.
Tell me this (you won't, but I'll ask anyway, giving you the benefit of the doubt): What if someone committed sins regularly throughout their life, but it was always THIS "last cookie" level degree of sins, small selfishness-es.
Do you think the right and moral and just thing to do to punish them is to send them to "hell" for an eternity for torment and punishment?
I'm guessing you're familiar with that old evangelist's rhetorical tool of saying, "If we had committed even only ONE sin, that ONE sin would be sufficient to deserve an eternity of hell!" Do you believe that?
"Again, the person who is entirely unaware of a relatively unknown (to them) "rule," can't be held accountable in any rational sense for "breaking" that "rule." They literally didn't break it."
The ignorance of the law is an excuse argument.
"But is it a "sin" for imperfect people to not love perfectly?"
1. No where does the command use the term "love perfectly".
2. I love how you use the scare quotes around sin, as if trying to question the notion of sin.
3. If the command says X, and it is a command, and if failing to follow God's commands is a sin, then yes.
4. This seems to ignore the whole notion of "What is impossible for man, is possible for God.).
"What would loving God with our whole hearts look like if we were doing it perfectly? What are the sub-rules around that rule that would enable us to "follow the rule" "Perfectly..."?"
I'm not YHWH, I wouldn't dream of speaking for Him. I'd note that if these two rules are foundational to the entirety of the law, that there probably aren't "sub rules". I'd also suggest that it's not hard to imagine what "Love others as you love yourself." might look like. For starters, there would probably be a lot less vitriol and hatred being spewed.
"Again, none of this is rational if you're operating out of a system of Grace."
Ahhhhhhhh, the old vague and undefined term gambit. It's so much easier to manipulate things when you don't define them first.
"Maybe some of our differences is that I'm fundamentally believing we are under a system of life, love and grace, while you perhaps are operating under a more "criminal" mindset when it comes to "sin" and more of a rules based religion rather than a grace-based one?"
Maybe, once again, you would be wrong when you try to make shit up and attribute it to me.
"And I know you'll reject that out of hand (I hope you will) because that's contrary to even conservative beliefs. But think about it... is it possible you're approaching sin in the Pharisaical, "YA GOTTA FOLLOW THE RULES AND WE WILL TELL YOU HOW TO FOLLOW THEM!" approach?"
Again, I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about, but not it's not possible. FYI, it's very unlikely that I'll ever actually agree with shit you just make up.
"Of course, it can be. Because of course it can be!"
Excellent rebuttal. Full of facts and Truth. Grounded in the unassailable "Because I say so." school of logic. Rock solid proof of one's claims.
"Because what rational adult would do that, ESPECIALLY with someone they loved?!"
Are you really suggesting that your subjective definition of "rational human adult", is the standard by which YHWH judges? Do you realize that your subjective hunches about what is rational aren't universally held and don't apply beyond yourself?
"Is my wife going to be angry at me and think I've committed a deeply serious crime because I, in my selfish poor judgment, took the last cookie when I knew she wanted it?"
And there go the goal posts. We're not talking about your wife's reaction to eating a cookie. We're talking about the reaction the YHWH when you choose to ignore one of His two most important, foundational, commandments.
Perhaps, your problem is that you don't think that "Love YHWH with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength." and "Love your neighbor as yourself." are actually commandments. Maybe you think that they're guidelines, or suggestions, or best practices. Maybe you think that it's dependent on whether or not you really feel like doing those things.
"Have you ever answered: Do you think that taking this last cookie is a serious deeply wrong sin? As serious as rape or other actions that are actually evil? Do you think taking the last cookie is evil?"
Yes. In fact I'm suggesting that doing so is in direct contravention of what Jesus called the second "greatest commandment".
Let's try this example. The speed limit is 35 MPH. If you drive 36 MPH in a 35 MPH zone, have you broken the law?
"Again, humanity was not made for these rules... these rules were made for humanity."
A meaningless, vague, imprecise phrase that adds nothing to the conversation.
"Prove it."
1. It's always amusing when you demand that I prove something, yet rarely prove anything I ask you to prove.
2. Loving yourself, is what drives you to eat the cookie when you know someone else wants it. Loving others as you love yourself literally precludes eating the cookie that they want from the possible options.
3. If you accept Jesus' commandment (second greatest) as a commandment, then it's self evident.
It's always amusing when you come up with excuses as to why you should be able to break the rules.
"I. Is it surprising to you that an imperfect humanity, created imperfect but in God's image, are not perfect?"
With the caveat that you can't prove your claim that humans were "created imperfect", and that you'll reject my counter claim out of hand, I'll answer your question.
The answer is that humans were created to be in perfect communion with YHWH, and chose to believe and act on the lie that they could become like YHWH.
"II. Is it surprising to you that imperfect people, created imperfect, are not able to perfectly love humans or God?"
No, it's not surprising at all that fallen, sinful, humans engage in sin.
"III. If so, why does that surprise you?"
It doesn't surprise me that sinful humans, engage in sinful behavior. Nor does it surprise me when sinful humans continue to try to usurp the role of YHWH.
"IV. If you can agree that we were created as imperfect people, and that we act predictably in imperfect ways, then can you agree that it would be irrational to expect us to act perfectly?"
I can't agree to your premise. Especially as you seem to have denied the notion that humans were created in the past.
"V. How could we, being imperfect?"
"What is impossible for humans, is possible for God." (paraphrase)
"VI. If you can agree that it would be irrational to expect we, who are created as imperfect, would act or love perfectly, do you see how it's irrational for we who are imperfect and who were created as imperfect, to be perfect?"
Again, if you are going to insist on the "created imperfect" premise, you will have to prove the Truth of that premise. Until you do, I don't accept your premise, and therefore anything based on that premise is "fruit of the poison tree", so to speak.
"VII. Can you agree that it's irrational to punish people who were created as imperfect for being imperfect?"
Again, with the unproven, assumed, premise. I can't agree that your hunches about what might be "
VIIa. And to punish we who were created imperfect for being imperfect for an eternity of torture/torment for acting in a manner consistent with how we were created?"
"Where is the grace or justice or love or basic decency in that?"
When you create a premise, that is intended to support your conclusions, the whole things only holds together of the underlying premise is True. In this case, IF your underlying premise is True, then your questions would make sense. But, since you haven't proven your underlying premise, then it's all just a hypothetical exercise.
FYI. The fact that you believe I can't "prove" my counter premise, or that I won't waste the time of "proving" it again, DOES NOT exempt you from having to prove that your premise (Man was created "imperfect"/sinful) to be True. Even if you could "prove" my premise to be 100% false beyond any shadow of a doubt, you STILL would need to prove that your premise (Man was created "imperfect/sinful) to be True.
If you can't meet your burden of proof, then don't expect me to do what you won't.
"Do you acknowledge that you can, in no way, prove this?"
You're right, I can't "prove" that fallen, sinful, humans are primarily motivated by self interest. Despite the fact that the premise of modern evolutionary theory revolves around the concept of the "Selfish Gene" (Dawkins), you are right. Despite the fact that every time we turn on the news we see evidence of humans acting in their individual self interest at the expense of others, the notion that humans are selfish can't be proven.
"
Couldn't it also be that we're doing our best we can to follow the Right and Good and God's ways, even, and do so imperfectly, NOT because we're focusing on ourselves but just because we're not perfect?"
Anything is theoretically possible. It's also possible that we are engaging in those actions because we believe that we can accrue some advantage to ourselves by doing so. But, it's absolutely possible that a Muslim who's just turned in their Christian neighbor on blasphemy charges (which will result in the Christian being executed) is just trying to "follow the Right and Good".
"If it can't be that, well, can you prove that claim, or is it just a hunch you have?"
Can you prove that the entirety of humanity is just trying to "follow the Right and Good", but just sucks at it because they're imperfect?
Can you acknowledge that Trump is just trying imperfectly to "follow the Right and Good", but is failing because he's simply imperfect?
Hell, let's just acknowledge that Putin is just an imperfect guy trying his best to "follow the Right and Good".
"Of course, this raises the question: Is it wrong to "focus on ourselves..."?"
Based on YHWH's "greatest" and Jesus' "second greatest" commandments, focusing on ourselves to the extent that we ignore focusing on YHWH and on others, would see to be wrong. Which raises the question: Is it right to focus on ourselves to the point where we ignore YHWH and others?
"Is it wrong to take time to take care of ourselves?"
Since this question is so broad and vague, all I can offer is that it might not necessarily be wrong depending on the circumstances. I'd add that if our efforts to "take care" of ourselves exclude our spiritual selves and worship of YHWH, then I could see that being problematic.
"To consider what we need so that we can better be friends and helpers to others?"
1. Again, this is so broad and vague, that all I can offer is maybe.
2. I've found (as have others) that serving others is often a great way to recharge one's self.
Craig...
"Can you prove that the entirety of humanity is just trying to "follow the Right and Good", but just sucks at it because they're imperfect?"
I've never said the entirety of humanity. Clearly there are some overtly bad people doing overtly bad things.
Having said that, the vast majority of people I know and hear about and read about... the ones I observe out in the world and hear about in other sources... they all, on the face of it, generally seem to value moral behavior. They affirm the golden rule. I just see NO DATA to suggest that most people don't care about doing good and right.
Do you have data to suggest that?
"Of course, the Bible LITERALLY does not answer this question in any clear, authoritative manner. The Bible LITERALLY never says that it's a great evil and great level of selfishness to take that last cookie and it is a deep offense to the Almighty God, a betrayal of God and the world, worthy of punishment for a lifetime. For an eternity!"
No, but it also doesn't literally/specifically spake directly to any number of topics you claim it does. But what it does do is give us principles that we can apply to specific situations. In this case, that principle is the "second" greatest commandment. Love others as you love yourself. In the cookie example, someone who was loving others as they love themselves would never consider eating the last cookie, because it places love of self before love of others.
"Correct?"
Technically.
"We literally do not need the Bible to try to figure this last cookie conundrum out."
You might not, but can you really speak authoritatively for anyone else? Are you really suggesting that everyone naturally is inclined to place others equal to or above themselves?
Dawkins and most leading proponents of Evolution would argue that the highest "good" in a naturalistic/unguided system where Darwinian theory describes the mechanism of survival, would argue that all creatures are hard wired to engage in behavior that gives them to best opportunity to survive and reproduce. Literally that evolution hard wires us to act selfishly.
It certainly appears that the Biblical recounting of YHWH's greatest commandment (Love God with all of your being), and Jesus' second greatest (Love others...) are in direct contradiction to the message of "Science", of culture (follow your heart.), and of other worldviews, so yeah maybe we do need the Bible to figure this stuff out.
But if you think you don't, then you do you.
"Do you really think the almighty and everlasting God is outraged if I take that last cookie?"
I'm not YHWH, I don't speak for Him, so I really don't know. I do suspect that if YHWH or Jesus specifically commanded us to live in certain ways, that there might be a reason.
"That sounds like a rather petty and puny godling, if so."
So?
"Tell me this (you won't, but I'll ask anyway, giving you the benefit of the doubt): What if someone committed sins regularly throughout their life, but it was always THIS "last cookie" level degree of sins, small selfishness-es."
1. Why don't you tell me what would happen?
2. Then they have just as much of an opportunity as anyone else for YHWH to redeem them.
"Do you think the right and moral and just thing to do to punish them is to send them to "hell" for an eternity for torment and punishment?"
I think that Satan absolutely loves these sorts of arguments. I think that your question implies that this person should not be punished for a lifetime of "minor" sins in any way shape of form. I think that your question lacks enough information to be answered definitively. I think that YHWH will operate on His own agenda and that He will do whatever please Him. I think that in the absence of a universal, objective, consistent, moral code that it's impossible to categorize. I think that you would never provide an unequivocal, specific response to the question: "What do you think is the right and moral eternal destiny for someone who lived a life of regular, "minor" sin?".
"I'm guessing you're familiar with that old evangelist's rhetorical tool of saying, "If we had committed even only ONE sin, that ONE sin would be sufficient to deserve an eternity of hell!" Do you believe that?"
No.
Do you believe that if someone only committed one sin in their entire life, that they deserve to go to heaven? Do you believe that if that one sin was "minor" enough that they deserve to go to heaven? Do you believe that anyone deserves to go to heaven.
Here's what I'll note after slogging through this morass of excuses for why we should be able to ignore the two "greatest" commandments of YHWH.
There wasn't really any attempt made to demonstrate that my premise was factually incorrect. There really wasn't any attempt made to demonstrate that the Jesus didn't agree that these two commandments were so important that the entire remainder of the law was summarized by these two. There wasn't really an attempt to articulate a Biblical case that these commandments aren't as important as Jesus said they were.
Just a list of excuses as to why we should be excused when we violate these two commandments. Just more pablum about "minor" sins.
The problem I see is that the premise (If these two commandments are operative, then actions that seem "minor" are actually violating these two commandments), still holds. There was not attempt to address the premise, just excuses.
" 42 When they were unable to repay, he canceled the debts of both. So which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered and said, “I assume the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.” And He said to him, “You have judged correctly.”
"Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”
This seems like it might apply to those who think that their "minor" or "trivial" sins don't need much forgiveness. I could be wrong, but Jesus seems pretty clear that this woman (who's sins were many) was in need of significant forgiveness. But weren't her sins "minor" or "trivial"? I mean she hadn't killed anyone, or raped a puppy, or eaten the last cookie, or oppressed people, had she? It's not like she was a billionaire or something. Seriously, is being a poor woman who's forced into a life of prostitution really someone with many sins?
"“Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You [c]gave Me no kiss; but she has not stopped kissing My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not [d]anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume."
Is someone who believes that they've only committed a few "minor" or "trivial" sins going to respond to Jesus like this?
Are we a sinner only because of the acts we engage in, or are the acts we engage in driven by the reality that we are sinners by nature.
Craig...
"for why we should be able to ignore the two "greatest" commandments of YHWH..."
I never said anything about ignoring these teachings. Just as a point of fact.
Craig...
"There wasn't really any attempt made to demonstrate that my premise was factually incorrect. There really wasn't any attempt made to demonstrate that the Jesus didn't agree that these two commandments were so important that the entire remainder of the law was summarized by these two."
THAT was your premise? I didn't get that out of your words. I don't disagree with the premise that Jesus said these two commands summarize the whole law. It was what Jesus literally said.
So, what of it?
Craig...
"Are we a sinner only because of the acts we engage in, or are the acts we engage in driven by the reality that we are sinners by nature."
1. We who sin are sinners by definition.
2. A sin nature is a human theory, unproven and unprovable.
3. Having said that, I'm fine with the notion insofar as it's merely noting that humanity is imperfect, which is observable.
4. But rationally speaking, merely being imperfect does not seem in ANY rational way to be deserving of eternal torture.
Do you disagree?
"This seems like it might apply to those who think that their "minor" or "trivial" sins don't need much forgiveness."
We all need much forgiveness. Thankfully, in the Way of Grace, great forgiveness is available.
And lest you be unsure of what I mean by, Grace, I mean just the typical... great kindness; unmerited kindness.
Craig...
"Just a list of excuses as to why we should be excused when we violate these two commandments. Just more pablum about "minor" sins."
No excuses, just noting the reasable reality of recognizing greater and lesser sins. Do you have ANY data to support the notion that there are no minor sins?
Craig...
"Do you believe that if someone only committed one sin in their entire life, that they deserve to go to heaven? Do you believe that if that one sin was "minor" enough that they deserve to go to heaven? Do you believe that anyone deserves to go to heaven."
I believe that the legalist would say, No! They're sinners.
Those of us who live by grace would say it's a nonsensical question. Heaven isn't and can't be "merited" or "deserved." It's a place and way of unmerited Grace.
I don't tell my loved ones that they "deserve" my love them. I just love them. Free Grace.
Do you disagree?
Craig...
"I think that Satan absolutely loves these sorts of arguments."
What a childish thing to say. Prove it.
Craig...
"I think that your question implies that this person should not be punished for a lifetime of "minor" sins in any way shape of form."
Whatever you "think," that is not what I said and not what I asked and my reasonable question is getting to YOUR understanding of Justice. Unless you can prove something, I don't care what you think the "devil" or God or Thor thinks. Just answer the questions actually put to you.
I've been abundantly clear that one of the problem of various human traditions about hell and eternal punishment is the problem of disproportionate punishment being unjust. I've said nothing about potential alternative proportion punishments. I'm talking specifically about an eternal punishment for the minor sins typical to humanity, the taking the last cookie level of sin.
Craig...
" I think that your question lacks enough information to be answered definitively."
Sigh. WHAT info do you need to answer it "definitively..."? Could you ever have enough information to make a definitive judgment, then maybe you don't have sufficient information to answer ANY questions about eternal punishment, is that fair?
How about a case study... an imaginary one but one that is typical and believable?
What if there were a woman who died at 20.
In her 20 years, she never committed ANY major misdeeds.
No murder, rape, child abuse, theft, assault, genocide... she never wished someone was dead or harmed, even.
She was generally respectful to her parents and siblings, but she DID roll her eyes at her parent 1,000 times! She took the last cookie her sibling wanted 100 times. She lied about that 50 times!
She lied to her grandmother about getting blood on her couch (on her period and she was embarrassed.)
Like that. She committed 25,000 sins at that level. 25,000!
Let's say she never heard about Jesus, even, for what it's worth.
Are you saying that you think that God thinks this woman is "deserving" of an eternity of torment for those sins?
God hasn't told us, so don't try to blame any answer you have on God. What do YOU think?
Craig...
The problem I see is that the premise (If these two commandments are operative, then actions that seem "minor" are actually violating these two commandments), still holds.
Some problems:
1. this is YOUR premise, not what the text says.
2. "actions that seem 'minor' are actually violating these two commandments" is, likewise, YOUR premise, not anything that the text says.
As long as you recognize that these are YOUR takeaways from the text, not what the text says, but what YOU are reading into the text... and as long as you acknowledge that, we're fine.
Do you recognize that the text is not dealing with notions of taking the last cookie and minor (or not) sins? That these are YOUR ideas you're reading into them?
This is important because it points to the reality that anything we read into a given text IS OUR subjective opinion, not a definitive, objective "proof." Which gets to That Which You Continue to Hide From: Your hints that you have an "objective moral system" that you're not sharing, while criticizing me for recognizing the reality that we don't have an objectively provable moral system.
Craig...
1. Again, this is so broad and vague, that all I can offer is maybe.
Precisely. We should not be selfish. This is a reasonable conclusion that people can recognize.
AND, we should take care of ourselves. This is ALSO a reasonable conclusion that people can recognize?
WHEN is a line crossed that says we've moved from bad "selfishness" to reasonable and good "self care..."? WE DO NOT KNOW. God has not told us. The Bible has not told us. It's a vague and perhaps unknowable question with no single "right" answer. There are countless situations, scenarios, conditions and pre-conditions that might be considered by we, who are imperfect, humans.
If we cross a line, we may well do so unknowingly... IF a line even exists.
Do you recognize all of that?
Do you recognize that "being selfish" may be hard to determine, especially for finite, fallible humanity?
Given that, how rational or just is it to speak of "eternal punishment" for that which is vague and unknown for fallible humans?
2. I've found (as have others) that serving others is often a great way to recharge one's self.
Thanks for the subjective, situational, vague and unsupported anecdote.
Craig...
I can't agree to your premise. (ie, if we were created as fallible, imperfect humans)
Also Craig...
Even if you could "prove" my premise to be 100% false beyond any shadow of a doubt, you STILL would need to prove that your premise (Man was created "imperfect/sinful) to be True.
How many perfect/unsinful people do you know? I thought that this was the point YOU were making, that even BABIES are imperfect and sinful! I say that the premise is supported by the observable reality that there are no perfect people.
I'm guessing you're guessing that we weren't CREATED as imperfect people? Of course, none of that is provable. Do YOU think YOU were created as a perfect person, to be a perfect person and you've done so perfectly?
I don't think you do.
I don't know what premise you're objecting to.
Are you thinking that Adam was created to be a perfect person?
Fun guess. You have any proof that there was a literal Adam and he was created to be perfect?
I don't think this is a rational or biblical hunch you have, but regardless, do you recognize it as YOUR hunch and nothing you can prove, certainly not objectively?
"So, what of it?"
Then any action that violates one or both of the "top two" would probably be very hard to describe as minor or trivial.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"We all need much forgiveness"
Interesting that you'd think that someone with only a few trivial or minor sins would need forgiveness out of proportion to their sins.
"Do you have ANY data to support the notion that there are no minor sins?"
As soon as you show me the data that there are "minor" or "trivial" sins, I'll think about it. But it's ridiculous to think that you'd expect me to prove a counter claim I haven't specifically made, when you won't prove your explicit claim.
"Do you disagree?"
You didn't answer the question, and the babbling you did isn't specific enough to agree or disagree with. Try answering the question as asked.
"What a childish thing to say. Prove it."
Given the multiple claims you won't prove, this is indeed childish. The fact that you want me to prove an opinion is stupid.
"Could you ever have enough information to make a definitive judgment, then maybe you don't have sufficient information to answer ANY questions about eternal punishment, is that fair?"
Given the reality that I almost always answer your questions, the answer is clearly yes. The fact that you default to this instead of providing more detail tells me all I need to know about yoru question, and your willingness to provide more detail when asked.
"How about a case study... an imaginary one but one that is typical and believable?"
No thanks. It's literally not a "case study" since you just made some shit up and loaded it in such a way as to lead to your predetermined conclusion.
I'm not wasting my time with made up bullshit.
"She committed 25,000 sins at that level."
What level specifically? Please define these levels you claim exist.
"Do you recognize that the text is not dealing with notions of taking the last cookie and minor (or not) sins?"
No, because the text is a principle, not an exhaustive list of sins and a catalogue of what sins ate minor or trivial. That's just you looking for loopholes. Of course it's reasonable to apply the principle (these two commandments are very, very important), to any of our actions no matter how trivial we wish them to be.
"That these are YOUR ideas you're reading into them?"
Yes, I've taken those two very important commandments and come up with an application for them.
What you haven't done is:
1. Demonstrated that I'm wrong.
2. Demonstrated that there are "levels" of sin that YHWH deals with each level differently.
3. Provided any sort of rational alternative.
4. Acknowledged that your hunches have zero direct scriptural support and draw entirely on your persons, biased, imperfect, fallible, limited, powers of observation based on a small sample size.
"Do you recognize all of that?"
Yes. I recognize that you've just made up a bunch of shit that you think justifies your unproven hunches. I don't realize any of it as being something you can prove.
"Do you recognize that "being selfish" may be hard to determine, especially for finite, fallible humanity?"
Do you realize that you've just made one of my main points? That being that you, by relying only on your finite, fallible, biased, imperfect, limited, human beings, have no way to determine what sins are "minor" or "trivial" on any level outside of your limited (etc) brain.
"Given that, how rational or just is it to speak of "eternal punishment" for that which is vague and unknown for fallible humans?"
Well, given the reality that scripture is rife with allusions to eternal punishment, it seems foolish to pretend otherwise or to try to rearrange scripture to hide the reality.
Which comes right back to your problem. You are insistent that you know what will NOT happen, but you refuse to be specific about what you think will happen.
As you keep saying, since you "don't know" what will happen, why would you continue to makes pronouncements about what will not happen.
So many words. So few direct, clear answers.
Craig...
Demonstrated that I'm wrong.
Wrong about what? Are you saying that you DON'T think it is easily observable and completely rational that sins and misdeeds can be considered greater and lesser?
WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? Take a stand. make yourself clear.
But how about this: Let me guess that your position is that YOU BELIEVE that GOD does not view morality in the sense of counting ANY sins as "minor..."
Is that your position?
If so, do you acknowledge that you can't prove it objectively?
Why do you make rational conversation so difficult?
Can you acknowledge that many rational people would say, "OF COURSE, there are levels of right and wrong! Of course, there are minor sins!"
Can you acknowledge that you can't prove them wrong?
Craig...
2. Demonstrated that there are "levels" of sin that YHWH deals with each level differently.
Nor have you demonstrated that God deals with all sin the same and that God thinks that EVEN ONE (what reasonable people would consider) minor sin in a human's life is worthy of eternal torment?
3. Provided any sort of rational alternative.
Alternative to WHAT?
I'm saying quite clearly that YOU DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE, authoritative, universal moral code that applies to everyone. You don't have it. I don't have it. We can't PROVE our moral ideas objectively.
Fact one.
I'm saying that NONETHELESS, it is good and rational and advisable to come to agreement on moral notions to at least some degree, EVEN IF we can't prove it.
I'm saying that saying, "It's not provable (or worse - it IS provable, but I'm not going to give you the proof!) so let's just have moral anarchy in this world!" is not a rational or moral option.
So, in LIGHT of these ideas, I recognize that we who are created in the image of God with an understanding of morality (imperfect in our human lives, but nonetheless, real) have an obligation to try to NOT live in amoral anarchy, but to come to some agreements about what is an isn't moral, good, or bad.
THAT is the alternative to the apparent amoral chaos you're advocating.
OR, if you're NOT advocating amoral chaos, then what ARE you suggesting? That we all listen to your "objective" morality that you're not willing to prove? What alternative are YOU offering? I'm offering an alternative: Try to use our God-given reasoning to understand morality as best we can as individuals and as groups and societies. That IS an alternative. What are you offering?
Craig...
4. Acknowledged that your hunches have zero direct scriptural support and draw entirely on your persons, biased, imperfect, fallible, limited, powers of observation based on a small sample size.
Are we agreed, then, that NEITHER ONE OF US can or has proven the unprovable notion of the obvious idea that there are, of course, degrees of sin? That there are lesser and greater sins and misdeeds?
I guess my "proof," if you need it, is that it is devastating and deadly and has widespread consequences when someone commits genocide.
On the other hand, when someone takes the last cookie (that his wife wanted), there are no great and serious and widespread harms done. There IS perhaps some small level of harm done (and if repeated all the time in regular such selfish acts, the harm would be greater and growing). But the one time selfish act of taking the last cookie is just not in ANY rational, observable way as harmful or devastating or far flung in damaging repercussions as a genocide.
That you can't/don't seem willing to acknowledge this is astounding.
And I have NOT "acknowledged that I "have zero direct scriptural support..." The Bible regularly calls out as especially heinous, for instance, the oppression of the poor and marginalized. The Bible also has those places where God lists a few things that God views as especially damning. The Bible also makes mention of an "unforgivable sin." OF COURSE, there is biblical support for the notion of greater and lesser sins.
And I acknowledge that there are places in the Bible that some people might cite as suggesting (to them) that all sin is the same.
AND the reality is neither of us can objectively prove what God thinks on the matter.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
Craig...
Do you realize that you've just made one of my main points? That being that you, by relying only on your finite, fallible, biased, imperfect, limited, human beings, have no way to determine what sins are "minor" or "trivial" on any level outside of your limited (etc) brain.
Yes! I'm using my God-given, created in the image of God, just a little lower than God brain and reason to do the best I can when it comes to moral questions, even if imperfectly.
The same as you.
The same fallible brain we are both using to read the Bible and reach moral conclusions.
What would you suggest we use instead of our brains and reason, even if they're fallible? What's the alternative?
I'm guessing you might say something like, "We pray to God for understanding..." a point which I'm fine with. But what then? What if WE THINK with our God-given, but imperfect, human brain, that God recognizes degrees of sin? What if WE THINK, with our God-given, imperfect human brain, that God does NOT recognize degrees of sin? What then?
What's the alternative?
That's the baseline question that you continue to steadily ignore/not answer/pretend it's okay to ignore.
It's not okay.
I think questions of morality and justice are too important to just pretend like we don't have to reach conclusions on, just because our God-given, human brains and reasoning is not perfect. You?
Craig...
As you keep saying, since you "don't know" what will happen, why would you continue to makes pronouncements about what will not happen.
I'm making quite clear that NONE of us know objectively will or won't happen after we die. Not me. NOT YOU.
Agreed?
As to the rest of your question: I make moral conclusions because I think it's important to try to understand questions of morality and justice in spite of our imperfect human brains because human lives matter. Because justice matters. Because stopping oppression and harm matters, as much as we can control such. To us and to God, I believe.
Do you disagree?
Craig...
you show me the data that there are "minor" or "trivial" sins, I'll think about it. But it's ridiculous to think that you'd expect me to prove a counter claim I haven't specifically made, when you won't prove your explicit claim.
In the bible, we see the imperfect and fallible Apostle James say...
"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail
because of the misery that is coming on you.
Your wealth has rotted, and
moths have eaten your clothes.
Your gold and silver are corroded.
Their corrosion will testify against you and
eat your flesh like fire.
You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look! The wages you failed to pay
the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you.
The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
You have condemned and murdered the innocent one...!"
Even though he was an imperfect human with imperfect reasoning and an imperfect understanding of Justice, he CLEARLY-AS-HELL denounced those who were causing harm.
Why?
Because the Bible makes clear, over and over -
JUST AS OUR HUMAN MORAL REASONING DOES -
That it's wrong to take advantage of/cause harm to/oppress the poor and marginalized.
James doesn't claim to have any special revelation from God or "proof" that he's right and the wealthy oppressors are wrong. He just took a stand because he thought it was the right thing to do.
Why? The text does not say but I'm guessing because he used his moral reasoning, which is common to humanity. Which we can see by the way that we can so easily agree on so much on matters of morality, from culture to culture and age to age.
Not perfectly, not entirely, but reasonably and, I'd say, increasingly better.
And we can conclude this, in part, because the bible makes it clear that we all have God's will written on our hearts and minds, but that's a fallible interpretation... I further conclude it because we can see it, observe it, measure it.
Our understanding of morality and justice are not perfect (observably, demonstrably), but it's not some unknowable mystery, either. We all generally agree, "Do unto others..."
Now, given that you can't prove your "objective morality" to anyone in any objective, demonstrable manner, what else would you have us do? Will you condemn James for taking such a strong stand against oppression by the wealthy?
More questions to go unanswered.
Craig...
"You are insistent that you know what will NOT happen, but you refuse to be specific about what you think will happen."
1. None of us objectively knows what will or won't happen in a potential afterlife. We just literally don't objectively know.
2. Given that, it's reasonable to acknowledge we don't know what will happen in an afterlife.
3. BUT, if we acknowledge the existence of a perfectly loving and perfectly just God, then it's rational to note that this God will not act in an unloving or unjust manner.
4. Now, if you want to argue that your guess is that a perfectly just God will punish people in an over-the-top, unjust manner - what would typically be considered a travesty of justice - then the onus is on you to support the claim. Especially if you're saying your opinion
is objectively provably factual. You'd be the one making the irrational outlier claim.
"Wrong about what? Are you saying that you DON'T think it is easily observable and completely rational that sins and misdeeds can be considered greater and lesser?"
As a general statement, I have yet to see any instance where you have definitively proven that I am wrong about anything, but specifically about your made up hunches about what I think. I think you're inability to defend your claims that YHWH views sins as "greater and lesser", in the same way that you do is increasingly becoming a problem. As is your inability to understand that I agree that YOU can define sins however you want to. The problem that you haven't proven that your vague, undefined, categories are shared by anyone else but you. So, you're free to have whatever hunches about sin make you feel good, just stop trying to insist that your hunches actually represent anything beyond your hunches.
"WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? Take a stand. make yourself clear."
If you won't or can't make your own position clear, and delineate what sins YHWH considers "minor", and "trivial, and how He deals with the consequences of sins in those categories, then I can only presume that this is a tactic designed to draw attention away from the shortcomings and massive holes in your position. I'm a limited, finite guy with limited time and bandwidth. I only have time to discuss your position (vague and undefined as it is), without trying to add a completely separate discussion at the same time in the same thread. So, once your finished, I'll gladly start a thread on my position.
"But how about this: Let me guess that your position is that YOU BELIEVE that GOD does not view morality in the sense of counting ANY sins as "minor..." Is that your position?"
No. My position is that YOU don't know the first thing about how YHWH views sins, and whether of not He acknowledged your arbitrary, vague, undefined, categories. That's my position, because you haven't proven any of your claims on the subject.
"If so, do you acknowledge that you can't prove it objectively?"
It's not, so no.
l.
"Why do you make rational conversation so difficult?"
I'm sorry if my trying to get you to provide details, definitions, and prove your positions makes conversation difficult for you. It would be much easier for you if I simply accepted your unproven assertions and claims as Truth, without asking you to prove your claims and assertions. My job isn't to make conversation easier for you, it's to try to get you to explain your hunches and acknowledge the difference between your hunches, and reality.
"Can you acknowledge that many rational people would say, "OF COURSE, there are levels of right and wrong! Of course, there are minor sins!" Can you acknowledge that you can't prove them wrong?"
I can acknowledge that people might say that. However, people saying something doesn't mean anything in relation to how YHWH views our sins. I can also acknowledge that you simply asserting something that you claim people say, does not make what they say True.
Craig...
2. Demonstrated that there are "levels" of sin that YHWH deals with each level differently.
"Nor have you demonstrated that God deals with all sin the same and that God thinks that EVEN ONE (what reasonable people would consider) minor sin in a human's life is worthy of eternal torment?"
Your failure to demonstrate that your claims are True does not obligate me to demonstrate that your claims about my position are True. The notion that I should accept your bastardized claims about what I might or might not believe as True, and as a substitute for you proving your claims, is irrational.
"3. Provided any sort of rational alternative. Alternative to WHAT?"
Anything, ever. You simply make unproven assertions, and act as if the matter is settled.
"I'm saying quite clearly that YOU DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE, authoritative, universal moral code that applies to everyone. You don't have it. I don't have it. We can't PROVE our moral ideas objectively."
"Fact one"
"I'm saying that NONETHELESS, it is good and rational and advisable to come to agreement on moral notions to at least some degree, EVEN IF we can't prove it."
If this is a "fact" then prove it. I'm saying that it is certainly possible to come to some level of consensus based on random subjective standards of morality, and to impose that subjective moral standard on others through majority rule. Of course it's still subjective, there's not grounding beyond majority rule, and it doesn't account for the fact that the majority is frequently wrong about what's moral.
"I'm saying that saying, "It's not provable (or worse - it IS provable, but I'm not going to give you the proof!) so let's just have moral anarchy in this world!" is not a rational or moral option."
So. The notion that you simply saying words carries some sort of power or gravitas is kind of disgusting.
"So, in LIGHT of these ideas, I recognize that we who are created in the image of God with an understanding of morality (imperfect in our human lives, but nonetheless, real) have an obligation to try to NOT live in amoral anarchy, but to come to some agreements about what is an isn't moral, good, or bad."
Again, as long as you understand that this is your subjective hunch, and that you have no grounding to apply it to other people and their actions, I don't really care what your subjective, unproven hunch is. But appealing to your ignorance as a way to give credibility to your unproven hunches doesn't seem particularly helpful.
The problem is that I don't think that your fallible, imperfect, biased, human, hunches based on your limited imperfect observation, viewed through the lens of your biases, political/social views, and the like are particularly compelling. Nor do I think that YHWH adheres to your unproven hunches, and vague/undefined categories.
oes not equal mora
"THAT is the alternative to the apparent amoral chaos you're advocating."
No, that is (at most) one alternative to your l=flawed, skewed, made up, twisted, fantasy about what you think I'm advocating.
"OR, if you're NOT advocating amoral chaos, then what ARE you suggesting?"
That YHWH is God. That He created everything this is. That YHWH isn't limited or bound by your hunches about how He should act. In short, my position is that YHWH is God, and you're not. YHWH has graciously given us some information about Himself, and His plans. But ultimately I'm not in a position to pass judgement on Him and how He chooses to address sin.
"That we all listen to your "objective" morality that you're not willing to prove?"
No, for at least the second time.
"What alternative are YOU offering?"
YHWH is God and you're not.
"I'm offering an alternative: Try to use our God-given reasoning to understand morality as best we can as individuals and as groups and societies. That IS an alternative. What are you offering?"
You're offering a subjective, vague, undefined, hunch about how YHWH should judge sin, based in your admitted ignorance on the subject. As long as you are clear that you are offering a personal, subjective, vague, undefined, moral code, then knock yourself out. Just stop telling us what YHWH will not do, since you have no clue. As long as you admit that the only grounding your moral code has is in your perception of consensus by "most of the world", and that you have no problem imposing this consensus on others, knock yourself out.
What you are describing is how laws are made. But as you point out legal d
"I'm guessing you might say something like, "We pray to God for understanding..." a point which I'm fine with. But what then?"
Stop guessing, you always guess wrong and look stupid.
" What if WE THINK with our God-given, but imperfect, human brain, that God recognizes degrees of sin?"
What if you start telling other people that "God thinks that X,Y, and Z" are "minor" or "trivial" sins and they start to increase engaging in those behaviors? What if you're wrong and you lead people into a life on increasing sinful behaviors? What if you're wrong and something you decide is "minor" is really major, and you're screwed? What if someone asks you to provide details about these categories, and to define them? What if your mistake causes harm to others? What if leading others into increasing sinful acts, is something that YHWH really feels strongly about and punishes harshly? Do you really plan to stand before YHWH and plead ignorance?
"What if WE THINK, with our God-given, imperfect human brain, that God does NOT recognize degrees of sin? What then?"
Well, if we assume that all sin is equally bad, and we strive to avoid all sin and to ask for forgiveness and repent regularly, what exactly is the downside? How is trying to engage in fewer sinful acts something to be scorned?
"What's the alternative?"
Take sin seriously as something to be avoided at all costs (as Jesus taught), err on the side of confession and repentance. Focus on YHWH and being more like Christ. Pray for the power of the Holy Spirit to avoid giving in to temptation. Not trying to impose limits, categories, and hunches on YHWH. "Go and sin no more.", "What is impossible for man, is possible for YHWH", don't lead others into sin. Love YHWH with all of your being, and love others as yourself.
"That's the baseline question that you continue to steadily ignore/not answer/pretend it's okay to ignore. It's not okay."
It's not that I'm ignoring it, as much as I'm trying to focus on your unproven claims, your vague and undefined categories of sin, and your unsupported assertions, before I move along to my thoughts.
"I think questions of morality and justice are too important to just pretend like we don't have to reach conclusions on, just because our God-given, human brains and reasoning is not perfect. You?"
I think questions about the authority of YHWH, His moral law, and how He communicates that are indeed vitally important. It's why I won't just blindly accept your unproven claims, unsupported assertions, and vague/undefined categories as accurately representing YHWH. It's why I'm choosing to ignore your attempts to not prove your claims etc. I'm also looking for more than a ungrounded, subjective, moral code enforced by consensus, and regularly changing.
"I'm making quite clear that NONE of us know objectively will or won't happen after we die. Not me. NOT YOU. Agreed?"
You are making it clear that you believe the above statement to be True. Unfortunately, you believing something doesn't make it True. It's just your belief.
"As to the rest of your question: I make moral conclusions because I think it's important to try to understand questions of morality and justice in spite of our imperfect human brains because human lives matter. Because justice matters. Because stopping oppression and harm matters, as much as we can control such. To us and to God, I believe."
Great, yet you can't provide specifics and details about how these categories of sin works, how YHWH treats "minor" or "trivial" sins. If a massive accumulation of "minor" or "trivial" sins somehow turns into the equivalent of a major sin. You can't even unqeuivocally state that what happens in the after life is eternal. You can't unequivocally state that your hunches about YHWH's justice include any sort of punishment or consequence for any sins. I get that you believe this vague, undetailed, mishmash of your biases, prejudices, hunches, and Reason, but that doesn't make it True no matter how often you repeat yourself.
FYI, simply stating that something is "reality" or self evident" isn't actually proving either of those claims.
Do you disagree?
I'm going to start by pointing out that copy pasting the words you claim are from James into both Google, and Bible Gateway turned up absolutely zero matches. So, without the actual reference I'm not going to assume that you've accurately quoted James.
So, until I can look at the context, and dig a little deeper, I see no reason to trust your cherry picked proof text.
It's strange that you keep offering scripture when you've been adamant that you DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO construct your own subjective moral code.
Re: James... it's amazing to me that you don't recognize these words from James 5 by now. If nothing else, by now after all the conversations you and I have shared over the years.
James 5: 1 and beyond.
Dan,
Did you NOT read what I said, I literally copy pasted your words into multiple search engines and NONE of them recognized them. As usual, I'm overwhelmed by your gracelessness.
RE James 5
1. It's interesting that James is pretty clear that he's talking about people who have defrauded others. Bankruptcy, by definition, is not fraud. The bankruptcy process is designed to weed out those who would use it in a fraudulent manner.
2. James is talking about some pretty harsh punishment that will be delivered by YHWH. It's interesting that you don't seem to be concerned about the appropriateness of the punishment.
3. This is similar to what Jesus said about storing up treasures on earth, instead of treasures in Heaven.
Unfortunately for you, US bankruptcy law isn't informed by scripture, and you have no need for THE BIBLE when constructing your subjective moral code.
What is wrong with you two? Just moral common sense dictates that if I'm a multimillionaire and owe a worker $10,000, I will NOT use bankruptcy laws to get out of paying the debt. And if it were my company that owed the debt and I was somehow legally bound to file bankruptcy for "The company's " sake (almost certainly not the case), then I would STILL personally pay any debts I owed to the poor laborer. Because of course, I would!
Who, being wealthy, refuses to pay debts they owe, just because you can use legal loopholes to stiff an employee!?
Of course, this is one of the problems with wealth. It so easily blinds you, as the Bible and common sense make clear.
Lord, lord!
Craig, you claim that you did a good search for the DIRECT QUOTE from James that I posted (having copied and pasted it in the comments.) I did the same thing, I copied and pasted the first sentence...
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail
because of the misery that is coming on you...
and lo and behold, what popped up?
https://www.google.com/search?q=Now+listen%2C+you+rich+people%2C+weep+and+wail+because+of+the+misery+that+is+coming+on+you.&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS970US970&oq=Now+listen%2C+you+rich+people%2C+weep+and+wail+because+of+the+misery+that+is+coming+on+you.&aqs=chrome..69i57.12653j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Now, if you copied and pasted the WHOLE passage I quoted, then perhaps it's because I removed the 1, 2, 3, etc verse notations and [a] footnotes to make it more readable and so, of course, you can't get a return.
But that wasn't even my point. I'm saying I know that passage like the back of my hand. I'm just surprised it wasn't obvious to you. But then, that may be one of the differences between more progressive minded and more conservative churches: In more conservative churches, they don't tend to preach on the passages that are harsh towards the wealthy and so, you're just not familiar with all of these sorts of passages.
Although, I will say that I would have recognized that passage even back in my conservative days, but then, those conservative Baptists sure taught us all the Bible and to take it seriously and so, I did. And yet, at the same time, it's true that our Baptist churches didn't preach much on James 5 or the Magnificat, etc.
All of that is an aside, but for what it's worth.
Craig...
James is talking about some pretty harsh punishment that will be delivered by YHWH. It's interesting that you don't seem to be concerned about the appropriateness of the punishment.
I've always been clear that people are free to NOT choose the way of Grace AND that the wealthy, as Jesus noted, were less likely to enter the realm of God. I've also been clear that God stands strongly with the poor and marginalized and against the rich oppressors, so this isn't anything I haven't noted before.
And yes, I AM concerned about the wealthy (in part, because you and I are part of the wealthy, relatively-speaking!). This oppression of the poor and marginalized is awful for the poor, but it's also bad for the least of these. Indeed, I think Jesus makes it clear that one's wealth need NOT be something that keeps them out of the Beloved Community and that Jesus wants to seek and save ALL the lost, including the oppressors. It's just that Jesus doesn't suffer fools who continue to oppress and abuse their wealth. According to the Bible.
3. This is similar to what Jesus said about storing up treasures on earth, instead of treasures in Heaven.
A bit. Both passages certainly speak to the corrosive nature of wealth and love of wealth.
Craig...
It's strange that you keep offering scripture when you've been adamant that you DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO construct your own subjective moral code.
I'm doing that for your sake, since you apparently are saying you're not able to recognize moral notions without the Bible. But hell, you can't recognize the overtly awful nature of the wealthy refusing to pay their debts to their laborers and that level of oppression and abuse of power, even with the Bible OR common sense morality.
""Nor have you demonstrated that God deals with all sin the same and that God thinks that EVEN ONE (what reasonable people would consider) minor sin in a human's life is worthy of eternal torment?""
Two problems:
1. Where are we told in Scripture that God deals with sin based on a given behavior's severity (according to whom Dan is unclear, but seems to base all on human consensus which itself might not be the case) or how many times a given behavior is committed by a person, or how many different behaviors of varying severity one commits?
2. Where are we told in Scripture that God is no more offended by any particular sinful behavior or the commission of any number of sinful behaviors (any number of times) than we (or Dan) might be?
I keep trying to offer relevant analogies, such as being slapped. One person might want to sue, while another might shrug it off. But somehow, God is no more offended by a "trivial" sinful behavior (to Dan) than Dan is, but more so than I am? How can this be? Is the sinful behavior as severe as I think it is, or as severe as Dan thinks it is? I believe we all better off not committing the sinful behavior simply because God would prefer it, but what's really important to God and how offended by sin He is is simply that we are sinful. It's not about eating the last cookie versus sending 6 million Jews to the showers. It's that WE ARE sinful which condemns us.
But so long as Dan can pretend God judges us by particular sins, he can then pretend there's some question about the sinfulness of a given behavior he personally finds unoffensive and therefore God would be unjust and imperfectly loving to punish someone who cares more for indulging that sinful behavior than denying one's self for God's sake.
"What is wrong with you two? Just moral common sense dictates that if I'm a multimillionaire and owe a worker $10,000, I will NOT use bankruptcy laws to get out of paying the debt. And if it were my company that owed the debt and I was somehow legally bound to file bankruptcy for "The company's " sake (almost certainly not the case), then I would STILL personally pay any debts I owed to the poor laborer. Because of course, I would!"
Nothing. The above is simply, and only, your opinion. It's based in your biases, your prejudices, your political philosophy, your theology, and your human imperfection. If you would Truly behave that way, then more power to you, there is nothing wrong with you making that personal choice. The problem is that "moral common sense" (one more vague, undefined, undefinable, subjective, and meaningless term) doesn't give you the grounds to pass judgement on others.
"and lo and behold, what popped up?"
Congratulations, it didn't pop up for me. I guess you had a choice with this. You could have graciously given me the information that I asked for, and moved on. Or you could have chosen this much more petty path, one devoid of grace, or class.
I guess you're just an all around better human being than I am and it's your right to boast and pridefully gloat.
"I've always been clear that people are free to NOT choose the way of Grace AND that the wealthy, as Jesus noted, were less likely to enter the realm of God. I've also been clear that God stands strongly with the poor and marginalized and against the rich oppressors, so this isn't anything I haven't noted before."
Yes, you have. The above paragraph doesn't actually address the reality that James is predicting some dire circumstances for those who engage in fraud to increase their wealth. You seem to be OK with those dire punishments being perfectly just, fair, and appropriate for the economic class you love to dislike.
"And yes, I AM concerned about the wealthy (in part, because you and I are part of the wealthy, relatively-speaking!)."
Not "relatively speaking" it's the literal factual Truth demonstrated by hard data that you are one of the economic class you seem to despise. I guess you're one of the fortunate "good" wealthy who won't have to worry.
"This oppression of the poor and marginalized is awful for the poor, but it's also bad for the least of these. Indeed, I think Jesus makes it clear that one's wealth need NOT be something that keeps them out of the Beloved Community and that Jesus wants to seek and save ALL the lost, including the oppressors. It's just that Jesus doesn't suffer fools who continue to oppress and abuse their wealth. According to the Bible."
OK, if you say so and can muster up enough cherry picked proof texts to eisegete, than you must be right. But, you DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE.
"3. This is similar to what Jesus said about storing up treasures on earth, instead of treasures in Heaven."
I'm pretty sure I pointed this out. The problem is that these passages also strongly indicate an eternal destiny, where one group will suffer and one group will not.
"A bit. Both passages certainly speak to the corrosive nature of wealth and love of wealth."
Interesting, that you've been quite clear earlier that by using terms like, "The Rich", "Billionaires", and "Millionaires", that you are treating everyone in those categories in the same way. Now, you've introduced some weasel words for some reason. Much like your eisegesis of the James passage focused solely on the wealth of those being condemned, while ignoring the reality that it was only aimed at those who gained their wealth by "fraud". This also raises the question of WHY James, Jesus, and others talked about the perils of "love of money", "greed", economic "fraud", and relying on one's wealth instead of on YHWH. Given the overarching thrust of the scope of the Biblical narrative, it might be reasonable to conclude that James, Jesus and the rest were more concerned with the "treasures in Heaven"/spiritual aspect of wealth and self reliance. It might be that James, Jesus, and the rest were trying to caution some of the wealthy folks and lead them to repentance. Maybe the point wasn't that the wealthy needed to be punished, but the wealthy needed to be saved and that their wealth was an obstacle to salvation.
But hey, what do I know. I'm just a nut who thinks that Jesus came to save His people from their sins (all of them), not to reorganize people's economic status.
"I'm doing that for your sake, since you apparently are saying you're not able to recognize moral notions without the Bible. But hell, you can't recognize the overtly awful nature of the wealthy refusing to pay their debts to their laborers and that level of oppression and abuse of power, even with the Bible OR common sense morality."
Thank you ever so much for condescending to do me this boon. I surely appreciate it. I guess it's strange that you've never really even attempted to demonstrate that there is any other possibly way to demonstrate that the behavior you are so worried about is objectively/universally wrong under any other moral code.
I hate to bring this up again, given the fact that you've ignored it every other time I've done so.
Scientific experts in the field of Evolutionary Biology, and related fields tell us unequivocally that any activity that helps an individual, or culture, enhance their advantage in propagating their offspring is moral. That anything (including rape and murder) that enhances the survival of the fittest is completely appropriate and expected.
Before you ask, I've provided the names, quotes, textbooks, links, etc to back this up, so don't even bother to ask for it all again.
It's fascinating to me that even though I've agreed with you that you DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO construct a subjective, imperfect, changeable, localized, moral code, and that this moral code can be imposed on a minority by a majority, that you won't simply accept that agreement and move on. You seem compelled to demonstrate (without any actual proof beyond your personal opinions) that your hunches about this subjective moral code must be accepted by others/everyone. Hence your insistence that "WE" (undefined, vague, and assumed) "DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE".
Why not just own the fact that YOU, and you alone, "DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE" to form your own personal, subjective, moral code and be done with it? Why keep trying to browbeat those of us who want you to prove your claims beyond merely stating that they are "self evident".
Dan said...
"I'm doing that for your sake, since you apparently are saying you're not able to recognize moral notions without the Bible..."
Craig responded...
Thank you ever so much for condescending to do me this boon.
I don't understand how it's condescending. YOU are the one saying that you don't have an objective moral system and that you don't understand morality without the Bible so I'm trying hard to help you see how reasonably awful a bad behavior is.
Let me ask you this, Craig, since you don't have either a reason-based reason for any morality NOR do you have any biblical reason that you can prove... are you telling me that you can not condemn raping children as a great and atrocious evil? EVEN IF you can't prove it?
Tell me that you're not that far gone.
And if you have NO reason-based reason to understand how wrong it is for rich people to cheat their employees out of what they owe them, and you can't prove anything biblically, but it's somehow still what you're relying upon, what's wrong with me helping you out?
Craig...
It's fascinating to me that even though I've agreed with you that you DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO construct a subjective, imperfect, changeable, localized, moral code, and that this moral code can be imposed on a minority by a majority, that you won't simply accept that agreement and move on.
I'm not at all sure we're agreeing. You CONTINUE to mock/belittle the significance of find reasonable moral common ground and taking strong stands on CLEARLY (if improvably by either you or me) moral concerns. It SOUNDS like you are not willing to condemn child rape. That's a huge and sickening problem.
Or, are you willing to condemn child rape, even though you can't prove it wrong and even while you belittle my recognizing immoral behavior based on reason?
Do you not see the problem or hypocrisy on your part?
All of this - along with your complete inability to even come close to even TRYING to objectively prove your moral hunches - makes me lean more and more into the reasonable and NEAR-objective notion of harm/Human Rights-based moral codes.
Human rights, many people will acknowledge, are self-evident and pretty universal.
That is, we nearly ALL agree - all of humanity, nearly universally - that it's important to "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." This concept is found in EVERY major religion and philosophy and nearly every religion and philosophy, major OR minor or obscure.
We nearly all agree that people ought not cause harm to us or abuse our basic, self-evident human rights. We further recognize nearly universally that if WE don't want human rights abused, that it's reasonable to not abuse OTHERS' human rights.
My evidence for this obvious claim - before you ask for proof - is the presence of some form of the Golden Rule in every major religion and philosophy.
Yes, there are outliers, but they are often sociopaths or otherwise disturbed and an extreme minority. That is, there MAY be some men (and a few women, even) who think it's okay to rape children - or for others to rape their own children - but that is an EXTREME minority, especially today, because of human rights/moral advances in humanity. There is NO evidence of which I'm aware that suggests that there are even 5% (.5%? .0001%??) of global population who think it IS okay to rape children or for others to rape their children.
So, while any one given religion would need some widespread acceptance of their various human traditions about morality and they just don't have it, the vast majority of humanity agrees with the Golden rule and human rights. Even if imperfectly.
Craig...
Why not just own the fact that YOU, and you alone, "DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE" to form your own personal, subjective, moral code and be done with it?
Because that's not reality? I know PLENTY of moral and righteous atheists and non-bible believers, as well as Christians who don't agree with conservative traditions about the Bible, so it's demonstrably NOT just me. So why would I make a false claim?
I'm not a modern conservative, after all! (That's a joke. Sort of.)
Craig...
Why keep trying to browbeat those of us who want you to prove your claims beyond merely stating that they are "self evident".
1. Because it's important to take a stand for moral issues, even if we can't prove them objectively.
2. Because it's important for the self-righteous pharisee-types to recognize that they don't have a corner on morality and for them to recognize that they can't prove their human traditions to be moral - especially the ones that cause harm, which clearly are immoral.
Given that you acknowledge you can't prove any moral hunches you hold, why do you care? You appear to be taking a stand on amorality and moral chaos, where no one can prove anything so it's all meaningless.
I say it's important to take a strong stand against such amorality and I'm not alone on that front.
Marshal...
1. Where are we told in Scripture that God deals with sin based on a given behavior's severity (according to whom Dan is unclear, but seems to base all on human consensus which itself might not be the case) or how many times a given behavior is committed by a person, or how many different behaviors of varying severity one commits?
WHY in the name of all that is holy do I have to find "in Scripture" what is obvious? The Bible never condemns slavery outright. Are you going to say, "Where are we told in Scripture that slavery is a great evil...?"? God forbid!
It's okay to take human rights, reason-based stands against oppression, boys. What is hard to understand about that?
Why, when Scripture tells us that we are created in God's image, a little lower than God, with God-given reason and God's "commands written upon our hearts and minds..." do we NEED to find "in Scripture" what is obvious?
Marshal, can you condemn clearly the notion of forced child marriages? The bible NEVER condemns it and, indeed, it's given a green light in places in the Bible. Do you NEED a Bible verse to condemn it? To condemn female genital mutilation (also never condemned in the Bible)?
In Craig's original post, he said...
It seems like it is the human tendency to focus on one's self, and what's best for one's self at any given moment.
Again, another reason why Harm/Human Rights is a more reliable standard for morality than the sacred traditions of various human religions and philosophies: IF one does the very human and not irrational thing of focusing on themselves and what's best for them AND if they remember - "as long as I don't cause HARM to others or deny others their human rights..." even if that's imperfect, at least it's a reason-based and understandable starting point for some basic level of morality and even, way, way beyond basic.
Religious traditions may say, "Well, we've been taught it's not right for races to inter-marry..." or, "We've been taught men shouldn't marry men..." then they may oppress their loved ones and try to deny them that basic human right of marrying the person of their choice, the person they love and who will support them.
BUT, if we start with, "Yes, I'm looking out for myself AND I recognize that same right in others to make THEIR own choices and thus, I'm not going to impose MY choices on someone else... that would be denying them their human rights, which I recognize I want for myself."
For instance.
Craig continues with this nonsense...
"Scientific experts in the field of Evolutionary Biology, and related fields tell us unequivocally that any activity that helps an individual, or culture, enhance their advantage in propagating their offspring is moral."
SOME experts may say that. Other experts would object strongly. You can't pick out the worst examples of what experts say and pretend like they speak for all experts in their field. That would be irrational and, I say, wrong. I think "the Bible" would agree.
"SOME experts may say that. Other experts would object strongly. You can't pick out the worst examples of what experts say and pretend like they speak for all experts in their field. That would be irrational and, I say, wrong. I think "the Bible" would agree."
If by some, you mean the most prominent advocates for a naturalistic/materialistic/Darwinian Worldview, you'd be correct. Bear in mind that Dawkins literally wrote the book on Evolution (post Darwin), and is certainly one of the most prominent experts on the topic.
I'll simply note that you've not provided any evidence of these "experts" you claim exist. I'll further note that this notion seems to contradict your previous definition of experts. I'll further note that I've written multiple posts and comments laying out the view of experts in the field extensively. I'll finally note that I don't recall you ever demonstrating that any of the experts I've quoted are not experts, or are wrong.
Had I only known that "SOME experts say..." is the magical response to citing experts, I would have used it earlier.
"I'm not at all sure we're agreeing."
No, we're agreeing. You are free to construct your very own subjective moral code, and to try to find like minded people who agree with you, and to impose your subjective moral code on others through a majority consensus.
"Or, are you willing to condemn child rape, even though you can't prove it wrong and even while you belittle my recognizing immoral behavior based on reason?"
I'm willing to condemn child rape, even though there are large swaths of the world that consider it moral. I'm "belittling" your reliance on your personal Reason as if your personal Reason is somehow especially potent. It's more that I'm pointing out that your personal Reason doesn't give you grounding to assert that someone who's personal Reason has drawn them to a different conclusion is wrong.
"Do you not see the problem or hypocrisy on your part?"
No. My not demonstrating that your claims about what I've said isn't hypocrisy. If you've used your Reason to try to assert that I've said something that I haven't, then wouldn't your Reason be faulty? Wouldn't you insisting that your faulty Reason represents reality be a strike against basing anything on your Reason?
"All of this - along with your complete inability to even come close to even TRYING to objectively prove your moral hunches - makes me lean more and more into the reasonable and NEAR-objective notion of harm/Human Rights-based moral codes."
That's awesome. You lean on your subjective, changeable, majority consensus moral codes. I'm not trying to stop you. Can you prove the above claim? Does your "near objective" moral code say anything about making shit up and pretending that someone else said your made up shit?
"Human rights, many people will acknowledge, are self-evident and pretty universal."
Awesome, yet still subjective. Strangely, millions of people (billions?) would disagree with your hunches about what human rights are "self-evident". But, clearly you are 100% correct in your hunches, and they are 100% incorrect in their hunches. Because obviously, your Reason is superior to their reason.
"My evidence for this obvious claim - before you ask for proof - is the presence of some form of the Golden Rule in every major religion and philosophy."
So, are you suggesting that this isn't subjective?
"Yes, there are outliers, but they are often sociopaths or otherwise disturbed and an extreme minority. That is, there MAY be some men (and a few women, even) who think it's okay to rape children - or for others to rape their own children - but that is an EXTREME minority, especially today, because of human rights/moral advances in humanity. There is NO evidence of which I'm aware that suggests that there are even 5% (.5%? .0001%??) of global population who think it IS okay to rape children or for others to rape their children."
Really, then let's see the hard data. How many cultures practice child sex slavery? What are the numbers for children sex trafficking? How many children are used for forced labor? Given the number of organizations fighting it, it might be a lot.
"So, while any one given religion would need some widespread acceptance of their various human traditions about morality and they just don't have it, the vast majority of humanity agrees with the Golden rule and human rights. Even if imperfectly."
Again, that is quite a specific and seemingly verifiable claim, prove it.
I am done with Craig, but just to point out some fact points (besides the fact that Craig has embarrassed himself by his dodging and complete impotence to "prove" he can "prove" his "moral opinions" as "objective facts... and besides his clear cowardice and pathetic obfuscation which lends aid to actual perversions):
There are, according to some estimates, 40 million people in human trafficking worldwide. Of those, some 25 million were enslaved and some 15 million were in forced marriages. Since Craig probably can't outright condemn forced marriages (because the notion is biblical), let's take the 25 million who are enslaved (slavery in general, not just sex trafficking).
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_575479.pdf
25 million people in a world of 8 billion people is ~.3%. While it is way too many, only .3% of people have been enslaved. How many traffickers were involved in that enslavement? I couldn't find any data, but presumably, the same traffickers traffic multiple slaves. So, only 1 person in 1,000... 10,000? thinks slavery is sometimes acceptable (I'd be willing to bet that most of them don't think it's acceptable to enslave their own children).
So, when I say that support of child rape is infinitesimal, that's what I mean. It's a tiny percentage of humanity that thinks this is okay. The VAST majority of people are opposed to it because IT'S REASONABLE to oppose it, because NEARLY ALL of humanity believes in the Golden Rule.
Further, since all the major world religions (and really, most religions and philosophies) support the Golden Rule and since atheists are only something like 7% of the population, AND since most atheists would affirm the Golden Rule, the percentage that believes in it is the vast majority of the world - far and away. According to the data.
https://religiousnaturalism.org/the-golden-rule/
Tell me, coward, do you know ANYONE who doesn't believe in the Golden Rule? Can you name one person you know who has rejected it?
Proven.
Unlike YOU who pretends you can "prove" that which you can't and then cowardly obfuscates and demonize people who are honest and acknowledging our human limitations.
Craig... "are you suggesting that this isn't subjective?"
It's OBJECTIVELY demonstrable that every major world religion affirms the Golden Rule, as I've just proven. And again: Do you know EVEN ONE MAJOR religion of philosophy that stands opposed to the Golden Rule?
No, you don't. But you won't admit it because you've demonstrated yourself to be a coward and a shameless demonizer, attacking good people for being honest and clear.
Craig...
"millions of people (billions?) would disagree with your hunches about what human rights are "self-evident". "
Another unsupported and almost certainly false claim from the man who appears unwilling to make it clear that he will even condemn forced marriages or child rape or slavery. A coward who is an intellectual and moral coward, as well.
More data to explain the high numbers (but TINY percentage) of those who might abuse children: 1% of the population may have narcissism. Roughly 3% may be sociopaths. And less than 1% opt in to slavery/human trafficking. Is there some overlap there, perhaps?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/5-types-people-who-can-ruin-your-life/201804/are-narcissists-and-sociopaths-increasing
Yes, there ARE some percentage of the human population who have brain disorders which makes it difficult for them to discern moral matters. And then, there may be some percentage who don't have these disorders but who willingly engage in evil behavior. But the vast majority recognize the value of the Golden Rule. According to the objective data.
Hard data really hurts when you want to pretend you have imaginary "facts" and "objective truth" and you can't. Cowardice really hurts when it becomes clear that you're hiding behind an imaginary godling you want to make dance like a puppet and it becomes clear that it's all in your imagination.
But you can be better. Repent.
I believe I've already done the research some time in the past year and presented the findings which lists how many of all recognized countries on earth still have some form of slavery. The percentage is startling. Clearly, that which Dan wants to believe is "self-evident" is only his subjective opinion, while for all those nations, somehow they are "outliers".
Given the percentage of the world which are muslim alone presents another vast group which has a totally different "moral code" regarding the value and treatment of women. Most of us in this country regard rape as a severely immoral, vicious and vile crime against women. We don't constitute the majority of the world's population, and there are among us those who don't agree with that view of rape or women as objects for the benefit of men's pleasure.
As a Christian, my personal position on slavery and rape is inconsequential if I'm dedicated to serving God. I need only abide His Will as clearly revealed to us in Scripture...something which somehow remains a total mystery to Louisville leftists who claim to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture all their adult life.
Dan has a strange way of showing that he's "done". I think he's ignoring the multiple cultures where children are "married" at very young ages, or simply uses sexually. But, tose cultures think that their behavior is moral, and Dan's subjective moral code can't objectively say that they aren't.
Art,
I've also done and posted some numbers on the subject. It's safe to say that more people are enslaved today that during the height on the trans Atlantic slave trade. Along with that when you add in the number of cultures that practice child marriage (effectively rape), FGM, and where sex with children is simply accepted as part of life, I think Dan's numbers are likely low.
I said:
"1. Where are we told in Scripture that God deals with sin based on a given behavior's severity (according to whom Dan is unclear, but seems to base all on human consensus which itself might not be the case) or how many times a given behavior is committed by a person, or how many different behaviors of varying severity one commits?"
Dan totally answers a question the voices in his head must have asked him:
"WHY in the name of all that is holy do I have to find "in Scripture" what is obvious? The Bible never condemns slavery outright. Are you going to say, "Where are we told in Scripture that slavery is a great evil...?"? God forbid!"
Those questions in answer to my question don't have anything to do with my question. If it's obvious God deals with sin based on a given behavior's severity, or how many times a given behavior is committed by a person or how many different behaviors of varying severity one commits, then where in Scripture is this ever addressed?
"It's okay to take human rights, reason-based stands against oppression, boys. What is hard to understand about that?"
You can stand against a wall of poop for all I care, but how we "reason" about anything is not the issue, and it's got nothing to do with my question. Try answering it like you pretend is your way.
"Why, when Scripture tells us that we are created in God's image, a little lower than God," (unless you're still in utero, then Dan is cool with murdering you) "with God-given reason and God's "commands written upon our hearts and minds..." do we NEED to find "in Scripture" what is obvious?"
For a few reasons provoked by this very nonsensical, question-dodging question:
1. None of us...you most particularly...can "reason" as well as God. Being "a little lower" doesn't mean we're "just a little less wise". Again...especially you.
2. Despite the fact you pervert the passages speaking of what is written on who's hearts, there are these to consider (except it comes from the Scripture on which you crap):
Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21, Jeremiah 17:9, Matthew 15:18-19, Mark 7:20-23...so there's that.
3. "Reason" can be used for evil or good. You've reasoned various sins are OK to indulge, so you're an example of the former.
4. Ask the Bereans (Acts 17:11-12).
So again, what is "obvious" regarding my initial question? If the answer is obvious you needn't search Scripture for the answer, then what is the answer? Your "reason"? Your "hear and mind" (*snort* *snicker*)? How absurd! YOU are reason enough to confirm my position that only Scripture has the answers and is the ultimate source for determining what is moral or immoral. Where does God speak to judging on the severity of a given sinful behavior? Stop tap-dancing.
"Marshal, can you condemn clearly the notion of forced child marriages?"
Sure. I can oppose ANY forced marriage (defined by the forcing of one or both of the participants against their will). But I do so because I find it inappropriate in our culture while acknowledging you're again perverting the text in a lame attempt to make a lame point.
"The bible NEVER condemns it and, indeed, it's given a green light in places in the Bible. Do you NEED a Bible verse to condemn it?"
Maybe the Bible never condemns it because it's not the "great evil" you need to believe it is. Maybe our culture has perverted God's plan and so now you think God a horror for not acting in a manner which pleases your sensitivities.
https://biblicalgenderroles.com/does-the-bible-approve-of-forced-marriage/
https://apologeticspress.org/the-killings-of-numbers-31-763/
"To condemn female genital mutilation (also never condemned in the Bible)?"
No I don't, but this practice does run afoul of the Golden Rule, wouldn't you say?
More to the point, none of your "examples" is relevant to the question and you once again fail to answer the question, but instead dodge it with this irrelevance.
Okay, hold on. I mean, Holy SHIT. Marshal cited some misogynistic freak who said...
The Bible does not frown upon forced marriage or forced sex within marriage. Not just in the stories mentioned here, but consistently throughout the Bible fathers give their daughters in marriage and husbands take wives in marriage. The modern idea of a woman’s consent either for marriage to be valid or for sexual relations finds no place in the Scriptures.
The Scriptures are clear – a woman has no choice but to tell a man she is not married to NO to sex and she has no choice but to tell her husband YES to sex. Therefore we can rightly conclude that from a Biblical perspective a woman’s consent to sex is an oxymoron.
Let's be clear, here: Marshal, are you saying this guy is RIGHT and forced marriage and forced sex (ie, rape) is/can be a morally GOOD thing?
Do you think that "God's plan" includes forced marriage and sex?
Craig: Are you seeing this? Do you affirm this evil craziness, as well?
HOLY SHIT, boys. Good God in heaven, I pray this doesn't mean what it sounds like it means and that you all DO agree with this perversion.
But you tell me.
Craig, here's your chance to take a stand on the side of morality and decency and just plain reason. IF that's what Marshal believes, denounce it as the great evil it is. We can all recognize it as evil EVEN IF the Bible doesn't say so. Do you recognize that reality, Craig?
Save your soul.
I think Marshal thinks I haven't answered/addressed this question...
"1. Where are we told in Scripture that God deals with sin based on a given behavior's severity or how many times a given behavior is committed by a person, or how many different behaviors of varying severity one commits?"
Where are we told that it doesn't matter? Where are we told that God views all sins as the same?
This appeal to what Scripture and reason doesn't demand is meaningless. IF there were a scripture that says, "God considers all sins the same, there are no degrees of sin, they are literally all the same level of evil in God's eyes..." THEN one (at least a biblical lieralist) might want some reason to not take that literally.
Probably the closest cherry picked verse to this thought you appear to have is Isaiah's appeal to God in the context of a sinful and needy Israel... the "all our righteousness is as filthy rags..." But that doesn't say there are no degrees of sin or wrong-doing which, again, is self-evident on the face of it. Taking the last cookie is in NO WAY comparable to rape. It's apples and burning tires.
So, all of that to say: There may or may not be any verses that speak to the notion of degrees of sin (I think there are, but that's not the point). Just like there are no verses that speak of the speed of light or concerns about pollution. But that doesn't mean that the speed of light or pollution concerns are meaningless.
WE DO NOT NEED the Bible to recognize reality. And the reality is, of course, there are different levels or degrees of wrong-doing.
To answer the obvious, "What does the Bible say about degrees of sin...?" and does the Bible recognize this obvious reality, here are some pertinent passages:
Jesus speaking in John 19:
"Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”
The "unintentional sin" spoken of in Numbers 15 differentiates between degrees of responsibility and punishment.
"And the priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the people of Israel, and they shall be forgiven, because it was a mistake,"
The same goes for what Jesus says in Luke 12...
"And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."
Or the sin of Sodom and their greed, spoken of here in Genesis...
"Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave..."
Their greed and lack of concern for the poor was not just grave, but VERY grave, as God and the prophets repeatedly make clear that the oppression of the poor and marginalized is a whole separate level of sin.
Then, there is the "unforgivable sin" which would indicate that most sins are forgivable.
And on it goes. Here is a very conservative site making the case...
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/degrees-of-sin/
And another...
https://bobgonzal.es/index.php/2018/12/17/the-greater-sin-are-there-degrees-of-sin/
Before I go on in my response, I want alert Dan that I will not be posting this response, or Dan's comment to which this is a response, at my blog. There's no need now that I'm addressing it here:
"Okay, hold on. I mean, Holy SHIT. Marshal cited some misogynistic freak who said..."
Dan regards this guy he doesn't know as a "misogynistic freak" because he cited Scripture and formed his conclusions based strictly on what Scripture does and doesn't say. What a great guy Dan is!
"The Bible does not frown upon forced marriage or forced sex within marriage. Not just in the stories mentioned here, but consistently throughout the Bible fathers give their daughters in marriage and husbands take wives in marriage. The modern idea of a woman’s consent either for marriage to be valid or for sexual relations finds no place in the Scriptures.
The Scriptures are clear – a woman has no choice but to tell a man she is not married to NO to sex and she has no choice but to tell her husband YES to sex. Therefore we can rightly conclude that from a Biblical perspective a woman’s consent to sex is an oxymoron."
What in anything cited in your quote of this man is incorrect or inaccurate?
"Let's be clear, here: Marshal, are you saying this guy is RIGHT and forced marriage and forced sex (ie, rape) is/can be a morally GOOD thing?"
To actually be clear, there is nothing in Scripture this guy cites which is labeled even slightly as "forced marriage/sex". Nothing. It simply states the woman isn't consulted. But it more than implies (especially in the case of those two cases of Rebekah and Rachel being given in marriage to Biblical characters Isaac and Jacob. This is the point of the guy's presentation. In the same manner, the captive girl charges you like to bring up also are examples of you perverting or corrupting the stories to make your own sick points which aren't Biblical. In the ancient world, marriages were almost always, if not indeed always, arranged between a male suitor and the father of his intended, without the girl or woman actually having any say in it. That's the point of the article and you couldn't find a case where they wasn't true in Scripture.
But given Paul's instructions to couples, it's true that one's body no longer one's own after tying the knot. That the OT only speaks in one direction doesn't necessarily mean that the point the author was making isn't more likely than not...that God's plan "favored" the males. They chose and because it was more often than not a business deal, the bride to be wasn't necessarily happy, except to be of service to her father and family. It was the normal thing back then and even arranged marriage in this country took place until recently among Europeans and still does within communities of Middle Eastern immigrants as well as some others.
While this dude might indeed be a misogynist, that doesn't mean his presentation of Scripture isn't accurate. I know you thrill to the thought of virgin girls captured in war and forced to haves sex with their captors, but as he relates, and as so many others have as well, Scripture doesn't describe such a thing when girls are taken captive. What's worse is that despite your past posturing as one who criticizes viewing the past through the lens of today, you do this constantly in judging various actions and behaviors which took place in the OT. But despite your getting the vapors at the very thought, the notion of the father determining to whom his daughter can marry is echoed in a tradition which still takes place in today's America...the tradition of asking the father for his daughter's hand in marriage. I was approached in this manner just this past year prior to my daughter being married this past September.
Really quick, as I'm out of time:
From Dan's first link to the Gospel Coalition, there's this:
"After discussing the mortal-venial sin debate in Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, the case is made that before God all sin is sin, but in terms of human relationships, Scripture distinguishes between various sins in terms their effects and consequences."
This aligns with my position that degrees of sin are more a human tradition than the basis for whether or not we are destined for eternal punishment without Christ.
Maybe more later.
Marshal...
To actually be clear, there is nothing in Scripture this guy cites which is labeled even slightly as "forced marriage/sex". Nothing. It simply states the woman isn't consulted.
!!!!??? You know what? When we throw you into jail with no consultation or giving you a chance to say a damned thing, I wonder if you'll agree that not being consulted is anything but a gross evil.
You're sick. When people are NOT consulted, when people are DENIED having a voice, and especially, when those people are part of an historically oppressed group (as women have been through the ages and cultures), THAT IS EVIL. It is oppression. It is a violation of a basic human right.
Good God have mercy on you and your blighted, wasted soul.
Post a Comment