Dan just posted a new screed at his blog where he thinks that he demolishes the notion of Sola Scriptura. From what I could tell as I skimmed through it, it was simply a rehash of Dan's same old talking points. While I'm sure it gives him a great sense of self satisfaction and raises his self esteem, I'm not impressed. Just once, I'd like to see someone who is arguing against Christian doctrine, offer an alternative. A well though out, scripturally supported, alternative. I'd like details, specifics, and proof of this alternative.
If the Christian canon of scripture is NOT the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, then what is? What better source of authority for Christian faith and practice is there? Is there NO authoritative source for Christian faith and practice? If the canon of Christian scripture is NOT the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, is it a source at all? What are the other sources?
177 comments:
Craig...
"If the Christian canon of scripture is NOT the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, then what is?"
I've abandoned trying to have a reasonable, respectful conversation with you. You just don't seem interested. But since you're speaking of me and what I've said (or not), I'll just note that I have already answered this question. My answer was in the links within the post you're citing. Here is the short version...
II. If not "sola scriptura," then what?
1. First of all, if we have no rational or biblical reason for Theory A, we are under no obligation to espouse an Alternative to Theory A. It is sufficient to say, Theory A is not sound or can not be supported by data in the real world. For instance, if someone says that we can "know" all Biblical inspiration comes from God via an alien race named Thetans and we can know this because of Ezekiel's story of the spinning wheel and a few other verses, it is sufficient to say "that is not a rational conclusion..." and if they respond, "then via what source do we receive God's inspiration?" we do not need to come up with an alternative theory to Thetan revelation. It is sufficient to say, "that is not a sound theory."
Or, the even shorter version:
We have received NO word from God that I've seen that assures us we HAVE a "sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice."
If you've received that "sole source" by all means, share it.
I wonder, if you all are truly bewildered by the many people of good faith who've reached this same conclusion, can you at least fathom why we hold our opinion and how it has nothing to do with disrespecting God or the Bible?
Dan
Also, this...
"Dan just posted a new screed at his blog where he thinks that he demolishes the notion of Sola Scriptura. From what I could tell as I skimmed through it, it was simply a rehash of Dan's same old talking points. While I'm sure it gives him a great sense of self satisfaction and raises his self esteem..."
These responses from you and Craig and David are just strange. You all are assuming all manner of motives and attitudes on our part. I'm merely stating, That isn't there. Period. I haven't "demolished" anything any more than when I say, There are no rabbits on the moon. It's just a reasonable observation.
What is with the aspersions and assumptions on your alls part? Do you think that people of good faith could in no way possibly disagree with you in an effort to be true to the Bible or God?
Dan
To answer your other questions while I wait to see if you answer mine:
What are the other sources?
I've answered that in a post I linked to in the post you're speaking of. A post you responded to (although, again, didn't really engage in a good faith conversation - just look at your unusual responses and lack of answers to reasonable questions). Here's one answer to that question:
"1. In the Bible (for those of us who take the Bible seriously as a book of wisdom), we find that God reveals God's Self and Ideas in many ways...
a. through Creation,
b. through God's Spirit,
c. through Jesus' direct teaching,
d. through "scripture" (almost always speaking specifically of OT teachings)
e. through "God's Word" or revelation (here, not speaking specifically of Bible books, but the over-arching notion of "every word out of God's mouth..." or the idea of God's Ways)
f. through God's Self revealed in our hearts, minds and/or being,
g. through our God-given reasoning,
h. through "special" or direct revelation (God speaking to someone, directly, audibly - and sometimes inaudibly)
i. through tradition,
j. ...and possibly others I'm not thinking of at the moment"
What better source of authority for Christian faith and practice is there?
Well, we must start with a reasonable, dispassionate commitment to our God-given reasoning. ANY source we might refer to is only going to be as good as our reasoning. And the Bible is clear that God's Word is "written upon our hearts..." there is that, within us, of an understanding of morality and God, according to the Bible.
Do you think that starting with some level of basic reasoning is a good and necessary starting point?
Is there NO authoritative source for Christian faith and practice?
God has never told me or anyone I've heard of that "THIS is the SOLE authoritative source for understanding Christian faith and practice."
Do you think that God has revealed to YOU a "sole authoritative source..."? Where and when did God reveal that to you?
If the canon of Christian scripture is NOT the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, is it a source at all?
I think so. Especially as it comes to understanding Jesus' literal teachings (which, by the way, Jesus never affirmed a "sole source" for understanding God or Christian faith and practice.)
If the Christian canon of scripture is NOT the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, then what is? What better source of authority for Christian faith and practice is there? Is there NO authoritative source for Christian faith and practice? If the canon of Christian scripture is NOT the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, is it a source at all? What are the other sources?
Aside from the reality that I've answered these questions before, the seeming desperation in these questions makes me wonder, are all these questions (which, again, have all been answered before in a post Craig was part of) a sign of desperation on the part of conservatives? Is the hostility with which they respond to people who disagree with this tradition part of that same desperation? Fear? Are they clinging to the notion of Sola Scriptura because the idea of NOT having a "sole authoritative source" just so terrifying to them that they can't even consider an alternative, so, for that reason, SS "must" be true?
Went and checked and reminded him of the flaw in his pseudo-intellectual thinking...a flaw which he's never even tried to overcome. He responded to this post, too.
"What is with the aspersions and assumptions on your alls part?"
It's strange that you have no problem acting as if your assumptions are True, and everyone else's are false. My answer is that when folx like you aren't specific, it is sometimes required to take what is said, and to use that evidence to draw conclusions about what is not said explicitly.
"Do you think that people of good faith could in no way possibly disagree with you in an effort to be true to the Bible or God?"
Sure, it's possible.
"I've answered that in a post I linked to in the post you're speaking of."
Making my point that your recent screed was nothing more than repeating your same old tired, unproven hunches.
Since you are too lazy to actually point out anything specific, as usual, I see no point in trying to guess what you're bitching about.
What's interesting in your list of ways YHWH reveals Himself, is that you literally just quoted passages from scripture as your authority justifying your claim.
The question then becomes, since all of those things are completely dependent on how they are perceived by humans, isn't it possible that two people can see the same thing and reach conclusions about YHWH that are complete opposites? If so, then how does YHWH revealing Himself is such a subjective way actually reveal anything about Himself? Is there no standard available for us to measure against?
"our God-given reasoning."
And there it is. Dan's ultimate authority, our Reasoning.
"Do you think that starting with some level of basic reasoning is a good and necessary starting point?"
No.
"God has never told me or anyone I've heard of..."
And, again. The primary authority is Dan and people he's heard of.
What if you, and these people, actually did hear this and chose to ignore it? Or what if you really didn't hear anything, but the accurate information is out there? What if you've simply chosen to dismiss anything from any people that you don't agree with and therefore don't even consider anyone but you and those around you?
"Do you think that God has revealed to YOU a "sole authoritative source..."?"
I conclude that YHWH has revealed Himself to everyone, not just me.
"Where and when did God reveal that to you?"
It's an ongoing process, but my understanding of YHWH's revelation started in the 70's and continues to this day. But, that's just me discovering and learning about YHWH's revelation that is available to everyone, not some special revelation to me personally.
"Aside from the reality that I've answered these questions before, the seeming desperation in these questions makes me wonder, are all these questions (which, again, have all been answered before in a post Craig was part of) a sign of desperation on the part of conservatives?"
Not desperation at all. If, as you claim, this specific question was answered in a specific post, then why not copy/paste that revelation here? Why not trumpet your answers, rather than drop veiled hints about where they might be found? What if your "answers" aren't as compelling as you think? What if your "answers" don't come with proof? What if the failure is yours, not others?
"Is the hostility with which they respond to people who disagree with this tradition part of that same desperation?"
1. There's no hostility being displayed. Unless you consider that simply disagreeing with your screed constitutes hostility. I would say that in general I'm hostile to that which is not True, so maybe that's what you sense. It's strange that your hostility to others is much more evident here than my hostility.
"Fear?"
No. You've done or said absolutely nothing as long as I've known of you that would inspire fear. Your hunches, presented as if they were Truth, are more a thing of amusement or ridicule, than fear.
"Are they clinging to the notion of Sola Scriptura because the idea of NOT having a "sole authoritative source" just so terrifying to them that they can't even consider an alternative, so, for that reason, SS "must" be true?"
No.
What's interesting here is your apparent disdain for the concept of a "sole source or Truth", as if seeking The Truth, from the one who described Himself as The Truth, is somehow worthy of disdain. I guess I'd suggest that Jesus who described Himself as "one with" YHWH, as "The Way", "The Truth" and "The Life", could be considered as the "sole authority on these topics. I'd further suggest that to NOT seek the sole authority on these topics is a grave mistake.
Dan,
If you are going to make claims about your answers being somewhere in one of the three blog posts you mentioned, without actually providing more specifics, I see no reason to accept this most recent unproven claim.
Craig...
I see no reason to accept this most recent unproven claim.
I don't know what "unproven claim" you're speaking of.
You asked me a question you've asked me before, which I answered with the same answer as before.
You asked...
"If the Christian canon of scripture is NOT the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, then what is?"
And I reminded you that I've answered that same basic question before on my blog post where you participated in the conversation. I think (but can't say for sure) that you were the one who asked this question...
II. If not "sola scriptura," then what?
To which I responded (and pasted here again)...
1. First of all, if we have no rational or biblical reason for Theory A,
we are under no obligation to espouse an Alternative to Theory A.
It is sufficient to say,
Theory A is not sound or can not be supported by data in the real world.
For instance, if someone says that we can "know" all Biblical inspiration comes from God via an alien race named Thetans and we can know this because of Ezekiel's story of the spinning wheel and a few other verses, it is sufficient to say
"that is not a rational conclusion..."
and if they respond, "then via what source do we receive God's inspiration?" we do not need to come up with an alternative theory to Thetan revelation.
It is sufficient to say, "that is not a sound theory."
That question and answer came from THIS post, which I cited in my most recent post...
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2015/10/i-can-do-no-other.html
The answer is: We have NO EVIDENCE - not in the Bible nor anywhere else that anyone has ever shown me - that there are space monkeys riding unicorns on the moon or that God wants us to recognize the 66 books of the Bible as "the SOLE authoritative source for Christian faith and practice." God has not told us that. It is not in the Bible, not in any direct, un-interpreted way and God simply hasn't told us that in any place where I've found evidence for.
That's a claim that I've NEVER seen any data to support that claim, just like I've seen no data and have no reason to believe in space monkeys on the moon. Now, if ANYONE can produce data about space monkeys or God endorsing/commanding us to believe SS, then the onus is on that person to support the claim. The claim (God endorses SS) by itself is not proof.
I'm not sure what unproven claim you're speaking of but THAT is the clearly unproven claim that I'm speaking of (God endorses/commands SS).
Craig...
If, as you claim, this specific question was answered in a specific post, then why not copy/paste that revelation here?
That's what I've just done, three times at least now. I just copied and pasted my answer to that question AND the source where I've answered it.
Craig...
What's interesting here is your apparent disdain for the concept of a "sole source or Truth", as if seeking The Truth, from the one who described Himself as The Truth, is somehow worthy of disdain
WHAT disdain? I'm saying what I've been saying for years: That I see NO DATA to support that claim and, as far as I've ever seen, it is an extra-biblical human theory. That's just stating the reality of my lived experience. I USED to believe in SS when I was a conservative Christian but, because my conservative Christian teachers told me to take the Bible seriously, when I could not find SS within the Bible, I had to give up accepting it as biblical.
There's nothing of disdain in noting that reality. My disdain is with those who insist it is equivalent to God's Word and not to be questioned and if anyone DOES question it, they must hate God or reject God's authority. Disagreeing with human opinion has nothing to do with hating God, the Bible or God's authority. I'm just not willing to cede to humans the authority to speak for God what God doesn't say.
The SOLE SOURCE for Truth is, I'd reckon, God. And I FULLY support seeking God.
But God has not given US a "sole source for Truth," and God has not told us that God has given us a "sole source for Truth" beyond seeking God and, given our fallible, imperfect human nature, we won't be able to do that perfectly and that's just the reality of it.
There's no disdain for Truth in that. Or if you're able to point me to what is disdainful to Truth in anything I've said, feel free to correct me.
Craig...
could be considered as the "sole authority on these topics. I'd further suggest that to NOT seek the sole authority on these topics is a grave mistake.
As I just noted, I fully support seeking the "sole authority" on Truth and God's Way. I'm just noting that we've never been given ANY guideline from God that God has told us "This pamphlet, this book, this collection of books, this soap opera, etc is THE SOLE SOURCE for Truth..."
Do you think God has told you that you have access to the "sole source for Truth?" Where?
If the text in bold above is your "proof", your stunning reveal, it's pretty unimpressive. You haven't actually addressed specific claims made, you've offered no scriptural support, you've offered no scholarly support, you've literally made the claim that we "don't know". I'm sorry if you thought that simply claiming that "we" (undefined, but likely just you) "don't know" (even with ALL CAPS and BOLD) isn't some earth shattering revelation. Hell, it's what you say about literally everything. It's boring, repetitive, unproven, unimpressive, and unconvincing.
I'll simply note that you just posted 2 comments of repeating yourself, as if you making a claim and repeating it was unassailable Truth that must be accepted.
The problem is that I don't put as much faith in your infallible Reason as you do, and I don't think that your Reason is sufficient proof of anything.
"I'm just noting that we've never been given ANY guideline from God that God has told us "This pamphlet, this book, this collection of books, this soap opera, etc is THE SOLE SOURCE for Truth..." "
As noted Stan and others would beg to differ. I know that it's beyond your comprehension to even consider this possibility, but to me it looks like you have been given guidelines, you just choose not to accept those guidelines. Or to interpret those guidelines in such as way as to validate your Reason(ed) hunch.
I'm sorry I asked for clarification, I expected something much more profound than "I don't know" and "I haven't seen...". Maybe not everything revolves around you.
"We have received NO word from God that I've seen that assures us we HAVE a "sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice.""
It's interesting how often Dan will cite "reason", or "self-evident" for that which pleases him, but rag on about something like this. The notion that Scripture is our sole authority is not an earth shattering revelation, but a simple acknowledgement of reality. As pointed out yet again here, Dan cites Scripture to support his position without recognizing the irony of how he just relied on Scripture as his sole authority to deny Sola Scriptura. What's more, none of what he cites is possible to use for the purpose without acknowledging Scripture teaches it all.
For example, without Scripture we might have some feeling there exists a higher power responsible for all we see and know. But would we ever stumble onto the Truth what we feel is true is the God of the Holy Bible? How could anyone support such a premise except to merely insist so? On what basis could anyone state categorically that "through God's Self revealed in our hearts, minds and/or being" is an actual thing without Scripture telling us so? How would anyone possibly recognize such a thing and know the God described in the Holy Bible is the source?
Dan doesn't answer the question. He dodges it with absurdity. What we know of God and His Will comes from Scripture. That's just the truth of it. No amount of "reasoning" can trump this fact and no amount of it can contradict what Scripture teaches and stand as coming from God. (This is an important point given how much Dan and his troll contend "the Holy Spirit" has guided us in ways not described in Scripture.)
I am not at all sure what you're failing to understand:
IF you are making the claim that God has told us that "the 66 books of the Bible are the sole authority for understanding our faith and practice/morals,"
THEN I'm saying I see no evidence to prove it AND
THEN, the onus is on you to support your claim, if you think you can.
Do you think you can prove it?
=====
The problem is that I don't put as much faith in your infallible Reason as you do, and I don't think that your Reason is sufficient proof of anything.
I'm not saying reason is infallible. Mine, yours or anyone's.
Do you understand that?
I'm saying PRECISELY that our reason is fallible AND THEREFORE, just because you and Stan or other evangelicals use your reason to conclude that God thinks that we ought to embrace, SS, while, I don't trust your reason that this is a rational or biblical conclusion.
Do you understand that?
It's PRECISELY because I distrust human reason that I don't embrace SS... because it is a HUMAN opinion.
Where am I mistaken?
As noted Stan and others would beg to differ.
And they are welcome to THEIR OPINION. But their opinion is not the same as God's Word and I've seen no evidence that God has endorsed their opinions.
Where am I mistaken?
This is so strange. Are you even understanding what I'm saying? Because your words don't indicate it.
It SOUNDS like you think I'm saying, "We should choose human reason over the bible." Do you think that is what I'm saying?
It's not.
I'm saying that, as a matter of fact, we use our brains, our reason, our interpretations to understand the bible (what else is there??). And so, GIVEN that we're using our reasoning, I don't trust your human reasoning IF you believe SS is something that God has told us.
Comprende?
Craig...
You haven't actually addressed specific claims made, you've offered no scriptural support, you've offered no scholarly support, you've literally made the claim that we "don't know".
What are you speaking about?
I've said quite clearly: WE KNOW that SS is not spoken of in the bible in direct, clear terms.
WE KNOW that SS is a human theory guessed upon by many traditional evangelicals since the middle ages.
WE KNOW that they have not proven it authoritatively, it is only their theory.
Now, if you THINK that what I have said, "WE KNOW" about above is wrong, then all you have to do is show us where God told you that God wants us to adopt a SS idea about the Bible.
Merely citing a phrase (or a few phrases) from the Bible and saying, "I think these phrases - that DON'T say X - I think they MEAN X" is not proof. That is literally an opinion, an eisegesis, a READING INTO the text what the text hasn't said.
If I say "The Bible says 'four corners,' and that MEANS, therefore, that God has made a flat earth and anyone who disagrees with that disagrees with facts and with GOD ALMIGHTY!!!" that doesn't make my claim any more factual.
If you have proof for your hunch, provide it.
If it's merely your opinion - and I can't emphasize this enough - THAT'S FINE! Say that clearly, "My opinion is that SS makes good biblical sense..." I'm fine with you holding that opinion. I did once upon a time, after all.
But then I read the Bible and realized that this is not a biblical or reasonable hunch, IN MY OPINION. It is clearly ABSENT from the Bible and the evidence for its absence is the complete failure of any conservative evangelical in all of their history ever providing proof of their hunch.
Where am I mistaken?
Craig...
You haven't actually addressed specific claims made
I've noted the reality that the phrase AND the idea of SS is not found in the Bible in anything like a clear and direct manner. It just isn't.
Show me I'm wrong.
Do you think that SS is literally somewhere within the Bible? Where?
It ain't, or you'd provide the quotes to support your unproven and anti-biblical hunch.
I challenged Dan's understanding of Sola Scriptura, and his response was the typical attack that I need to support the proposition. That ain't happening. He needs to show he understands the concept of SS and we can proceed from there.
canon of scripture is NOT the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, then what is?
And just to make myself clear:
1. GOD is THE sole source and authority for Christian faith and practice.
2. NONE of us is God. We are all of us fallible, imperfect humans, entirely capable of misunderstanding things.
3. GOD has not given any of us a perfect, reliably unmistakable "sole source and authority for Christian faith and practice."
3a. God has never TOLD us that God has done so.
4. We all (those of us who value the revelation of God we believe we find in the Bible) WANT to understand God correctly and thus, want to understand the Bible correctly.
As an aside that you all never get to:
5.None of us has a source or key or demonstrable authority to TELL us we're understanding the Bible correctly. Who or what would that be? You almost certainly don't have anyone you think who can perfectly tell you what God wants us to think about Creation or wealth and poverty or walking in Jesus' footsteps.
Am I right? You have NO ONE SOURCE to authoritatively tell you your understandings of the Bible are correct, yes?
You, yourself, would not claim to be THE one source for telling yourself that you've perfectly understood the Bible, right?
6. So, aside from the reality that "the Bible" never teaches we must affirm SS, even IF some evangelicals since the Reformation have affirmed SS, to WHOM do they/we appeal to confirm our imperfect reasoning has given us the authoritatively correct understanding of SS, for instance? Will you appeal to churches in your own personal tradition (which is fine)? But if so, that is a source OUTSIDE of the Bible.
Do you see that problem EVEN IF you want to believe in the human SS tradition?
Marshal...
and his response was the typical attack that I need to support the proposition. That ain't happening.
? Ha! Do you all SEE what you're writing? Marshal continues it an "attack" to say, "If you want to say that SS is equivalent to God's Word, then you really need to support that human opinion? HOW is that an attack?
Why are you all so rattled by such simple, reasonable, biblically-appropriate questions?
And I KNOW it's not happening. It never has happened. THAT'S the point I'm making. Traditionalists keep insisting that this human opinion of SS MUST be considered from God's Word and yet, they never support why... HOW is that rational? Biblical?
Marshal...
The notion that Scripture is our sole authority is not an earth shattering revelation, but a simple acknowledgement of reality.
WHY? SAYS WHO? WHO TOLD YOU THIS? You can't just make a claim and expect people agree with it with no support.
When I say SS is not in the Bible, my proof is ALL THE BIBLE where it never says SS (not the words, the notion). ALL you have to do is show, in the Bible, where SS is insisted upon as being from God.
We will not accept your human opinion on this. I've proven my point. If you all want to be taken seriously on SS, then be prepared to give a defense for it.
This key human tradition in evangelical circles really seems to under conservatives. You all never even TRY to give your reasons in any rational, biblical way... not anything beyond, "When I read these two passages, I TAKE IT TO MEAN this SS concept, which the passages don't say, but which I READ INTO IT..."
At least TRY to support it or, better yet, recognize you can't support it and humble yourselves and admit you've found yourself believing in a human tradition that you can't support. I had to do so once upon a time. It's okay. It gets better.
"What are you speaking about?"
No comprende English? What you quoted was pretty clear, maybe your vaunted Reason isn't quite as impressive as you think.
"I've said quite clearly: WE KNOW that SS is not spoken of in the bible in direct, clear terms."
Just because you've said something doesn't mean that what you've said is a fact. This is an unproven claim.
"WE KNOW that SS is a human theory guessed upon by many traditional evangelicals since the middle ages."
Again, the term "Sola Scriptura" is essentially a term to describe the Biblical notion that YHWH speaks to us through sacred writings (scripture) which is a concept repeatedly taught by Jesus. You have this notion that because a term was coined after the closing of the canon, that the concept described by the term is somehow nonexistent. Of course, you've offered no proof of this claim nor have you offered an alternative theory.
"WE KNOW that they have not proven it authoritatively, it is only their theory."
WE KNOW, that you have not proven the concept of Sola Scriptura to be categorically, objectively, completely wrong. WE KNOW that you have a tendency to adopt the royal we and imply that you are speaking for a vast number of others. WE KNOW that you are engaging in the logical fallacy of appealing to numbers when you say WE instead of ME?I.
"Where am I mistaken?"
In assuming that anyone who does not agree with your personal hunch about this topic is not "biblical" in their understanding. In implying that your hunch about what is "biblical" can be assumed to be objectively correct. That you have the authority to declare what is "biblical" and what is not. In presuming that you have the authority to pass judgement on others.
You've made a claim that your claim that Sola Scriptura is NOT 'biblical", while offering ZERO biblical support for your claim. The other side offers multiple examples of biblical support for it's conclusion, but your offer only your personal Reason.
"I've noted the reality that the phrase AND the idea of SS is not found in the Bible in anything like a clear and direct manner. It just isn't."
Just because you've "noted" or "said" something doesn't make your claim reality. Obviously the phrase isn't in the Bible. There are many biblical concepts that are summarized in words, phrases, or terms that are not in the Bible. We are not limited to only using words and phrases found in the bible to describe the contents of the Bible. For example you (I believe) are convinced that the Moral Example theory of the atonement is the correct theory. Yet the term exists nowhere in the Bible and was coined long after some of the other atonement theories.
"Show me I'm wrong."
You can't show anyone that you're right, yet demand that others show you that your wrong. Yet every attempt to do so is met with your defaulting to your personal Reason, denying any evidence presented, and falling back on your "that term isn't in the Bible" canard.
How about you actually state an alternative to Sola Scriptura, make a positive case for your alternative, and provide Biblical evidence for your alternative.
Fortunately, we know the answer, because you've been quite clear that you are only going to criticize those who have the courage to make definitive statements and provide their evidence for those statements. I can't recall a single time you've ever made a positive argument for an alternative to anything you've claimed to be wrong.
If only you could stop asserting that your hunches are "biblical", and represent "reality", and just admit that they are your opinions based solely on your Reason and preconceptions, and that your hunches are only your hunches and that your hunches don't disprove anything that anyone else believes.
Do you think that SS is literally somewhere within the Bible? Where?
It ain't, or you'd provide the quotes to support your unproven and anti-biblical hunch.
It boils down to this. Your argument that Sola Scriptura is NOT Biblical contains ZERO Biblical support. Zero alternative. Zero evidence beyond your "Reason".
Stan's post contains multiple examples of Biblical support. and focuses on that.
Art,
I've noted in the past that Dan's understanding of multiple tenets of Reformed theology do not conform to how those terms are actually defined or used. It's like his knowledge of Reformed/conservative theology is a mile wide, and an inch deep. He's admitted that he hasn't actually studies or interacted with any Reformed/conservative theological work for well over 30 years and bases his hunches on things he claims he read back in the 7-/80's.
Art,
The problem, as I see it, is that Dan has made a sweeping claim. (That the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not "biblical". That neither the term OR any support at all for the concept DO NOT exist in scripture. That there is "no evidence" that he has seen to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.) Yet he hasn't actually proven any of these claims. The reality is that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has been written about extensively by people who are much more educated, Acerbically literate, and intelligent than any of us. You'll note that Dan hasn't taken ANY of that material and dissected it. He has virtually denied the existence of any "evidence" because he claims he "hasn't seen" any evidence.
It's like he's satisfied to tell everyone that they are wrong, without telling anyone why he's right. (stating that his Reason tells him, or that his hunch is "reality" or that his hunch is "biblical" is meaningless as none of those statements can be proven to be True) It's like he's happy to tear down, but unwilling to build. It's like he wants to deny this doctrine, yet offers nothing as an alternative.
1. At least you got this one right. How does "God" communicate His authority? How do you know what "God" expects of you? Where do you find this information? What if others find information from "God" that contradicts the information you found?
2. Again, you seem to have this one right. The question then becomes are we capable of understanding anything "God" communicates to us?
3. If you are going to make a claim like, this then it is incumbent on you to provide proof.
3a. See #3 above. Do you understand what you've just claimed? You have claimed that "God has never" told anyone that He has provided anything authoritative. The only way you could possibly make this claim is if you possessed the entirety of "Gods" knowledge of the entirety of history. But you don't and you can't or you would prove this claim as well.
4. This claim that you speak for this mysterious "we" and "us" is getting old. If the Bible is not authoritative communication from "God", why is it so important that you understand it? If it's not the direct product of "God" communicating to us, then what does the Bible contain? Is it imperfect, flawed, corrupted, mistaken?
5. "None of us has a source or key or demonstrable authority to TELL us we're understanding the Bible correctly."
Given the reality that you don't speak for everyone in this conversation, let alone every person in human history, I see no reason to invest much time dealing with a claim that it is impossible for you to prove, therefore I'm not going to waste my time until you prove this claim.
"Who or what would that be?"
Well, it's not you.
"You almost certainly don't have anyone you think who can perfectly tell you what God wants us to think about Creation or wealth and poverty or walking in Jesus' footsteps."
Ahhhh, the straw man enters the conversation. The problem is that I've never claimed to have anyone "who can perfectly tell me" anything. Why would I defend a claim I haven't made? A claim that you have made up and pretended that I made.
"Am I right? You have NO ONE SOURCE to authoritatively tell you your understandings of the Bible are correct, yes?"
Well, Jesus did tell us that He would send a counselor that would lead us to the Truth or something like that. The problem is that you don't either, yet you claim that your hunches are "biblical" and "reality" yet they remain unsupported.
"You, yourself, would not claim to be THE one source for telling yourself that you've perfectly understood the Bible, right?"
No, I have never made that claim, nor would I.
6. " WHOM do they/we appeal to confirm our imperfect reasoning has given us the authoritatively correct understanding of SS, for instance?" Since I have never heard anyone claim that they have "authoritatively correct understanding of SS", you'd need to start by demonstrating that someone has made this claim. Again, I'm not going to defend your made up straw men.
"Will you appeal to churches in your own personal tradition (which is fine)? But if so, that is a source OUTSIDE of the Bible."
I would cite the reality that the position of The Church for the vast majority of it's history has been to affirm that Scripture is authoritative in matters of faith and practice, as a supporting fact, but wouldn't base an entire argument on this reality. The problem with this gambit is that it doesn't address whether or not the underlying question is True. If Scripture is "God breathed", and wholly inspired, superintended, and represents His best communication to His people, then whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with that premise is irrelevant. That's your problem, you're obsessed with semantics (Is Sola Scriptura as interpreted by Dan an accurate representation of Biblical teaching), as opposed to the underlying premise (How does YHWH communicate with His people?).
"Do you see that problem EVEN IF you want to believe in the human SS tradition?"
No, I don't see the problem. I see your problem is that you can't offer an alternative. That you claim to love and strive to understand the Bible, while also claiming that your understanding driven by your Reason is more important that the content of the scriptures.
I understand that you don't have to offer an alternative, but your inability to do so along with your obsession with arguing against the notion that scripture is a direct communication from YHWH, makes me wonder what your motivation actually is. What about the notion that scripture is authoritative disturbs you so?
Craig...
your inability to do so along with your obsession with arguing against the notion that scripture is a direct communication from YHWH, makes me wonder what your motivation actually is. What about the notion that scripture is authoritative disturbs you so?
This conversation is always so deeply weird.
Nothing. NOTHING about the notion that "scripture is authoritative" disturbs me.
The claim that "The 66 books of the Bible teach that the 66 books of the Bible are the SOLE AUTHORITY in matters of Christian faith and practice" doesn't bother me. I'm just noting that it is objectively false.
1. The 66 NO WHERE SAY "sola Scriptura." Objectively so.
2. The 66 NO WHERE SAY, "the Bible is the sole authority in matters of Christian faith and practice." Objectively so.
3. The 66 NO WHERE SAY, "Scripture is the sole authority in matters of Christian faith and practice." Objectively so.
4. The 66 NOWHERE SAY ANY VERSION of that, they don't say "Scripture is the SUPREME Authority" or "the ONE SOURCE" or ANY version of that idea. Objectively so.
No, I've made CLEAR and precise claim of objective reality. Do you disagree with what I'm telling you is objective reality? If so, then the answer for you is easy: Provide ANY text from the Bible that says some direct version of SS.
You have not done that. No one has.
Can we agree on that much since it's just objectively, demonstrably factual?
Now, from there, you can start saying, "No, NONE of those words are biblical. BUT, we can REASON OUT that when Paul says that "All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, instruction, etc" that Paul MEANT the same thing as SS, because how could it be God-breathed and not SS? Or how could it be instructive and not SS?"
But being able to REASON OUT an idea does not mean it's literally biblical. People reason out that slavery is not a great evil from the Bible. People reason out that people should not marry outside of their "race." People reason out that God is taught to be clearly concerned about the poor and marginalized. (Actually,that one IS pretty literal). The point is, there is a difference between saying that we can (and should?) REASON OUT this conclusion of SS and saying that SS is GOD'S WORD and can't be disputed and those who reject SS reject God's authority.
Many of us, in reality, reject SS BECAUSE it's not biblical and BECAUSE we don't trust your human reasoning that would reach this extrabiblical conclusion.
My motivation to disagree with the human theory of SS? Because it's not biblical. Because religionists throughout the century have used the imprimatur of "God's Word" to try to force their human opinions and even oppression on people. Because it strikes me as being Pharisaical and again, just not biblical. I was a conservative when I abandoned SS in order to be faithful to the Bible.
Why is that so hard for you to fathom? There are, of course, quite conservative Catholics who disagree with SS, too. And others.
Unknown,
I suspect that you are Feo, choosing to hide your pseudonym behind an anonymous ID. Hence the comment was deleted. If it wasn't Feo, I apologize and ask that you resubmit the comment under a non anonymous account.
If we can agree that there is objectively nothing like "sola scriptura" or "all scripture - meaning the Bible - is the SOLE AUTHORITY on matters of Christian faith and practice..." literally in the Bible, can you then explain your position on SS as it relates to the few verses like "all Scripture is God-Breathed..." that you all cite as support for the idea of SS?
Is it the case that you THINK SS is a reasonable conclusion to draw out from those texts?
Is it the case that you think SS MUST be the only conclusion to draw from those texts?
Is it the case that you think everyone who doesn't agree with the reasoned conclusion of SS that you all have reasoned OUT of the text is not a Christian or is rejecting God's or "the Bible's" authority?
Is it the case that you agree that this is something you are reasoning OUT of the text that is literally not in the text? Or do you think that your reasoned conclusion is THE ONLY conclusion one can reasonably reach on the matter?
If you can go so far as recognizing that many people of good faith disagree with this reasoned out conclusion of SS, then on what basis would you appeal that anyone should really agree with the SS theorists?
Do you think God wants everyone to agree with SS?
Like that.
It's been pointed out on my blog (not sure if this is the case or not) that the SS theory is a minority theory in the history of Christendom. Which I'm not saying that the most people mean the right answer. It's just that this raises the problem of SS... to WHOM are you appealing to say THIS SS IS the Right, God-approved answer?
Or are you?
"Nothing. NOTHING about the notion that "scripture is authoritative" disturbs me."
Ok, then you'd better start policing your account better because other comments under your name would seem to disagree.
But, if (as you claim) you are perfectly fine with people who do believe that Sola Scriptura accurately describes the role and authority of the scriptures, why have you chosen to spend so much time and energy trying to dispute a doctrine that you claim is perfectly fine for others? If you are not arguing that Sola Scriptura is wrong, then why are you arguing anything? Why not just live and let live? You've been abundantly clear that you aren't offering anything as an alternative, and you haven't even come close to offering evidence that conclusively demonstrates that Sola Scriptura is wrong. So why this much effort and coming out of your safe space to simply assert that you "don't know"? This doesn't seem like the behavior of someone who gives scripture a high degree of authority.
If you noting the semantic argument that the bible never uses certain words, it's childish, absurd, and pointless. The Bible never mentions nuclear war either.
"No, I've made CLEAR and precise claim of objective reality."
If the above is an accurate representation of what you are arguing, then it should be a trivial matter to provide unequivocal, objective, proof of your claim. But, you won't do that, will you. You'll just pretend that your claim of something being "reality" settles everything.
"Do you disagree with what I'm telling you is objective reality?"
Given the objective reality that you haven't proven your claim to be 100% True, I have no choice but to withhold judgement until you do.
"No one has."
Then provide the proof of this claim.
"Can we agree on that much since it's just objectively, demonstrably factual?"
Since you haven't objectively demonstrated your claim, the answer is no we can't. You can't simply claim that something is "objectively, demonstrably factual", without any objective, demonstrable proof of your claim.
"... Paul MEANT the same thing as SS, because how could it be God-breathed and not SS? Or how could it be instructive and not SS?"
This is where your lack of any alternative at all causes you problems. Because if Paul meant "God breathed", then why would we assume that "God breathed" means made up by humans? When all you can do is bitch, it really makes it hard to take you seriously.
"But being able to REASON OUT an idea does not mean it's literally biblical."
Yet, it also doesn't mean that it is not biblical. Again, this is why your inability to offer an alternative hurts you. I'm faced with a doctrine that aligns with what the scripture teaches on the one hand, and you insisting that nobody knows on the other hand. I'm not sure why you think"we don't know" is a satisfying, persuasive response.
"Many of us, in reality, reject SS BECAUSE it's not biblical and BECAUSE we don't trust your human reasoning that would reach this extrabiblical conclusion."
Again with the attempt to speak for the mysterious masses. Again, your lack of any alternative hurts you here because your claiming that the doctrine is wrong because it's "extrabiblical". yet not all "extrabiblical" doctrines are automatically wrong. Especially as your argument is that the,
"The 66 NO WHERE SAY "sola Scriptura." Objectively so.
2. The 66 NO WHERE SAY, "the Bible is the sole authority in matters of Christian faith and practice." Objectively so.
3. The 66 NO WHERE SAY, "Scripture is the sole authority in matters of Christian faith and practice." Objectively so.
4. The 66 NOWHERE SAY ANY VERSION of that, they don't say "Scripture is the SUPREME Authority" or "the ONE SOURCE" or ANY version of that idea. Objectively so."
The Bible no where says that "God blesses gay marriage", yet you insist that this "extrabiblical" doctrine is True. Try consistency vocationally.
"Why is that so hard for you to fathom?"
Because I read everything you say, not just your self justifying excuses.
"If we can agree that there is objectively nothing like "sola scriptura" or "all scripture - meaning the Bible - is the SOLE AUTHORITY on matters of Christian faith and practice..." literally in the Bible, can you then explain your position on SS as it relates to the few verses like "all Scripture is God-Breathed..." that you all cite as support for the idea of SS?"
The problem is that we can't agree that the lack of specific words in the Bible invalidates the concepts those terms represent. Further, no one cites only the 2 Timothy verse as the sole justification. It's probably the most direct, but not the only by a long shot.
You keep bringing this back to your inability to provide alternate explanations for ALL of the scriptural support, including the 2 Timothy. You can't argue that "God breathed" doesn't mean that YHWH was personally involved in the written scripture. You can't offer a rational alternative to the orthodox explanation of the term that makes sense, at least I've never seen one.
Craig...
This is where your lack of any alternative at all causes you problems. Because if Paul meant "God breathed", then why would we assume that "God breathed" means made up by humans?
1. Because the Bible is rich in imagery and not every line should be taken literally.
2. Because "All Scripture is God breathed" is LITERALLY imagery being used in the writing. No one really thinks it means that God hovered over the head of a writer, "breathed" on the writer and thus, forced the writer to put down words that were literally God's. The phrase itself is clearly imagery. Do you have a hunch that it is speaking of God literally "breathing" on a person?
3. Because no one (in this conversation) is saying "made up by humans" and, as such, it's a straw man argument.
Noting that clearly figurative language is clearly figurative does not, in no way I see, mean I have to have this mythic "alternative" that you seem to think MUST exist. It suffices to say, "that literally does not say SS."
Craig...
you are perfectly fine with people who do believe that Sola Scriptura accurately describes the role and authority of the scriptures, why have you chosen to spend so much time and energy trying to dispute a doctrine that you claim is perfectly fine for others?
Because they (you?) are saying that THEIR human theories are THE ONE TRUE theory and to disagree with them is to disagree with God. That's problematic from a Christ-ian point of view. Jesus spent a good deal of his ministry rebuking those who claimed gracelessly to speak for God. Why? Because of the harm they were doing.
IF you all were saying, "This is what makes sense to us, but we can't prove it, it's OUR interpretation. Other Christians of good faith can certainly disagree. It's an unproven in-house discussion, not an Essential of the faith..." that would be one thing. You all tend to suggest this is a Christian essential, this teaching that Jesus never taught, nor that can be found directly in the Bible. You all tend (at least in these conversations I've had with you collectively) to start demonizing those who disagree with the theory by suggesting we have ulterior, base motives for "rejecting the authority of Scripture..."
"Is it the case that you THINK SS is a reasonable conclusion to draw out from those texts?"
Yes, I think that something very close to Sola Scriptura is the most reasonable conclusion to draw from the entirety of scripture.
"Is it the case that you think SS MUST be the only conclusion to draw from those texts?"
I'm not discounting the possibility of a different conclusion, but since you haven't offered one, it's simply theoretical bullshit.
"Is it the case that you think everyone who doesn't agree with the reasoned conclusion of SS that you all have reasoned OUT of the text is not a Christian or is rejecting God's or "the Bible's" authority?"
Not necessarily.
"Is it the case that you agree that this is something you are reasoning OUT of the text that is literally not in the text?"
Again, while the term may not be there in that form, the concept is present throughout scripture.
"Or do you think that your reasoned conclusion is THE ONLY conclusion one can reasonably reach on the matter?"
Ahhhhhhhhhh, the ask the same question twice in the same comment steaming pile of bullshit time wasting strategy. See my answer above.
"If you can go so far as recognizing that many people of good faith disagree with this reasoned out conclusion of SS, then on what basis would you appeal that anyone should really agree with the SS theorists?"
The problem is that you haven't offered an actual alternative theory to compare and contrast. I see no reason to indulge your theoretical fantasies of some credible alternative. SO far, the closest to an alternative you've offered is the "Don't Know" hypothesis. So if I was going to compare Sola Scriptura which has numerous examples of scriptural support for it, against "Don't Know" or "The term isn't specifically used in scripture." then there is no contest, I'm going with more scripture rather than no scripture.
"Do you think God wants everyone to agree with SS?"
I suspect that YHWH would prefer that people have an extremely high regard for His communication to us, rather than a low regard for it. I suspect that YHWH would prefer that we treat scripture as His words to us, than to treat them as something else.
"Like that."
What an idiotic, stupid, pointless, meaningless phrase to randomly insert.
"It's been pointed out on my blog (not sure if this is the case or not) that the SS theory is a minority theory in the history of Christendom. Which I'm not saying that the most people mean the right answer. It's just that this raises the problem of SS... to WHOM are you appealing to say THIS SS IS the Right, God-approved answer?"
By all means let's use one more unproven claim to buttress your pile of bullshit. The better question is "TO WHOM are you appealing to say that Sola Scriptura is NOT the "God-approved" answer? This is another example of the problems your lack of an alternative cause. Based on your "Don't Know" hypothesis it's equally likely that Sola Scriptura is an accurate representation of YHWH's will. Which would mean that you are just as likely to be wrong as right, yet you insist that your "Don't Know" hypothesis represents "reality" all while offering zero proof.
"Or are you?"
I'm saying that given the preponderance of scriptural evidence, Sola Scriptura (or something similar) is the best possible conclusion. It's certainly better than "We Don't Know", what the answer is (but "we" know that Sola Scriptura is not biblical and therefore wrong.).
Can you not see that your lack of any rational alternative, and your choosing to only focus on a small number of scriptural supports is causing you significant problems as you demand that everyone agree that Sola Scriptura is wrong?
Craig...
In your pathetic little mind maybe, but then you think "Don't Know" is a rational conclusion to draw and impose on everyone.
The Bible literally nowhere says SS or one of its definitions. If it did, you could present it. What you have are texts that suggest TO YOU and others like you since the reformation something like SS. Which again, is fine. But there's a world of difference between GOD SAYS SS and, I personally think something like SS is suggested in the Bible, even if it isn't stated directly.
I'd said...
"Is it the case that you think SS MUST be the only conclusion to draw from those texts?"
You responded...
I'm not discounting the possibility of a different conclusion, but since you haven't offered one
But I have. WE DON'T HAVE ANY DATA TO SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT WE HAVE A "SOLE SOURCE of authority on matters of faith and practice."
Noting that there is an absence of objective data IS a different conclusion, and it has the benefit of being factually, objectively demonstrable.
I think you have a fear of NOT having a "sole source" and so, to you, it feels like you MUST have a sole source... whatever it is. But sometimes, the objective answer is Just No.
If there aren't spacemonkeys on the moon riding unicorns, then what creatures ARE on the moon?
Just none. Just nothing. I don't NEED an "alternative theory" of what critters ARE on the moon. It's sufficient to say, we don't have any data that says there ARE critters on the moon.
You get that point, right? Saying, "We have none" IS an objective and reasonable answer, right? (Even if you ultimately want to theorize otherwise, that doesn't mean that I have to offer an alternative theory about a mythic "sole source").
You go on and on with this nonsense response.
but then you think "Don't Know" is a rational conclusion to draw and impose on everyone. Look if you don't have an alternative, then you have no grounds to say that something doesn't mean X.
Yes, yes, I do. IF you claim SPACEMONKEYS ON THE MOON, my "alternative theory" is, "There is NO data for that." That IS the (one) alternative. Not having a theory about Sky Rabbits in the moon doesn't discount my factual response of No, you don't have data to support that. It's an unsupported fact claim.
Now, IF you want to say (as I've noted) that this is MY/OUR THEORY, but it's not one we can prove, it's just our unproven theory... I'm fine with that. Say that.
Is SS your (collective) objectively unproven theory? Is that what you're saying?
And on...
it's impossible to take you seriously when you insist that we're wrong, but can't point out what is right.
Yes, I can. I can state that "THERE IS NO DATA TO OBJECTIVELY SUPPORT THE SPACEMONKEYS THEORY" and I can say "THERE IS NO DATA TO OBJECTIVELY SUPPORT THE SS THEORY." Those are objectively factual claims I'm making and with good biblical reasons (noting that something is NOT in the Bible IS a biblical reason.)
Craig...
You're the one who started this by attacking Stan's post, and crawling out of your safe space to continue your screed here.
Attacking? What is it that you think is an "attack..."? You all are making these wild accusations about "they just want to reject God's authority..." and "they probably just want the liberty to do what they want like hedonists" about people who dare to disagree with this human theory of yours. All I'm doing is noting the reality that SS is literally not in the Bible in an objective, literal manner... that it is objectively an unproven theory, not a fact. Do you think THAT is an "attack..."?
Craig...
Again, while the term may not be there in that form, the concept is present throughout scripture.
It's just not. Not in an anything like an objectively provable, clear manner. I GET that people find words that they reason, "So, when it says, XY and Z, then it must ALSO mean 1,2 and 3!" but that is using their reason to extrapolate OUT an additional meaning that is literally just not in the text. It's just not.
If it were, you all could say, "HERE. Here it is, in the text, literally, clearly SS..." It's just not.
Craig...
Who specifically is harmed by Stan's blog post where he lays out evidence for Sola Scriptura? Does anyone in this conversation have the ability or intent to forcibly prevent you from your mystery belief?
Who is harmed from me pointing out the reality that SS is literally not in the text of the 66?
In Jesus' day, he said of the Pharisees...
"They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders,
but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them."
That is the problem with making burdensome claims and rules and accusations about people who disagree with your human opinions. The Pharisees would rule that some should go hungry or let a mule that's fallen in a pit die rather than "work on a Sabbath..." creating rules that cause harm and failing to understand that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not the other way around.
The evangelical church (and others) have long pushed their set of extrabiblical rules that people must affirm to be saved or at the least, to be a Christian in good standing, as if affirming the human theory of Atonement or the human theory of SS is an essential teaching of Jesus. It's missing the grace and a world missing grace does do harm.
"But I have. WE DON'T HAVE ANY DATA TO SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT WE HAVE A "SOLE SOURCE of authority on matters of faith and practice.""
That's not an alternative, it's a cop out. But, by all means, prove this alternative claim.
"I think you have a fear of NOT having a "sole source" and so, to you, it feels like you MUST have a sole source... whatever it is. But sometimes, the objective answer is Just No."
Then you're wrong. I don't fear not having a sole source. My concern is what people like you will do when there is no objective source, no standard to measure Truth against. I'm concerned how many people you'll lead astray be basing your "theology" on your Reason.
"You get that point, right? Saying, "We have none" IS an objective and reasonable answer, right?"
Only if you can objectively, demonstrate your claim to be 100% accurate, but you haven't even attempted to prove this "alternative" claim, you just assert that it is as if that carries any weight.
"Is SS your (collective) objectively unproven theory? Is that what you're saying?"
No, I'm pointing out that "I don't know because I've decided that zero evidence has ever existed" is not objectively demonstrable despite your claim that it is.
Look there are volumes of scholarship on the authority of scripture, the reliability of scripture, and the like. If you're prepared to demonstrate that none of them has any evidence, then do so. I see no reason to repeat the readily available scholarship when all you have is "I don't know.".
"I can say "THERE IS NO DATA TO OBJECTIVELY SUPPORT THE SS THEORY." Those are objectively factual claims I'm making and with good biblical reasons (noting that something is NOT in the Bible IS a biblical reason.)"
Then prove these "objectively factual" claims. I'll wait.
Craig...
That's not an alternative, it's a cop out. But, by all means, prove this alternative claim.
I read the Bible and find NO support for SS or ANY theory that we have received from God "one sole authoritative source" for belief and practice. WHY is that a "cop-out..."? That makes no sense. It's an irrational and unsupported claim. You know, sort of like y'all and SS.
Then prove these "objectively factual" claims. I'll wait.
I've declared this is NO DATA to support this claim. I have seen NO DATA to support that claim and I've been reading the Bible for nigh unto 60 years now. THAT is a cold stone fact.
Now, IF you have objective data that says otherwise, then the onus is on you all to prove it. One can't prove a negative. All I can state is that, just like I see no evidence for spacemonkeys, I likewise see no objectively proven evidence for SS. UNTIL such time as someone provides some actual, you know, data, to support an objectively proven SS claim, my role is done in the discussion.
Look, think of it this way:
There are many of us who look at the Bible and because of hundreds of passages that speak to issues of poverty and wealth, we believe in the theory of a "Preferential option for the poor..." the reasonable notion (given the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and especially the teachings of Jesus our Lord) that "refers to a trend throughout the Bible, of priority being given to the well-being of the poor and powerless of society in the teachings and commands of God as well as the prophets and other righteous people."
We think this theory is clear and abundantly shown throughout the Bible. It is our theory, not God's Word. But we think it is clearly found in the Bible and with MUCH more weight than the featherweight SS.
Now, because we have this theory, do you think we must acknowledge the Preferential Option as equivalent to God's Word? That those who disagree with it are not true Christians? Is the claim of people who interpret something they find in the Bible, the SAME as scripture, the Bible, the Word of God?
Or would you object if we classified it that way? (we don't, but if we did).
Craig...
I see no reason to repeat the readily available scholarship when all you have is "I don't know.".
You keep saying this. I've never said don't believe SS because "I don't know." What I've said is that SS is literally a human theory, not directly taught in the Bible in any objectively proven sense.
Do you understand that?
I DO know: There IS NO OBJECTIVELY PROVEN notion of SS in the pages of the Bible. It is a human theory.
There is no "I don't know" in it.
AND, as always, IF you DO "know" then prove it objectively. Saying that people have reasons for holding this opinion.
re: God-breathed = SOLE SOURCE
As Feodor rightly pointed out:
Jesus said to them again,
“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
When he had said this,
he breathed on them
and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Hm. Jesus LITERALLY breathed upon his followers. Does that make them the SOUL SOURCE? Because God breathed... after all! And literally so!
Craig...
My concern is what people like you will do when there is no objective source, no standard to measure Truth against.
And, given the real world history of religion, I fear when people like you (and me, once upon a time) think WE are the holders of the Standard of Truth.
To that end...
Look there are volumes of scholarship on the authority of scripture, the reliability of scripture, and the like. If you're prepared to demonstrate that none of them has any evidence, then do so.
You forget, I was RAISED conservative. I've read these arguments back then. I did searches for these "arguments" again this week and over the years. They are presenting NO - ZERO - objective proof that their theories about SS are objectively factual. Indeed, they make it clear that they are opinions of fallible humans, even while they want to assert that this is "the only" rational option.
Of course, THAT is a false claim. And no, they don't have OBJECTIVELY PROVEN evidence. Do you think they do?
Again, if you're simply offering this as one unproven opinion about "authority," that's fine. Just state so clearly. To that end...
Dan:
"Is SS your (collective) objectively unproven theory? Is that what you're saying?"
Craig:
No, I'm pointing out that "I don't know because I've decided that zero evidence has ever existed"
Does that mean, "NO, I Craig do NOT believe and I am not saying that SS is objectively proven... just that it is one unproven theory and the one that personally makes most sense to me..."?
Make yourself clear.
Once again, ad nauseum, we see that Dan insists a concept must appear in a specific way in Scripture for it to be so.
But here's the thing: If we step back a second and just regard SS as a concept theologians accept as an obvious reality, then we'd be getting to the real issue. There is plenty in Scripture which suggests it is the sole authority for learning of God and His Will. The Bereans certainly thought it worth comparing to it everything they heard in order to know what to accept. But I again insist one imagine just how we'd learn anything about God...the God Scripture describes as the "Real Deal" as opposed to something no different than Zeus...without Scripture. Dan relies on Scripture to suggest ways that might be, but would they ever inform us of the "Real Deal"?? I fully doubt it.
And certainly, as with the Bereans, if Dan or his troll would insist upon a behavior or belief and insist it aligns with Christianity, how would anyone know it to be true? By researching Scripture...the sole, supreme authority for determining the truth of such things. This, then basically, is Sola Scriptura. It's not a theory. It's a reality. There is no source for our understanding which is better, regardless of Dan's inability to understand it and interpret clear truths rationally and accurately.
And by the way, it is remarkable how often Dan pulls from his diaper this nonsensical argument regarding "imagery" or at other times "metaphor" as if that's at all problematic for us. What desperation!
Returning to earlier comments and questions from you...
What's interesting in your list of ways YHWH reveals Himself, is that you literally just quoted passages from scripture as your authority justifying your claim.
You asked for a biblical defense/explanation of my position. It's hard to offer the biblical case without citing the Bible. Weird comment.
Continuing...
The question then becomes,
since all of those things are completely dependent on how they are perceived by humans, isn't it possible that two people can see the same thing and reach conclusions about YHWH that are complete opposites?
Yes, of course it is. It happens all the time.
If so, then how does YHWH revealing Himself is such a subjective way actually reveal anything about Himself?
How does God revealing God's Self IN such a subjective way (my biblical list of ways God could/is recorded as revealing God's Self) actually reveal anything about God's Self? Is that what you're asking?
If we are OF/FROM God, "created in the image of God's own Self," "a little lower than God's Self," with "God's Word written upon our hearts (metaphorically speaking)," then why would we not expect some notion of understanding God? Just as I can understand something about my parents from my DNA, I suspect that we can understand something of God from our own psyche.
Indeed, CS Lewis (and others) even cite this "God within us" and the sense of morality generally shared amongst humanity as one of the evidences of a Creator God.
I suspect that your problem is with the "vagueness" of these various ways. You ask...
Is there no standard available for us to measure against?
No. Not that God has ever told us about. As a point of fact, God has never said, "HERE is THE Standard to measure against. The SOLE SOURCE for understanding me, God, and my Godly ways." God just hasn't done that.
God did say (or Jesus and the biblical writers, anyway) some version of Love is the way to recognize God and God's way and God's people. That's probably the closest thing to a standard we find in biblical text.
cont'd...
“By this all people will know that you are my disciples,
if you have love for one another”
"We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us.
God is love,
and the one who remains in love
remains in God, and God remains in him."
But alas, Love, too, is subjective. And yet, it's the reality we live within.
But this returns us to an earlier problem I've raised with you all:
EVEN IF "the Bible" was THE SOLE standard for recognizing God and God's ways, for recognizing Christian faith and practice, to WHOSE interpretation will we be able to reliably appeal for a ruling?
Some of us Christians recognize the great glory and love in straight and LGBTQ folks allying together, supporting each others' humanity and that of God within them, supporting the rights of LGBTQ family just as we support the rights of straight folk. We, on our side, recognize this as Godly and biblical and reasonable and moral.
Other Christians, as you know, have historically NOT accepted LGBTQ folks rights, to marry, who to date, whether they can raise children, to recognize their own gender, etc. To them, none of that is biblical or Godly.
EVEN IF the Bible were the SOLE authority, WHO DECIDES? Which set of fallible humans are understanding God and God's ways correctly?
Or, some Christians accept SS as biblical, others don't. WHO DECIDES if SS is biblical or reasonable or not?
We have not been given an arbitrator or decider to make such calls. When we HAVE had people assume that role in the past (the Pope, for instance), many of us have objected to that human's presumption in appointing themselves the Decider.
So, to return to answering your question: NO, we've been given no assurance of a Sole Source and even if we did have that - which we don't - we're still at a loss of a Decider to say, "Yes, that is the correct understanding of this Sole Source."
Jesus and the early church all taught the very reasonable (ie, it appeals to that of God in all of humanity) line of "If we LOVE, that is of God," and "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," and, even more briefly, "Love God, Love humanity." THAT is THE MOST reliable source we have, both from a reasonable point of view and a biblical point of view.
You want a Sole Source? How about this:
One of the [Pharisees], an expert in the law,
tested him with this question:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied:
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Marshal...
Once again, ad nauseum, we see that Dan insists a concept must appear in a specific way in Scripture for it to be so.
And once again, I've been abundantly clear, ad nauseum, that I'm not saying it MUST be said in a specific way, just that it needs to be SAID. That is, just because the term "four corners of the earth" appears in the Bible does not mean that it's teaching a flat earth. I'm not saying that "flat earth" MUST be said in the Bible or the flat earthers are wrong. I'm saying the CONCEPT needs to be clearly taught and, in the case of "four corners/flat earth," we can all agree that FE is NOT clearly being taught.
Same for SS. It doesn't need to be any of the typical words to be used (SS, Sole Authority, Supreme Authority, Final word, etc) but the CONCEPT needs to be clearly taught, not merely extrapolated out using reason, to insist that it's literally being taught directly. It's not.
But here's the thing: If we step back a second and just regard SS as a concept theologians accept as an obvious reality, then we'd be getting to the real issue.
SOME theologians do reason out that conclusion from the text. Probably more theologians don't agree with those theologians. Right?
"I read the Bible and find NO support for SS or ANY theory that we have received from God "one sole authoritative source" for belief and practice. WHY is that a "cop-out..."? That makes no sense. It's an irrational and unsupported claim. You know, sort of like y'all and SS."
It's a cop out for the following reasons.
1. It's 100% based on your personal, fallible, prejudiced, reading of scripture filtered through your preconceptions.
2. Because it's just your subjective perception, you've allowed yourself to pretend is if this is objective Truth, without providing proof.
3. Because you can't find it doesn't mean it's not there.
4. reality isn't determined by your inability to find something.
5. You haven't offered an explanation that deals with why the passages cited by Stan and others mean something contrary to their plain meaning.
6. "I think this is figurative language." doesn't explain what the figurative language means.
"I've declared this is NO DATA to support this claim. I have seen NO DATA to support that claim and I've been reading the Bible for nigh unto 60 years now. THAT is a cold stone fact."
1. Well, as long as you've "declared" something then it is 100% unassailable Truth.
2. Those are two different things.
3. The Truth of this discussion doesn't revolve around your ability to find something.
4. Just because you can't find something isn't proof that the think you claim to be looking for doesn't exist.
"Now, because we have this theory, do you think we must acknowledge the Preferential Option as equivalent to God's Word?"
You can make up whatever extrabiblical theory you'd like, I wouldn't stop you. The problem is when you act and speak as if this theory is actually The Gospel.
"That those who disagree with it are not true Christians? Is the claim of people who interpret something they find in the Bible, the SAME as scripture, the Bible, the Word of God?"
No, no.
"Or would you object if we classified it that way?"
If you classified your extrabiblical theory as an extrabiblical theory, stopped referring to your extrabiblical theory as The Gospel, and were clear every time you mentioned it that is was an extrabiblical theory, and that the term "preferential Option" exists nowhere in scripture, I could care less.
I'm going to note a couple of things.
1. We've reached the point in the thread where Dan has started to try to migrate the discussion over to his blog, so he will be able to control the content and allow his troll free reign to make up whatever he wants without any restrictions.
2. We've also reached the point where Dan is going to push his narrative regardless of what anyone says or any questions he's asked.
I just wanted to note this, because we'll soon be seeing his usual escape strategy.
Again, Dan cites the Scripture he rejects as the sole source of authority and understanding of God and His Ways. He thinks it's weird to point it out. Not weird, Danny-boy. It's acknowledging irony.
"You keep saying this. I've never said don't believe SS because "I don't know." What I've said is that SS is literally a human theory, not directly taught in the Bible in any objectively proven sense." "Do you understand that?"
I started to wade through your turgid comments, to find you saying that you don't know, but I don't have the time.
So you now saw that your alternative is that "I (Dan) can't find it, therefor it doesn't exist.". This is so much better than "I don't know.". This notion of making pronouncements about "reality" because you can't find something is a whole new level of hubris. Although an effective way to hide from proving your claims.
"Hm. Jesus LITERALLY breathed upon his followers. Does that make them the SOUL SOURCE?"
Hmmmmmmmmmm, I mentioned this earlier and you ignored it. Yes the notion of the "breath" of pneuma of YHWH is one that occurs multiple times through out scripture, and it always indicates that YHWH is specifically indwelling a specific person for a specific purpose. What's funny is that this actually supports the idea that YHWH literally breathed His inspiration into the authors of scripture.
"And, given the real world history of religion, I fear when people like you (and me, once upon a time) think WE are the holders of the Standard of Truth."
Well done, the ad hom argument here is an excellent choice. The problem is that in this very thread YOU are the one making declarations about what is or is not "reality" (If something is "reality, then it is True), not me. My concern remains, when you deny that a standard exists or are the arbiter of what the standard is, or posit a subjective standard, then there is nothing to tether you to the Truth. I'm always prepared to be corrected by the Truth, you just haven't even proven your claims to be objectively True.
"Of course, THAT is a false claim. And no, they don't have OBJECTIVELY PROVEN evidence. Do you think they do?"
No, I only mention the voluminous amount of scholarship on the topic to point out that I've never seen you actually objectively prove that the scholarship is wrong, nor have you offered an objectively provable alternative.
"Make yourself clear."
To be clear. I am pointing out that YOUR CLAIM of "I don't know because I have never seen any evidence because no evidence exists.", is not an objectively provable alternative theory. It's self centered, self fulfilling, hubris.
Ah...your last two comments appeared after I made one of my own. I've more to add, and it seems prudent to do it here, rather than at Dan's where truth is unwelcome.
"You asked for a biblical defense/explanation of my position. It's hard to offer the biblical case without citing the Bible. Weird comment."
Not at all. You are literally appealing to the Bible as the authoritative source for your "proof" that the Bible is not authoritative.
I guess answering questions from 30 comments ago is a better late than never thing.
"How does God revealing God's Self IN such a subjective way (my biblical list of ways God could/is recorded as revealing God's Self) actually reveal anything about God's Self? Is that what you're asking?"
I'm asking if (as you admit) your list of Biblically authoritative ways YHWH reveals Himself are subjective and dependent on human perception, then aren't you really claiming that it's impossible to know ANYTHING objective about YHWH through your Biblically authoritative list.
"No. Not that God has ever told us about. As a point of fact, God has never said, "HERE is THE Standard to measure against. The SOLE SOURCE for understanding me, God, and my Godly ways." God just hasn't done that."
1. Prove this/these claims.
2. How convenient, a god that is wholly subjective and who can be used to justify literally anything because he is unable to communicate anything at all about himself to us in a way that can be know to a high degree of certainty.
3. Thanks you for, again, presuming to speak for "God".
"EVEN IF "the Bible" was THE SOLE standard for recognizing God and God's ways, for recognizing Christian faith and practice, to WHOSE interpretation will we be able to reliably appeal for a ruling?"
I would argue that the best we have is the collective wisdom and knowledge of the entirety of the Body of Christ as it currently exists in the physical world. The difference between you claim that there is no standard, as opposed to this is that comparing something to a known standard (while imperfect) seems better that a subjective, shifting, unknown, or nonexistent standard.
"We, on our side, recognize this as We, on our side, recognize this as Godly and biblical and reasonable and moral."
Strange, you've spend multiple comments arguing that Sola Scriptura is wrong because you can't find any evidence of it in scripture so therefore it is false. Yet now you argue that homosexuality is "We, on our side, recognize this as Godly and biblical and reasonable and moral." when there is not one single passage of scripture that supports your claim. I've asked you repeatedly for one example of an ancient sacred text (Torah, Talmud, Rabbinic writings, OT/NT, Apocrypha, writings of the early Church Fathers, up through the 2nd century) that explicitly refers to homosexuality as anything but negative. It's always amusing when you engage is behavior you falsely accuse others of.
"EVEN IF the Bible were the SOLE authority, WHO DECIDES? Which set of fallible humans are understanding God and God's ways correctly?"
Ultimately YHWH decides. Given the human condition and sin nature, it's virtually certain that we will fail to understand everything about YHWH correctly. The problem is that Truth isn't determined by our understanding or your inability to recognize evidence. Nothing revolves around us or our understanding, or your Reason. Everything revolves around YHWH.
"Or, some Christians accept SS as biblical, others don't. WHO DECIDES if SS is biblical or reasonable or not?"
You just literally have asked this question in different ways 4 or 5 times, I've answered it enough.
"All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”"
Excellent example. You have Jesus Himself saying that the Scriptures (written and oral) ALL hang on the love of YHWH. All the while appealing to the authority of Jesus recorded IN SCRIPTURE, referring to the foundation for the authority OF SCRIPTURE, to support your claim that scripture is not authoritative.
Nice try, but I'm tired of more double standards.
Art,
You are correct, Dan is getting a bit repetitive. The notion that if he repeats something often enough it somehow becomes True is tiresome. But as you might have seen, he's chosen to "declare" something to be True, which (obviously) magically confers Truth on his declaration.
I had said...
Not that God has ever told us about. As a point of fact, God has never said, "HERE is THE Standard to measure against. The SOLE SOURCE for understanding me, God, and my Godly ways." God just hasn't done that."
You asked...
1. Prove this/these claims.
I can't prove the negative - no one can. I can't PROVE their are no spacemonkeys on the moon. ALL I can say is that tehre is no evidence of it.
The burden of proof lies with the ones making the positive claim of the unproven.
This is not my invention. It's how logic works:
Burden of Proof:
"what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion -
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
You all are making the extraordinary claim, that somewhere God has given humanity a SOLE SOURCE for authority on matters of faith and practice. You all need to prove it. It's suffices that I will continue to dismiss it as long as there's no evidence of it.
Logic 101
Craig...
2. How convenient, a god that is wholly subjective and who can be used to justify literally anything because he is unable to communicate anything at all about himself to us in a way that can be know to a high degree of certainty.
This is nothing I've said, but you are correct that many of you all continue to justify something you can't prove and rely upon your subjective godling as your support. God is not in your conservative cage. Don't try to put God there.
Look, as always, if you're merely saying SS is our human theory, nothing we can prove, just what makes sense to some of us in Christianity, that's fine. You just can't expect us to buy what you're selling with no proof, AND that proof lies with you all until such time as you make clear it's just an opinion you hold, and not the "Word of God."
Craig misrepresented (for the 100th time?)...
to support your claim that scripture is not authoritative.
I have not said that "scripture is not authoritative." I've been quite clear that I'm saying that SS is not demonstrably found in the Bible, it is a human interpretation of words in the Bible that SOME humans have guessed at, but not proven.
That I reject your authority is not the same as thinking that "scripture is not authoritative."
So the issue of what Scripture says about itself is one upon which Dan tries to hang his dunce cap. But as has been says, there is much within it which suggest the concept of SS is appropriate for Christians to abide. I have three offerings, the last one I haven't totally read, but demonstrates how early church fathers placed the same reverence for Scripture toward which SS encourages. The first I just thought was a good overview of what SS is, as it's pretty clear neither Dan or his troll have any idea. The second is packed with Scriptural references which support the notion of SS for the rest of us.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/understanding-sola-scriptura
https://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm
https://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers.htm
And of course, once again, Dan tries to pretend he was once conservative, as if he has any better idea of what that means than he does SS. After all the years of engagement with him on the blogs, I've yet to see any evidence he has the slightest clue what conservatism is.
Craig...
I would argue that the best we have is the collective wisdom and knowledge of the entirety of the Body of Christ as it currently exists in the physical world.
But SS is, I believe, a minority theory within the entirety of the Body of Christ. So, if the collective wisdom of the Church Universal is against your human theory, does that devalue your theory some, for you?
I'm guessing you're probably thinking that all those Christians who don't accept the conservative evangelical opinion are likely not Christians at all, so they don't count. But to whom do you appeal to dismiss the majority of Jesus' followers? Your SS?
My concern remains, when you deny that a standard exists or are the arbiter of what the standard is, or posit a subjective standard, then there is nothing to tether you to the Truth.
I agree. It can be difficult for many humans to remain tethered to the Truth. I think we see it all the time, for instance, in conservative evangelical circles, because they insist that some ideals are Truth that are, in fact, demonstrably their subjective opinions. That's a problem.
That I point to the reality that NEITHER of us/NONE of us can objectively prove God's opinion on marriage, on homosexuality, on war, on making loans, on immigration, on SS or the virgin birth or what is and isn't a sin. We just can't objectively prove it. But you appear to cling to the UN-truth/unsupported claim that we can. Sort of. Maybe. Some of us. Perhaps.
Again, I'm saying there is NO DATA to support that we humans can objectively prove God's opinion on morality or Christian faith. That's a claim of reality. If you want to make the POSITIVE case, then the burden of proof lies on you, the one making the extraordinary claim to prove it. Not me to demonstrate there is no There, there.
"I can't prove the negative - no one can"
One of my points exactly. You frame a positive claim "God has never told us..." as a negative claim as an attempt to avoid having to prove the claim you've masked. The bigger problem is that your REAL claim, is "I (Dan) haven't seen any evidence of this, therefore God didn't...". The problem with that is that you are extrapolating from your limited, flawed, experience to make a universal claim. But all of that aside, it's just one more claim you won't prove.
"The burden of proof lies with the ones making the positive claim of the unproven"
Yet you fail to meet this time and time again.
My "claim", is simply that there is enough evidence in scripture to support Sola Scriptura as a being a reasonable conclusion. Because there is, and it's readily available. You keep making these broad claims about what "God" hasn't done, and what "God" blesses with no proof.
"I have not said that "scripture is not authoritative.""
Then by all means, clear the air. Yes of no, is the canon of scripture as agreed to by The Church authoritative, or is it not authoritative.
If your answer doesn't start with either Is authoritative, or Is not authoritative, I will know that you are not serious.
"But SS is, I believe, a minority theory within the entirety of the Body of Christ."
Well as long as you "believe" this to be True, then it certainly must be blindly accepted as True with absolutely no attempts to determine the accuracy of your belief.
How absolutely idiotic is the first two lines of this comment.
"Again, I'm saying there is NO DATA..."
OK, discussion over. Dan has spoken. The matter is settled. Thus spake Dan and no dissenting viewpoints will be entertained.
When a comment is book-ended by that much Idiocy, I can't be bothered with the rest of it.
Craig asked...
Yes of no, is the canon of scripture as agreed to by The Church authoritative, or is it not authoritative.
A very precise and direct answer requires clarification. First, a definition:
Authoritative:
"able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable."
EVERY WORD THAT GOD SAYS is authoritative, true and reliable, so far as I can tell. With the caveat that, at least in the Bible, we see stories showing instances where God changes God's mind.
The Bible, I accept as Scripture (although the Bible never literally calls "the Bible" "scripture" just to be clear), and I believe it is authoritative, true and reliable, although the Bible never makes that claim about itself. With the caveat that people CAN read INTO and otherwise interpret Scripture in ways that aren't valid or true or reliable.
But the Bible never says the Bible is the Sole Authority for matters of faith and practice and THAT claim, I do not believe to be valid, rational or biblical.
Likewise, the Bible never says that Scripture is the Sole Authority for matters of faith and practice and THAT claim, I do not believe to be valid, rational or biblical.
I'm not willing to make those sorts of claims that God hasn't made and that are not found within the text of the Bible. It strikes me as disrespectful to God and the written Word.
Now, if some Christians say that, TO THEM, they read the Bible and they reach the EXTRA-biblical conclusion that we should consider the Bible to be the SOLE authority... in THEIR opinion, and they make clear that this is a human theory, not "the Word of God," I'm fine with that.
I BELIEVE that you, Craig, are saying that this is you... that you are not saying SS should be considered the "Word of God," and that it is, indeed, a human theory that happens to make sense to YOU, personally. I believe Stan and Marshal are saying that SS is the ONLY way to consider the Bible and that it is a Christian "essential," (this teaching that the Christ never taught, much less emphasized as an "essential..."). If that is the case, then will you spend as much time telling them they're wrong as you've spent protesting what perhaps you even agree with, from me?
From Stan's blog, you said...
"I don't think I'd call people who deny major tenets of Christianity, Christians.
The best PR trick the Mormons ever did was when they re branded themselves as just another Christian denomination."
Says the "conservative evangelical" believer without a hint of understanding or self-awareness of the irony.
I' not sure what to do with the Anonymous post.
It sounds like Feo, who's comments get moderated.
Dan finds it difficult to post under a consistent account, so it could be Dan being inconsistent.
It could genuinely be an anonymous poster.
No matter what, the last line is bullshit.
Since Dan is incapable of a simple answer to a simple question, I'n choosing to simply ignore his response as failing the reading directions test.
Dan made a claim earlier, that I decided to research.
He claimed that Sola SCriptura was a minority position within The Church. Since there is no way to accurately poll every single believer to measure that way, the only option I see in to look at what the major denominations say about their beliefs about scripture.
I'm going to mention the obvious, that Islam regards their Quran to the point where their claims about accuracy and infallibility are at least as strict as those who explicitly claim Sola Scriptura.
The Jewish position is "The traditional Jewish belief is that the Hebrew Scripture, or the Old Testament, is the Word of God. It alone is the sacred Scripture that has been revealed to humanity."
So, it could be ague that both Muslims and Jews hold to a doctrine that is similar enough to Sola Scriptura to be called equivalent.
It goes without saying that the various Reformed movements would hold to Sola Scriptura.
The Roman Catholic Church is interesting. They make essentially the same claims about scripture as the Reformers did, but they add additional elements to scripture. "Because scripture is divinely inspired, God's word is free from error and firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that Truth which God wanted to put in the sacred writings..."
As far as the Baptists go, "Basically Baptists have considered the Bible as authoritative for faith and practice because of its very nature. Baptists have insisted that the divine nature of the Bible is the basis of its authority. No other writing compares to the Bible. The Bible stands alone among all other writings in that it is uniquely from God and about God."
Methodists, RCC, and Orthodox churches believe in the doctrine of Prima Scriptura, which essentially agrees with Sola about the nature of scripture, while broadening the allowable extras.
So, this is another one of those situations where Dan might be technically correct, yet very misleading.
It seems safe to say that all of the major Christian denominations would agree on the nature of scriptures, the only disagreement is on the role of things like tradition and the magisterium in addition to scripture.
It's safe to say that both Jews and Muslims would argue in favor of Sola Scriptura as it applies to their scriptures.
To conclude, it's not unreasonable to say that the view of the nature of scripture stated as part of Sola Scriptura IS consistently held across multiple denomintations and religions.
FYI, the Mormons appear to be closer to Dan in that they recognize that a person's "words, logic, and emotions" are the final authority.
""what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.""
Which is why we can dismiss 99.99% of every claim Dan makes.
"But SS is, I believe, a minority theory within the entirety of the Body of Christ."
Dismissed due to lack of evidence.
"I'm guessing you're probably thinking that all those Christians who don't accept the conservative evangelical opinion are likely not Christians at all, so they don't count."
I won't speak for Craig on this, but know your not Christian because of all the Scripture you ignore and reject.
"But to whom do you appeal to dismiss the majority of Jesus' followers?"
You claim the majority disagrees. An assertion dismissed due to a lack of evidence.
And then again, this is another appeal to numbers (if we pretend Dan has any legit evidence to support the notion the majority agrees with him on this...or anything), as if having a majority means a position is true or false as a result.
"It can be difficult for many humans to remain tethered to the Truth. I think we see it all the time, for instance, in conservative evangelical circles, because they insist that some ideals are Truth that are, in fact, demonstrably their subjective opinions."
Dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence, as well as the obvious fact you have no idea what "conservatism" is or means. No conservative states as fact that which isn't explicitly also stated in Scripture, which is why we regard it as fact. We don't make up crap such as God blessing homosexual/lesbian unions because there is no evidence to so much as imagine this might be true.
"That I point to the reality that NEITHER of us/NONE of us can objectively prove God's opinion on marriage, on homosexuality, on war, on making loans, on immigration, on SS or the virgin birth or what is and isn't a sin. We just can't objectively prove it."
This is one of Dan's many favorite lies to tell. The lie is in forcing ambiguity where God's Will is quite clear. We know what God's opinion of marriage is, as we know what His definition of it is. Every mention of the word informs us really quite clearly. We also know God abhors homosexuality, as it is one of the sinful behaviors for which He not only states is worthy of death, but that each such death is on the heads of the perpetrators. Can't get much clearer evidence than that. There is also enough about loans to get a really clear idea about them, the same with immigration, the virgin birth, and the rest of his list.
"But you appear to cling to the UN-truth/unsupported claim that we can."
Only those who need ambiguity in order to do as they please would pretend in this way. That's our Dan!!
"If you want to make the POSITIVE case, then the burden of proof lies on you, the one making the extraordinary claim to prove it. Not me to demonstrate there is no There, there."
Good thing I posted those three links. They prove it in spades. The notion that Scripture is the most authoritative source for our knowledge of God and His Will is beyond question unless one rejects every utterance of Christ and the Epistle writers on the subject. For all those like Dan can bring to bear to oppose the doctrine, one must still refer to Scripture to see if they're worthy of one's time. If all that those like Dan bring to bear to oppose the doctrine doesn't conform with Scripture, it's crap. As such, we don't really need anything but Scripture to inform us. It is sufficient all by itself...and that's allowing for that which might not be crystal clear to everyone.
"But the Bible never says the Bible is the Sole Authority for matters of faith and practice and THAT claim, I do not believe to be valid, rational or biblical."
I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the Bible/Scripture MUST say something about itself for that something said about it to be true. The Bible doesn't refer to itself as "the Bible", yet Dan has no problem referring to it with this word. Maybe he shouldn't without first finding the verse which allows it.
"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents."
--Irenaeus referring to Dan
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles."
--Irenaeus (likely referring to Dan's troll)
"But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves."
--Clement of Alexandria
"And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent."
--Tertullian
"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them."
--Hippolytus
Each of the above are but single expressions of the same notion by five of the early church fathers. Each expresses Scripture as the ultimate authority by which all other notions must be compared and affirmed. I could produce more from each, or one from each of about a dozen other early church fathers. If, as Dan so desperately needs to believe, SS is a minority opinion, then it can be said...supported with the evidence of Apostolic Fathers such as the above...it's due to the straying of those who need more than Scripture to rationalize and legitimize that which is far less "Biblical" than SS.
Art,
As I've thought about this, I've realized that I'm not irreversibly attached to the Sola part of Sola Scriptura. While I do believe that it is still the closest formulation of the complete view expressed throughout scripture, I find myself more interested in placing a high value on the integrity and authority of scripture. I found it interesting that virtually all of the groups I researched had a very high view of the authority and inspiration of (their) scripture even if some do allow for other things to speak as well. I'd definitely say that I still find Sola Scriptura as the best distillation of the entirety of the Bible's teaching on scripture, but my research did make me think a bit about the other possibilities.
Where I still have grave concerns is when people insist that scripture is flawed, or offer interpretations/explanations of scripture that contradict the plain meaning of the text.
Just to clarify. When I say that scripture is the standard, I'm not sure that my point is being accurately reflected. Obviously, Jesus is our example and standard. Scripture is the sole repository of significant information about Jesus who is the standard. I apologize if this wasn't clear. I know that sometimes in these discussions we use terms that are shorthand for larger concepts. I apologize if I wasn't clear.
SS doesn't deny other sources, but only rightly insists Scripure is indeed the "Gold Standard". As such, other stands as all we really need. Remove all the other sources, and we're still fully, thoroughly supplied with all we need. Reverse that, and subjectivity and ambiguity rules. Dan's good with that, as those are essential to his anti-Christian beliefs.
Art,
I'd disagree. The very nature of the term Sola, would indicate that, at best, any other sources are at least secondary. But, i think that as often happens with Christiany terms, the meaning sometimes get lost. When I refer to Sola Scriptura, my personal focus is the nature of scripture. While others might focus elsewhere. That's why I think that Dan's claim is misleading, even though it is technically correct. What he seems to be doing is using his claim as way to insert his personal hunches about scripture, rather than to agree with what the bulk of Christendom believes about scripture. Obviously the biggest group that doesn't agree is the RCC, but it's clear that Dan wouldn't agree with the RCC position on the nature and authority of scripture, let alone their views on the role of tradition and the role of the Pope.
As I pointed out Dan is closer to the Mormons in his views about scripture than to anything resembling orthodox, historic Christianity.
Craig...
As I've thought about this, I've realized that I'm not irreversibly attached to the Sola part of Sola Scriptura. While I do believe that it is still the closest formulation of the complete view expressed throughout scripture, I find myself more interested in placing a high value on the integrity and authority of scripture.
Look at that. Common ground. I reject SS precisely BECAUSE I place a high value on the integrity of Scripture and the authority of God.
What he seems to be doing is using his claim as way to insert his personal hunches about scripture, rather than to agree with what the bulk of Christendom believes about scripture.
An appeal to numbers is meaningless.
My personal hunches about Scripture are placing an extremely high value on the words of Jesus and on notions of Love and God's Love and the Beloved Community, as taught by Jesus. And I rather doubt that you can prove what "the bulk of Christendom believes about Scripture."
After all, sooner or later, the "bulk of Christendom" will affirm that, of course, it's not sinful or unbiblical to support LGBTQ folk and LGBTQ folk marrying and adopting children. Will you side with "the bulk of Christendom," then?
I rather doubt it.
And you are correct that there's a great deal I disagree with within Roman Catholic teaching, especially in their more conservative, less "Jesus-y" sectors.
"The very nature of the term Sola, would indicate that, at best, any other sources are at least secondary."
The point I intended to make, though I didn't notice how badly my typos were until just now. Sorry for the confusion. To reiterate, SS doesn't negate the possibility of other sources, but all are subordinate to Scripture. All must conform with what Scripture says. If there's any doubt about anything, refer to Scripture...even when doubting Scripture.
Dan,
You make this claim, yet I can't reconcile your claim with what you say about scripture otherwise. I fail to see much common ground.
It's always interesting to see Dan make appeals to numbers (as he did when claiming that the majority of Christians don't believe SS), then be critical of others when they do something similar.
It's even more interesting that I defined how I was measuring my response to Dan's appeal to numbers, and he seems to be ignoring that in his dismissal of my research.
"After all, sooner or later, the "bulk of Christendom" will affirm that, of course, it's not sinful or unbiblical to support LGBTQ folk and LGBTQ folk marrying and adopting children. Will you side with "the bulk of Christendom," then?"
1. If something is not sinful, and not unbiblical, does that mean that it IS biblical?
2. It's strange that you are literally making an appeal to numbers here, after just insisting that an appeal to numbers is meaningless.
3. Are you suggesting that the determination of what is sinful and biblical is determined by what the majority says?
I fail to see much common ground.
Because I value the Bible so highly, because I value the teachings of Jesus so extremely highly, I'm not willing to say, "The 'Bible' DEFINITELY SAYS X, and no reasonable person can disagree with it!" Whether that's SS or pacifism or simple living or the virgin birth as an "essential" teaching of Jesus or God is opposed to gay folks marrying or the Preferential Option for the poor... whether it's something I think is clearly taught in the Bible or something I think is clearly opposed in the Bible, I'm not saying that God IS wanting it, period, if God has not said it. Penal Substitutionary Theory, SS, Virgin birth, Let Gay folk marry!, etc... these are ALL human theories.
The common ground is, I think, you are not willing to say that you think God authoritatively wants us to believe your conservative traditions/interpretations IF the Bible doesn't state that directly.
Am I wrong?
Do you think that, just because I've read the Bible and it led me to believe more liberal notions than you, that I've rejected/disrespect the Bible? Can you not see that, even if you disagree with my conclusions, people like me believe what we believe BECAUSE of trying to follow God first and foremost, and because we respect the Bible and the teachings therein?
I mean, even though I disagree with your conclusions, I don't doubt that you believe them to be the most faithful to the Bible. Are you not willing to extend that same grace for those who believe other than your particular human traditions and interpretations?
I believe we can find some common ground in acknowledging good faith disagreements.
Dan said:
"...I place a high value on the integrity of Scripture and the authority of God."
That's hilarious coming from a guy who supports, promotes, celebrates and defends sexually immoral behavior and the murder of innocent people in utero.
"After all, sooner or later, the "bulk of Christendom" will affirm that, of course, it's not sinful or unbiblical to support LGBTQ folk and LGBTQ folk marrying and adopting children. Will you side with "the bulk of Christendom," then?"
Such people would not be considered a part of Christendom by being in rebellion against God as you are. What is sinful is not a matter of personal opinion. But here we see a clear contradiction with Dan's claim of placing a high value on the integrity of Scripture and the authority of God. Dan relieves us of any obligation to prove his anti-Christ beliefs by simply expressing himself.
"Because I value the Bible so highly, because I value the teachings of Jesus so extremely highly,"
If this is True, then why do you set "the "bulk of Christendom" will affirm that, of course, it's not sinful or unbiblical to support LGBTQ folk and LGBTQ folk marrying and adopting children." as the standard to determine whether or not things are "biblical" or "sinful".
"I'm not saying that God IS wanting it, period, if God has not said it."
God literally has NEVER said that He "blesses gay marriage", yet you insist that He does. You limit what you'll allow "God" to say because He doesn't use specific words or terms. The bottom line is that you don't have enough confidence in what "God" is recorded as saying, to actually make a claim and defend it. Since "God has" NOT "said", that He "blesses gay marriage", how can you keep insisting that you arguing from silence indicates that He has.
"Am I wrong?"
The Bible literally says directly that Jesus died on the cross to pay for the sins of humanity, yet you continue to deny that which is clear, while you insist that which isn't said is correct.
"Do you think that, just because I've read the Bible and it led me to believe more liberal notions than you, that I've rejected/disrespect the Bible?"
It seems very clear that you have disrespected/rejected certain sections of the Bible.
"Can you not see that, even if you disagree with my conclusions, people like me believe what we believe BECAUSE of trying to follow God first and foremost, and because we respect the Bible and the teachings therein?"
I can see that you believe that. Yet, one of the things scripture DOES tell us is that there will be people who make claims like yours, and Jesus response will be "Get away, I don't know you.". I'm unaware that there is scriptural support for some sort of exemption for someone who sincerely believes something that isn't in the Bible.
"I believe we can find some common ground in acknowledging good faith disagreements."
As long as you continue to be unable to provide direct scriptural support for your beliefs, as long as you engage in the sort of vitriol that you direct at others, and as long as you refuse to hold yourself to the same standards you hold others to, I see very little common ground.
Craig...
"It seems very clear that you have disrespected/rejected certain sections of the Bible..."
How? By daring to disagree with conservative evangelical interpretations and traditions?
You can not support this because I've never disrespected or "rejected" any biblical passages. Not one. Disagreeing with your read does not indicate disrespect or rejection.
Dan
Craig...
"The Bible literally says directly that Jesus died on the cross to pay for the sins of humanity, yet you continue to deny that which is clear, while you insist that which isn't said is correct."
JESUS literally said he came to preach good news to the poor, yet you continue to deny that which is clear directly from Jesus' literal teaching. That I don't interpret such Pauline passages in the business transactional way you all do doesn't mean I'm denying anything but conservative traditions, right?
Craig...
"God literally has NEVER said that He "blesses gay marriage", yet you insist that He does. You limit what you'll allow "God" to say because He doesn't use specific words or terms."
1. I say that this is a reasonable conclusion to reach, given the notions of basic human rights and of a perfectly good God.
2. I've never said that the Bible says God blesses gay marriage.
3. The difference is I'm not using the Bible to prop up my opinion.
4. I literally do NOT "limit" what I allow God to say. Noting that the Bible literally never endorses SS or PS Atonement or either opposing or supporting gay folks getting married is just noting what is literally found within its gathered pages.
How is that wrong?
Craig...
then why do you set "the "bulk of Christendom" will affirm that, of course, it's not sinful or unbiblical to support LGBTQ folk and LGBTQ folk marrying and adopting children." as the standard to determine whether or not things are "biblical" or "sinful".
Not exactly sure if this is a question and what the question is, but if you're asking why I think that eventually most in the church will recognize that accepting gay folks, celebrating their marriages and adoptions, etc is only right, it's because the church HAS changed its stances on many behaviors over the years and largely, in a progressive manner. Many in the church used to comply with human slavery and racism. Now, it's just a given that this is an atrocity. Many used to relegate women to second class, inferior status, now it's just a given. Etc.
In spite of having these centuries of traditions, the church has evolved to be more accepting of human rights as many would say is only a rational and Godly thing to do, IN SPITE of how we might have interpreted the Bible in the past.
Do you disagree?
Marshal...
Such people would not be considered a part of Christendom by being in rebellion against God as you are. What is sinful is not a matter of personal opinion.
Are you with Marshal, Craig, in thinking that those who disagree with "traditional Christianity" on LGBTQ issues and who, for instance, a guy chose to marry a guy, do you think that being mistaken on that topic means that are not part of Christendom? That having imperfect knowledge on some issues means you aren't going to be saved?
Indeed, what is sinful is not a matter of personal opinion. No matter HOW MUCH you hate for LGBTQ folks to have rights and no matter how wrong and harmful such attitudes are, it doesn't make you right or moral on the point.
Craig...
"As long as you continue to be unable to provide direct scriptural support for your beliefs..."
I've spent nearly two decades explaining my rational and biblical reasons for the beliefs I hold. You are free to find my reasoning unconvincing, but you can't say I haven't explained my rational and biblical reasons.
Come on, this is demonstrable, you've seen my arguments. You've seen me cite the biblical case for just peacemaking, for simple living, for something like the Preferential Option for the Poor, for supporting our LGBTQ neighbors, etc. Say you find it unconvincing, that's fine, but don't say I haven't explained myself, including citing Scripture.
If one can't provide a coherent explanation for just how Scripture led them to that which is clearly counter-biblical, one has not been led by Scripture at all.
I've asked in the past...several times at least...for Dan to explain how far from Scripture can one be...how far from the clear teachings of God one can be...before one is no longer actually Christian...before one is no longer actually following the One True God of Scripture. He's never even tried to respond to that.
And once again, we see Dan referring to concepts as "human traditions" simply because some humans applied a term to describe those concepts. The Virgin Birth is not a human tradition. It's a Biblical teaching. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not a human tradition. It's a Biblical teaching. Sola Scripura is not a human tradition. It's Biblical reality, especially given how those like Dan can't argue against it without citing Scripture, thereby refuting their own position by their own hand. Let Gay Folks marry? That's a perversion which has absolutely no basis in anything in Scripture, as evidenced by Dan's laughable inability to provide as well as his corrupt rejection of what Scripture says about the underlying behavior.
And therein is some insight into Dan's position. He is clearly again imposing as much ambiguity so as to deny what he finds inconvenient and to rationalize that which he prefers. Scripture hasn't led Dan. Dan's instead corrupted Scripture to provide liberty to act counter to it.
"How?"
By making claims that contradict the text, or claiming that something about which the bible says nothing is biblical.
"By daring to disagree with conservative evangelical interpretations and traditions?"
This is an interesting statement. It implies that "conservative evangelical interpretations and traditions" are all wrong, without even a minimal attempt at demonstrating that. It further implies that "conservative evangelical interpretations and traditions" differ from historic Christian interpretations and traditions in significant ways. It finally implies that Dan has an alternative to "conservative evangelical interpretations and traditions". that is more accurate and connect. But the answer to your strange question is no.
"disrespect or rejection."
It may not, but inserting things into scripture about which scripture is silent seems disrespectful of the text. Insisting that the plain meaning of a text is wrong without offering a coherent alternative seems both disrespectful and to reject the text.
You bitch about "conservative evangelical interpretations and traditions", without offering an alternative that actually makes sense based on what the text says.
"JESUS literally said he came to preach good news to the poor, yet you continue to deny that which is clear directly from Jesus' literal teaching."
Please, show me where I've denied this teaching of Jesus? I've never done so, ever, not once. I have asked you questions about your imposing your political/social/worldview onto the text and reading something into it which doesn't align with the rest of scripture, Jesus actions, or the actions of the early church.
"That I don't interpret such Pauline passages in the business transactional way you all do doesn't mean I'm denying anything but conservative traditions, right?"
No, you are denying what scripture clearly teaches. What's interesting is that you claim to deny what you call "conservative tradition" without offering a liberal alternative. Further, your attempt to divide scripture and portray the majority of the NT as lesser because Paul wrote it, seems like a rejection of parts of scripture based on your peculiar interpretation and tradition. I guess it's perfectly fine for you to apply your particular mishmash of random interpretive tenets from various theological streams and traditions to the text, but heaven forbid anyone else do so.
1. So. You haven't demonstrated that your hunches about "reasonable" are correct.
2. You've claimed that it is "biblical". You've also acknowledged that the bible is completely silent on the topic and provides not one single hint that your hunch about this topic is correct, yet you don't let that stop you.
3. Interesting. You claim that things are "biblical", but think that you're not using the Bible to prop up your hunches. Of course, this buttresses my conclusion that you regard yourself and your Reason as the most important thing in determining what YHWH thinks or what is "biblical".
4. If you say so.
Too many places to count. Primarily by placing your reason as the final arbiter of what's biblical.
"Not exactly sure if this is a question and what the question is,"
Then I'll be more specific.
Are you trying to say that the test for what is "biblical and/or sinful", is to survey what the "bulk of Christendom" thinks (in your biased opinion)? That what's "biblical and sinful" is determined by humans?
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, I disagree that human consensus is the determining factor when deciding what is "biblical/sinful".
But it's interesting that you simply want to replace "conservative evangelical interpretations and traditions" with "progressive" "interpretations and traditions". Simply replacing a set of things you don't like, with a set that you do like, without actually worrying whether either is right or wrong.
" You are free to find my reasoning unconvincing, but you can't say I haven't explained my rational and biblical reasons."
Thank you ever so much for your gracious permission to disagree with you.
The problem is that you blathering on and on about your hunches, and what your Reason tells you IS NOT the same as providing evidence/proof/objective data to support your claims. The fact that you can spew out some self serving justification for your hunches doesn't mean those hunches are True, let alone the most likely option. When you ground your claims in yourself, and your Reason, without any external proof or evidence, you're like the man who built His house on the sand.
" but don't say I haven't explained myself, including citing Scripture."
"Citing scripture that needs you to read in or impose something that the scripture doesn't say, reminds me of the folks who went to Jesus and said "Wait, didn't we do thus and so in your name?". I think you misunderstand what I mean when I note your lack of "direct biblical support". You say that "God blesses gay marriage", you can't cite even one jot or tittle of scripture that addresses anything related to anything gay in a positive or neutral manner.
You claim that this is a "biblical" position regardless of the bible never once saying anything close to this. The fact that you can creatively eisegete random out of context snippets of scripture, and simultaneously ignore other scripture that doesn't support your hunches., isn't as impressive as you think it is. The fact that you consider "not using the Bible to prop up my opinion." in deciding what is "biblical" as a positive doesn't help your cause. It seems like you claiming that you " cite the biblical case" for things contradicts your claim that you don't use the bible to "prop up your opinions".
"Are you with Marshal,..."
No. Because Marshall didn't do what you claimed he did. Even if he did do what you claimed, you haven't proven that he is wrong. I'm going to do my best to align myself with what YHWH has communicated through scripture, rather than choose sides.
"for instance, a guy chose to marry a guy, do you think that being mistaken on that topic means that are not part of Christendom?"
If someone claims to be a Christian and is genuinely mistaken on aa given topic, but submits themselves to study it insetting and with an open mind that is one thing. If someone who claims to be a Christian and willfully ignores the teaching of scripture, refuses to "renew their mind", doesn't live into their identity as a "new creation", then it seems highly unlikely that they have a genuine "saving faith". The problem I see is that once you tell someone that they are wrong about what is "biblical or sinful", then you give up the cloak of being "mistaken". Telling someone that you are right, or they are wrong requires some sort of external, objective proof.
"Indeed, what is sinful is not a matter of personal opinion."
Are you saying that what is "sinful" is determined by what the "bulk of Christendom" thinks at any given time? (which is what you claimed earlier) Are you saying that what is sinful is determined by YHWH? Explain how one arrives at the knowledge of what is "sinful", without the Bible or "personal opinion". FYI, your "the bible isn't a rule book" claim seems to preclude offering the Bible as the source of determining what the rules are.
That having imperfect knowledge on some issues means you aren't going to be saved?
Craig...
"Are you saying that what is "sinful" is determined by what the "bulk of Christendom" thinks at any given time?"
No.
" (which is what you claimed earlier)"
No, it's not. You read but fail to comprehend.
"Are you saying that what is sinful is determined by YHWH?"
I'm saying what is wrong, is wrong. I believe a perfectly wise God would perfectly understand what is wrong and how wrong it is.
I don't believe, for what it's worth, that God randomly made up a bunch of rules and, because God randomly made up those rules, they are what is wrong. What is wrong is wrong because it's harmful, unkind, destructive.
Do you think God "created" morality or just that God recognizes that which causes harm?
"Explain how one arrives at the knowledge of what is "sinful", without the Bible or "personal opinion"
Common sense. That understanding of God and decency that is generally, if fallible, innate in humanity.
It's how we know that owning people is wrong without the Bible ever condemning it. For instance.
Craig...
"The problem I see is that once you tell someone that they are wrong about what is "biblical or sinful", then you give up the cloak of being "mistaken"."
And yet, EVEN THOUGH you all have been told how harmful and wrong your position on LGBTQ matters or abortion, for instance, are wrong, you probably don't think you've given up the cloak of being mistaken, right? You GENUINELY believe your position on abortion or LGBTQ matters are correct and biblical, right?
Why is it so hard to understand that those on the other side genuinely believe our positions and think your telling us we're wrong is, itself, wrong?
Craig...
"I'm going to do my best to align myself with what YHWH has communicated through scripture, rather than choose sides."
And what of using your reason to understand, God, as you read the Bible... will you do that? (Of course, you will. You don't have an option... we all use our reasoningto make sense of words we read.)
If so, me, too.
And what of just using your reasoning beyond the words of the Bible. God's word, written upon our hearts and minds. Will you embrace that, as well?
Ah, but you might say our reasoning is fallible so we can't rely upon it. But if your reasoning is unreliable, then how do you know you're interpreting biblical words correctly?
And before you say it - again - I'm not saying that I think biblical teachings are hard to understand. I just disagree with the conclusions your reasoning and traditions have led you to.
Just like you disagree with my conclusions. It doesn't mean that either of us are being deliberately intent on misunderstanding God.
If one day, God asks you WHY you held to harmful opinions on LGBTQ or abortion matters, or Atonement or SS issues... and it turns out you were sincerely mistaken, do you think that your salvation is at risk?
Dan: "After all, sooner or later, the "bulk of Christendom" will affirm that, of course, it's not sinful or unbiblical to support LGBTQ folk and LGBTQ folk marrying and adopting children."
Craig: "Are you saying that what is "sinful" is determined by what the "bulk of Christendom" thinks at any given time?"
Dan: "No."
Craig; " (which is what you claimed earlier)"
Dan: "No, it's not. You read but fail to comprehend."
I suspect that my copy pasting of your own words contradicting yourself, won't be effective, but I'll do it anyway.
"I'm saying what is wrong, is wrong. I believe a perfectly wise God would perfectly understand what is wrong and how wrong it is."
That's sweet, now answer the question as asked. Simply asserting that somehow "wrong" is magically "wrong" without a shred of proof doesn't cut it.
"I don't believe, for what it's worth, that God randomly made up a bunch of rules and, because God randomly made up those rules, they are what is wrong. What is wrong is wrong because it's harmful, unkind, destructive."
I don't either, I also don't see any proof of your claim about what makes things "wrong". Strangely enough, is many cases what seems "harmful, unkind, or destructive" is actually what is the absolute best for people.
"Do you think God "created" morality or just that God recognizes that which causes harm?"
Neither.
"Explain how one arrives at the knowledge of what is "sinful", without the Bible or "personal opinion"
"Common sense. That understanding of God and decency that is generally, if fallible, innate in humanity."
Excellent, this is quite a claim. This notion that your fallible, imperfect, human "Common sense" is the best way to determine right and wrong.
""Common sense"
Who's "Common sense"?
Yours?
"The bulk of Christendom"?
Hitler's?
Muhammad's?
Some mysterious global consensus?
Are you saying that nothing is universally, objectively, consistently wrong? are you saying that if "Common sense" decided to one day do a 180 on something that wrong would magically become right because "Common sense" said so?
"And yet, EVEN THOUGH you all have been told how harmful and wrong your position on LGBTQ matters or abortion, for instance, are wrong, you probably don't think you've given up the cloak of being mistaken, right?"
Wrong. You mistake your authority and are delusional of you think that you repeating your hunches are enough to determine what is "biblical and sinful". For example you have never (to my recollection) provided one single direct Biblical example that supports your hunch about LGBTQXYZPDQ issues. You've never once offered Biblical support for unlimited abortion. You seem to think that because you can insert your hunches into scripture in some vague way that your hunches become "biblical".
"You GENUINELY believe your position on abortion or LGBTQ matters are correct and biblical, right?"
I genuinely believe that my views on those topics more closely align with Biblical teaching than yours do. Unlike you, I my ego won't let me claim the things that your ego let's you claim.
"Why is it so hard to understand that those on the other side genuinely believe our positions and think your telling us we're wrong is, itself, wrong?"
Because the fact that you genuinely hold a belief doesn't make that belief "biblical". Because you simply asserting something with no evidence doesn't make something "biblical" or right. You are literally arguing that the mere presence of a counter position means that the counter position is equally valid regardless of actual proof. "Common sense" isn't proof, evidence, are anything else. How does one measure or quantify "Common sense"?
As I'm going line by line through your comments, answering your questions, responding to your bullshit, and seeking clarification, I'm realizing that you need to start any further comments with answers to all of the questions asked.
For example you have never (to my recollection) provided one single direct Biblical example that supports your hunch about LGBTQXYZPDQ issues.
That YOU believe in YOUR HEAD that one needs to produce a "direct Biblical example" that supports one's opinion does not mean that ANYONE ELSE must need accept your personal hunch on what it takes to "prove" morality.
Do you understand that?
You're operating under a system (we can know - or come closer to knowing - what it wrong or not by finding biblical support for/against something) that not everyone heeds to.
Do you understand that?
"And what of using your reason to understand, God, as you read the Bible... will you do that?"
I'll try to use my heart, mind, soul, and strength, along with the resources at my disposal to do the best I can to align myself with YHWH. follow His commands, and rely on His providence.
"And what of just using your reasoning beyond the words of the Bible. God's word, written upon our hearts and minds. Will you embrace that, as well?"
Because I take seriously the many warnings against "following one's heart" in scripture. Because I choose to follow the example of Jesus who regularly started His teaching or response with "It is written". Because I've seen too many people follow what was written on their hearts and minds and end up in bad places. Because when you follow your heart and mind to a position the contradicts or isn't supported by scripture, I learn from your mistakes. Because, in order to find Truth, we need a standard to measure by.
"Ah, but you might say our reasoning is fallible so we can't rely upon it. But if your reasoning is unreliable, then how do you know you're interpreting biblical words correctly?"
By comparing my interpretation against others would seem to be my best shot at getting as close as possible to the Truth. By starting from the point where the meaning of the plain text of scripture means what it says absent some specific reason to think otherwise.
"And before you say it - again - I'm not saying that I think biblical teachings are hard to understand. I just disagree with the conclusions your reasoning and traditions have led you to."
This is very clear and pointless. Of course you disagree, but the fact that you disagree means nothing. It certainly doesn't mean that you are correct.
"Just like you disagree with my conclusions. It doesn't mean that either of us are being deliberately intent on misunderstanding God."
This is quite the pronouncement, I was unaware that you had the standing or authority to make these sorts of pronouncements. If one of us was to choose a course that was not supported by, or opposed, by scripture, then that would seem to be a deliberate act.
It's like this idiot who wrote that if Jesus appeared in bodily form right in front of Him and told him that he was wrong about his beliefs regarding homosexuality, that he would tell Jesus to f off because he didn't want to believe a God like that. It's all about what you choose to believe, and how much of The Truth you ignore to believe your hunch.
"If one day, God asks you WHY you held to harmful opinions on LGBTQ or abortion matters, or Atonement or SS issues... and it turns out you were sincerely mistaken, do you think that your salvation is at risk?"
I'm not YHWH, I can't answer that. I would posit that the fact that Jesus died on the cross for the purpose of propitiation of sins, that my sins would be put "as far as the east is from the west, and remembered no more". That my slate was wiped clean by Jesus finished work on the cross.
The question then becomes, what would your response to YHWH be is He told you that homosexuality was sinful, that abortion was murder, and that your communication of your hunches on those topics led multiple people into sin, and resulted in the deaths of many innocent children? How would you react if YHWH told you how wrong you were?
I've responded line by line, answered virtually all of your questions. It's now your turn to practice what you preach, to live according to the standards you demand of others. Man up and answer the questions as asked, and deal with the responses given.
If one of us was to choose a course that was not supported by, or opposed, by scripture, then that would seem to be a deliberate act.
????!!! DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND that I think your positions are sometimes directly opposed by Jesus' clear teachings? Your attitude towards LGBTQ people, for instance. Your hunches about abortion or immigration/immigrants, for instance.
Just because YOU THINK I've supported a course that was "opposed by Scripture" doesn't mean a thing to me. I don't care about your opinions about the bible, at least insofar as your positions that I think are anti-God, anti-Bible, anti-Jesus' teachings, anti-reason or decency.
I think you just don't get it. You think, in your head, that YOUR positions are directly supported by Scripture and can't imagine that anyone would dare disagree with your paltry human opinions on God.
Man up and answer the questions as asked,
WHAT questions?
You asked:
"Are you saying that what is sinful is determined by YHWH?"
And I answered:
I'm saying what is wrong, is wrong.
I believe a perfectly wise God would perfectly understand what is wrong and how wrong it is.
That IS my direct and clear answer to that question.
I DO NOT THINK THAT "what is sinful is determined by God." I think that God is opposed to that which is wrong, because of course God is. But not that God "determined" what was wrong. What is wrong is that which causes harm, that IS what I believe, what I believe is rational and what I believe the Bible teaches.
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR MAGIC RULE BOOK version of the Bible.
Are you not understanding that direct, clear answer now, with additional words to make it even more clear?
Or are you talking about this question, which has been answered no doubt HUNDREDS of times over the years we've talked:
Are you saying that nothing is universally, objectively, consistently wrong?
1. I'm saying that while I DO believe that there is objective wrong and objective right...
2. Nonetheless, neither you nor I can authoritatively, objectively demonstrate which things are right and wrong as a matter of objective, demonstrable reality. We can't authoritatively "PROVE" our opinions on right and wrong.
3. The very closest we can come to proving it is by using the "harm" measure. IF it's causing harm to others, it's probably clearly wrong. We can show that the pervert who boasts about bedding women down is actively acting in a harmful and thus WRONG manner. We can show that the employer who cheats his employees and customers out of money or opportunity is causing harm and thus, behaving in a wrong manner.
But we can't prove - YOU CAN NOT AND NEVER HAVE PROVEN OBJECTIVELY - that your hunches about what some biblical texts say are authoritatively objective proof of immoral behavior.
THAT has been answered endlessly. Do you not recognize that reality?
Just answer, yes or no: HAVEN'T I BEEN CLEAR ON THIS POINT?
Craig...
are you saying that if "Common sense" decided to one day do a 180 on something that wrong would magically become right because "Common sense" said so?
No.
What I'm saying is that we all use our reason to determine what is right and wrong.
We all are fallible.
But NONE of us has an authoritative, objectively proven "rule book" that magically answers all moral questions in an authoritative, objectively factual manner. Period.
Do you recognize that much reality?
It's a simple question. Why don't YOU answer a question directly and clearly for once? You know, "practice what you preach."
Craig...
Because I've seen too many people follow what was written on their hearts and minds and end up in bad places.
Why then, are you trusting what YOUR REASON helped you conclude about how to interpret the Bible? What if YOUR REASONING was wrong, infallible, imperfect? What if what was "written on your heart and mind" was wrong?
Are you so bold and arrogant to suggest that your interpretations are infallible? No, you're not. So WHY do you think your interpretation is more reliable than OTHER human interpretations?
Because you read the Bible?
I READ THE BIBLE.
Because you claim you believe in some sort of "inerrant Bible"? That's not a biblical position to take.
Because you claim to trust in the traditions of SOME human religions? That's not proof that you can't be mistaken or that those humans weren't mistaken.
Because you're NOT trusting your human reasoning to aid you in your interpretation and understanding? OF COURSE, you are. What else do you have?
Because you're trusting the Holy Spirit to "reveal" to you the right understanding?
Me, too. Why doesn't your intuition or reasoning about the Spirit trump every one else's.
Brother, brother, brother. THIS was the sin/error of the Pharisees: Placing too much confidence in their human traditions and elevating THEIR traditions and interpretations to the level of God's Word. Be careful going that direction. It doesn't end well.
Craig...
Who's "Common sense"?
I'm saying we ALL use our reasoning and common sense to understand right and wrong. You do not have some secret magic rule book that makes YOUR HUMAN OPINIONS worth a damn bit more than anyone else's opinions.
Your interpretations of the Bible or of right and wrong do not trump everyone else's. We all have the obligation to use our reasoning, the best we can, to try to understand God, right and wrong, decency and justice, love and compassion. And we all use our reasoning, however imperfectly we may do so. We don't have anything else. YOU don't have anything else. You just don't.
If you had some objective, authoritative source for proving your moral hunches, you'd have provided it by now. OR you would have the decency to admit that you don't have some secret sauce magical understanding not available to us mere mortals and non-Pharisees.
Humble yourself, mortal.
Craig...
For example you have never (to my recollection) provided one single direct Biblical example that supports your hunch about LGBTQXYZPDQ issues. You've never once offered Biblical support for unlimited abortion. You seem to think that because you can insert your hunches into scripture in some vague way that your hunches become "biblical".
Not everyone uses/embraces your magic rulebook view of morality. We recognize that we CAN recognize that slavery is immoral and evil, EVEN IF the Bible never says so.
We recognize that making women second class citizens or denying them the vote or the opportunity to work or denying them the option of making their own choices on whether to have children or not is immoral and wrong EVEN IF the Bible never says so. We recognize the dignity and human rights due to LGBTQ folks EVEN IF the Bible never says we should.
WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE to recognize some basic human rights, human decency matters and just because a mere man named Craig wants to insist that we need a Bible verse to support our opinions on this doesn't mean a damned thing. WE ARE NOT CRAIG's slaves, nor do we need to answer to his demands for "biblical proof." TO HELL with that sort of magic rule book thinking.
And I say that as someone who LOVES the bible and gets irritated as hell by pharisee-types who want to make their human opinions equivalent to God's Word. Stop disrespecting the Bible with this nonsense.
WE are not obliged to jump through your human hoops.
By comparing my interpretation against others would seem to be my best shot at getting as close as possible to the Truth.
By starting from the point where the meaning of the plain text of scripture means what it says absent some specific reason to think otherwise.
I agree with both of those notions. But I don't think that I need to make my human opinion subservient to OTHER human opinions where I don't think those opinions are rightly dividing the Word of God or that they're rightly understanding the "plain text of scripture."
I LOVE scripture/the Bible and I don't think you are understanding the plain meaning of the text and indeed, that you are often entirely missing the point of the plain meaning of the text.
One of the (maybe THE?) main themes of the bible is grace and notions such as guidelines are made for humans, not humans for rules/sabbath is made for humanity not humanity for the Sabbath. The grace to allow others to follow God as best they can.
The grace of not acting in ways that deny the humanity or human rights of other people.
Another theme of Jesus' clear teachings is that the Pharisees were presuming to speak for God and adding back-breaking rules of their OWN upon the backs of people, weighing them down with nonsense.
Another theme is humility and not presuming too much of our mortal opinions.
Yet another theme is recognizing that we are created in the very image of God, just a little lower than God, with God's Word written upon our hearts and consciences.
We don't need your human traditions or magic rule book rules to tell us what is right and wrong. We are not simple-minded blood-worshiping pagans (with apologies to actual pagans) cowering in the shadow of human priests yelling at us about what we should do.
We worship God in power and truth and recognize that it's just not that hard to understand morality. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
Beyond all that, I don't know what questions you think are unanswered.
Craig; " (which is what you claimed earlier)"
Dan: "No, it's not. You read but fail to comprehend."
I suspect that my copy pasting of your own words contradicting yourself, won't be effective, but I'll do it anyway.
And yet you didn't. Is it possible your vaunted understanding and reading comprehension were wrong and you COULDN'T find "my own words" because I literally never "claimed earlier" what you THOUGHT I claimed? If so, wouldn't the better part of humility and basic morality be to admit your mistake and apologize for the false claim and acknowledge the misunderstanding was yours, not mine?
And once again, if you, who've read my words for years and consistently have misunderstood them, wouldn't you have a bit more humility when it comes to understanding biblical words?
I had said...
"Just like you disagree with my conclusions. It doesn't mean that either of us are being deliberately intent on misunderstanding God."
You replied...
This is quite the pronouncement, I was unaware that you had the standing or authority to make these sorts of pronouncements.
If one of us was to choose a course that was not supported by, or opposed, by scripture, then that would seem to be a deliberate act.
? I do not understand your point. I THINK you have taken stances that are not supported by Scripture, reason or decency. Your position towards LGBTQ folks, for instance. Maybe your hunches about slavery and war.
Does that mean that if it turns out I'm right, that you DELIBERATELY were choosing to spit in the face of God, morality, decency and the Bible?
OR does it mean that you were simply mistaken, sincerely, in your understanding?
You tell me.
I'm more of a believer in grace and understanding and not inclined to think that you were deliberately spitting in the face of God and humanity and decency.
The point being, we're ALL trying to do the right thing, generally speaking. We're not out deliberately to be wrong or evil or unkind or harmful. But we do make mistakes. I'm certain that's the case in my case. That is - my position on LGBTQ issues, race issues, immigration, women's and human rights, etc, etc are ALL trying to do the right, Godly, decent, moral thing... with admitted failures at times, but generally, trying to do the right thing. Are you saying that's not true of you? Or that you suspect that somehow, I'm NOT trying to do the right, Godly thing? That disagreeing with your opinions on biblical interpretations indicates a willful rejection of God?
Be rational, man.
Craig...
I would posit that the fact that Jesus died on the cross for the purpose of propitiation of sins, that my sins would be put "as far as the east is from the west, and remembered no more". That my slate was wiped clean by Jesus finished work on the cross.
So you believe in Salvation by Grace, not by perfect knowledge of good and evil, is that fair?
And EVEN IF you were not merely mistaken, but gravely, harmfully wrong and deadly in this mistake, you think you would be saved because your salvation is not tied to your perfect knowledge of Good and evil, right?
IF so, then would you not also extend that same grace to people like me and LGBTQ folks who might also be mistaken? Or do you think WE have to understand the bible and good and evil and religious tenets perfectly on at least the points that you think are "obvious" to you?
The question then becomes, what would your response to YHWH be is He told you that homosexuality was sinful, that abortion was murder, and that your communication of your hunches on those topics led multiple people into sin, and resulted in the deaths of many innocent children? How would you react if YHWH told you how wrong you were?
I would apologize. If given the opportunity, I'd explain my position and WHY I thought decency, morality and justice (as well as the Bible) are perfectly clear on these points.
What else COULD I do?
I'd thank God that I'm saved by grace and not by my perfect understanding (and I'd ask if I got that part wrong, too).
I'm looking for ANY questions I may have missed from you and don't see any statements of yours followed by a question mark that I haven't answered. Usually answered multiple times. Sometimes dozens or hundreds of times over the years.
But here's some more responses to your words...
This is very clear and pointless. Of course you disagree, but the fact that you disagree means nothing. It certainly doesn't mean that you are correct.
And the fact that you disagree with ME means nothing, certainly not that you're correct. Right?
I asked...
"If one day, God asks you WHY you held to harmful opinions on LGBTQ or abortion matters, or Atonement or SS issues... and it turns out you were sincerely mistaken, do you think that your salvation is at risk?"
And you responded (but didn't answer)...
I'm not YHWH, I can't answer that. I would posit that the fact that Jesus died on the cross for the purpose of propitiation of sins, that my sins would be put "as far as the east is from the west
I think you failed to understand. I'm asking about YOUR PERSONAL THEOLOGY. Does the fact that you failed to understand some issues correctly and thus, caused active harm by, for example, refusing to be supportive or just decent towards LGBTQ folks... in YOUR HUMAN PHILOSOPHY that YOU hold, does it require being correct on all matters of potential moral questions in order to be saved?
Does it require being correct on some subset of moral behaviors in order to be saved?
What does YOUR philosophy about salvation say about those who are sincerely incorrect on a given moral question? Is it necessary for salvation?
Presumably, you believe in a salvation by Grace. If you don't think YOU PERSONALLY have to be correct to be saved, do YOU PERSONALLY extend that same benefit of doubt to others who disagree sincerely with your notions (NOT with the Bible, NOT with God, but YOUR human traditions and interpretations) to the degree that you'd say, "Of course, one can be sincerely mistaken about moral questions. It isn't our perfect knowledge about morality that saves us!" Or would you hedge your bets and say, "For THOSE people, they're probably the ones that say 'Lord, Lord,' and God says, Depart from me..." ?
But if you hedge your bets towards those who disagree with your human traditions and think, Welp, they may just not be saved! then isn't that a possibility for you, as well, in YOUR philosophy of salvation? Is it always only the Others who might be sincerely mistaken and thus lost?
More...
Because the fact that you genuinely hold a belief doesn't make that belief "biblical".
And the same is true for you, correct?
Because you simply asserting something with no evidence doesn't make something "biblical" or right.
Same for you, correct? You've never presented any hard data that demonstrably proves God is opposed to gay guys getting married or lesbians adopting a child and you can't present such evidence.
My evidence that LGBTQ folks deserve basic human rights including the idea of marrying the person of their choice or being forced to date only those outside of their sexual orientation is that they ARE human and of course, they deserve basic human rights. Human rights include the notion of self-determination. Human rights includes freedom from oppression and equal opportunities.
I don't NEED a line in the Bible saying, "God says it's okay for gay folks to have human rights any more than I need a line in the Bible saying that slavery is a great evil."
Do YOU need a line in the Bible to know that things not spoken of in the Bible (nuclear war, abortion, LGBTQ rights, speed limits, fossil fuel consumption, etc, etc) are right or wrong or can you use your REASON to reach conclusions?
I say you can use your reason. I say that the Bible never makes a claim of itself that we MUST ONLY use the bible as a measuring stick for morality - indeed, as the SOLE measuring stick for morality. I reject that claim as being unbiblical.
I say the Bible itself endorses reason by noting that the "law of God" is summed up in the principles Love God and Love people. LOVE PEOPLE is the rule (and it's not limited to biblical teaching - all (nearly all?) world religions and philosophies affirm this notion - almost as if it were written upon our hearts and minds and souls. ALL (nearly?) world philosophies affirm the Golden Rule. And what is that saying? What was Jesus saying?
"Look guys, it's not that hard. Love people. Love God. Don't do that which causes harm to others. Don't oppress. Don't abuse. Don't enslave. Do unto others the good that you'd like to have done unto you. USE YOUR HEADS, boys!" (my paraphrase of what Jesus was clearly getting at.)
You are literally arguing that the mere presence of a counter position means that the counter position is equally valid regardless of actual proof.
I'm literally NOT saying that and that claim itself is a false claim unsupported by reality. That you MAKE the claim does not make your position equally valid.
So, while that's a great object lesson for you to try to absorb, it remains literally false. Do you understand that?
cont'd...
"Common sense" isn't proof, evidence, are anything else. How does one measure or quantify "Common sense"?
No, common sense is not proof. NEITHER ARE YOUR OPINIONS about what some biblical texts say.
Do you understand that common sense reality?
One can't measure common sense, but one can certainly test claims, opinions and philosophies. The claim, for instance, that God is opposed to lesbian women marrying lesbian women is a literally unsupported OPINION based upon SOME HUMAN interpretations of some sacred texts. But God has not said that. It's a human opinion, naught else. Demonstrably.
You see? I'm measuring/testing the claim and finding it wanting.
On the other hand:
Gay and straight people ARE demonstrably born within a spectrum when it comes to sexual orientation. No one had to tell me or teach me to like the idea of dating/marrying a woman as opposed to a man. It's innate within me. For others, it's innate to be attracted to folks of the same gender. For others still, it's on a spectrum of more or less "gay" or "straight" leaning. The point being, it is demonstrably a natural thing.
We can test that notion and find it reasonable and just common sense. of course, it's true.
Further, if I'm straight and attracted to women and find a woman who is attracted to me, then it is our human right of self determination to decide, "hey, let's get married." Again, just common sense. It isn't harming anyone and, indeed, it builds a stronger community. God has not told me NOT to marry her or that I should kidnap a woman/girl from an enemy and force HER to marry me. It's just natural and reasonable. Common sense.
AND the same is exactly true for two lesbians/two gay guys who decide to get married. It isn't harming anyone and it promotes a stronger, healthier community. It's reasonable, demonstrable, observable and for the better of the world and human rights.
It doesn't matter if SOME religions teach us to stone to death gay folk or throw them in prison or to torture them til they "become straight." Indeed, THOSE behaviors are reasonably considered BAD and harmful.
So a rational and moral case CAN be made for LGBTQ folks marrying who they want. It IS common sense to reasonable people without the baggage of religious traditions that say otherwise.
So, we can't "prove" common sense any more than we can "prove" your/our hunches about morality, but we can test them to see if they promote good or if they cause harm/interfere with human rights and dignity.
We should do THAT, I say.
A quick internet search reveals what has already been presented in past discussions. Depending on several factors, one can find articles suggesting anywhere from six to one-hundred sixty-seven countries having full or some form of slavery. Thus, it is not as true as Dan wants to believe that the sinfulness of slavery is universally acknowledged and accepted. The question then is, who is correct? We who oppose slavery or those who enslave? We who oppose generally do so, not because we think it is natural..."written on our hearts"...to believe it's wrong, but because we were taught to believe it's wrong. Most of us who believe it is wrong were taught under the widespread influence of Judeo-Christian teaching. It's the culture in which we were raised and as such, many things we hold as immoral is due to being raised in this culture. Ultimately, it's what Scripture teaches which informs us, either directly or by virtue of this Christianity-influenced culture in which we were raised.
Of those not raised under this influence, who nonetheless find slavery abhorrent, empathy is subjective. Some are empathetic and some are not. Some are but still have no problem with owning another human. It does not require anything "written on hearts" for one to understand pain in one's self and thus find it hard to inflict pain on others.
I say all this to enforce the notion that Dan still needs Scripture to put forth that which he's been saying. As such, SS looms far larger in his addled mind than he has the honesty to admit. But while he does so, he still rejects so much of it to abide his notions regarding homosexuality and abortion. Worse, there's no "mistaking" Scripture as regards these specific points. There's only the perversion of Scripture to come to the vile conclusions Dan regards as inevitable for future Christians. Scripture was corrupted to justify slavery. Scripture was corrupted to justify diminishing the status of women. Dan and his kind likewise corrupts Scripture to justify his positions on homosexuality and abortion, among other issues.
Scripture is Dan's sole authority when he needs it to be, and rejects it entirely when it is more convenient for him to do so.
" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND that I think your positions are sometimes directly opposed by Jesus' clear teachings?"
I do understand, and I have yet to see you provide a biblical teaching the unequivocally, directly, and specifically supports your hunches or the specifically contradicts my positions.
"I think you just don't get it. You think, in your head, that YOUR positions are directly supported by Scripture and can't imagine that anyone would dare disagree with your paltry human opinions on God."
Which probably explains why you are so frequently wrong. It might be because the things that you believe are not actually True.
"WHAT questions?"
Now it sounds like my asking questions in the course of my comments is too difficult for you to understand, and you expect me to copy/paste my questions in one place to make your life easier. Or, this is just one of your stupid questions that just waste time.
"I DO NOT THINK THAT "what is sinful is determined by God." I think that God is opposed to that which is wrong, because of course God is. But not that God "determined" what was wrong. What is wrong is that which causes harm, that IS what I believe, what I believe is rational and what I believe the Bible teaches."
The how is wrong determined? How is wrong determined consistently across time and culture? Is it possible that something could be wrong for one person, but not wrong for another? If the bible teaches this in a clear, direct, specific manner, then please show me where.
"I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR MAGIC RULE BOOK version of the Bible."
1. Your belief or non belief is not what determines Truth or reality.
2. You appear to believe that right and wrong just magically appear from nowhere and YHWH is bound by this magic.
3. You do realize that is this is really your position, that you literally have no standing or grounds to say that anything is "wrong", the best you can do is say that you "think" something is wrong.
"Are you not understanding that direct, clear answer now, with additional words to make it even more clear?"
It's more clear than it was, but still a fair bit of vagueness.
"1. I'm saying that while I DO believe that there is objective wrong and objective right..."
Why would you believe something that you apparently can't prove, or that can't be proven?
"2. Nonetheless, neither you nor I can authoritatively, objectively demonstrate which things are right and wrong as a matter of objective, demonstrable reality. We can't authoritatively "PROVE" our opinions on right and wrong."
A. Why would you believe something that you can't prove?
B. I'm not asking about your opinions.
C. I'm asking if right or wrong exist outside of your opinions or hunches?
D. Must something that exists, be provable?
"Not everyone uses/embraces your magic rulebook view of morality. We recognize that we CAN recognize that slavery is immoral and evil, EVEN IF the Bible never says so."
Which means that you are unable to do what you've been asked. Unable to prove what you've claimed.
"We recognize that making women second class citizens or denying them the vote or the opportunity to work or denying them the option of making their own choices on whether to have children or not is immoral and wrong EVEN IF the Bible never says so. We recognize the dignity and human rights due to LGBTQ folks EVEN IF the Bible never says we should."
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the use of the royal we as if you actually speak for some vast number of people who agree with everything you say. As if you invoking an anonymous mass of people is what determines Truth and falsehood.
"WE DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE to recognize some basic human rights, human decency matters and just because a mere man named Craig wants to insist that we need a Bible verse to support our opinions on this doesn't mean a damned thing. WE ARE NOT CRAIG's slaves, nor do we need to answer to his demands for "biblical proof." TO HELL with that sort of magic rule book thinking."
In other words you can't do what you've been asked to do, you can't prove your claims, so you resort to throwing a tantrum. Well played.
"And I say that as someone who LOVES the bible and gets irritated as hell by pharisee-types who want to make their human opinions equivalent to God's Word. Stop disrespecting the Bible with this nonsense."
The passive aggressive is strong with this one.
"WE are not obliged to jump through your human hoops."
No, you are not. But if you fail to do what you have been asked to do, and fail to prove your claims, then I'm not obliged to take you seriously and I'm not obliged to jump through your hoops or bow down to your demands either.
"So you believe in Salvation by Grace, not by perfect knowledge of good and evil, is that fair?"
Yes, I believe that scripture is clear that salvation is 100% the work of YHWH, through Christ's death and resurrection. I've never even hinted that salvation is brought about by anything that humans can do or know.
"And EVEN IF you were not merely mistaken, but gravely, harmfully wrong and deadly in this mistake, you think you would be saved because your salvation is not tied to your perfect knowledge of Good and evil, right?"
See the answer above, idiot, and stop this insane practice of asking the same question multiple times in the same comment, or before I could possibly answer it.
"IF so, then would you not also extend that same grace to people like me and LGBTQ folks who might also be mistaken? Or do you think WE have to understand the bible and good and evil and religious tenets perfectly on at least the points that you think are "obvious" to you?"
Since you premise (that I believe in salvation by knowledge) is fatally flawed, everything that follows from that premise is flawed. But, here goes. I don't make the mistake of thinking that I have anything to do with it, but I would always attempt to extend grace to anyone who was sincerely mistaken about something. However, there might be a point where I would change my response depending on how things went. No.
"I would apologize. If given the opportunity, I'd explain my position and WHY I thought decency, morality and justice (as well as the Bible) are perfectly clear on these points."
In other words, you think that you would be able to correct YHWH and convince Him that you were right and He was wrong. That you an imperfect, fallible, sinful, limited, human is going to tell the perfect, all knowing, sovereign, creator of everything, how you were right. I honestly think you believe that.
"What else COULD I do?"
Acknowledge that you were wrong, and ask for forgiveness.
"I'd thank God that I'm saved by grace and not by my perfect understanding (and I'd ask if I got that part wrong, too)."
I'm sure you think you would.
What if His response was "Get away from me, I never knew you."?
"And the same is true for you, correct?"
Theoretically yes.
"Because you simply asserting something with no evidence doesn't make something "biblical" or right."
I've never claimed that it does.
"Same for you, correct? You've never presented any hard data that demonstrably proves God is opposed to gay guys getting married or lesbians adopting a child and you can't present such evidence."
Ohhhhhhh well played. You can't produce evidence of your position so you turn the tables and demand that other do what you can't or won't do. Well, if you won't live up to the standards you demand of others, don;t expect others to live up to the standards you won't hold yourself to. Somewhere in this mess of bullshit, you made a big stink that you didn't have to jump through my hoops or some such nonsense, yet you now expect me to jump through your hoops. Pathetic.
"My evidence that LGBTQ folks deserve basic human rights including the idea of marrying the person of their choice or being forced to date only those outside of their sexual orientation is that they ARE human and of course, they deserve basic human rights. Human rights include the notion of self-determination. Human rights includes freedom from oppression and equal opportunities."
Excellent goal post move. Earlier you claimed specifically that your position on these issues was "biblical". None of your anecdotal "evidence" speaks to proving your claim that these things are "biblical".
"I don't NEED a line in the Bible saying, "God says it's okay for gay folks to have human rights any more than I need a line in the Bible saying that slavery is a great evil.""
You do if you're going to claim that something is "biblical", which was the claim you made.
"Do YOU need a line in the Bible to know that things not spoken of in the Bible (nuclear war, abortion, LGBTQ rights, speed limits, fossil fuel consumption, etc, etc) are right or wrong or can you use your REASON to reach conclusions?"
It's absolutely shameless how you use the "I've already answered these questions a million times before." bullshit to avoid answering questions, yet you expect me to be held to a different standard and answer questions ad infinitum. If I am only deciding for myself, then no. If I am trying to live in alignment with YHWH in the universe He created, and in line with His command that I show my love by obeying His commands, then it is certainly helpful to have a reference to know what those commandments are.
"I say you can use your reason. I say that the Bible never makes a claim of itself that we MUST ONLY use the bible as a measuring stick for morality - indeed, as the SOLE measuring stick for morality. I reject that claim as being unbiblical."
You clearly can say whatever the hell you want unconstrained by anything as long as it helps you convince yourself that you are 100% correct and that you define "reality". Since you can, and do, say whatever you want (regardless of what I actually say), I wonder why I bother to answer your questions or respond to your comments when you are clearly capable of speaking for both of us and making up whatever you want to.
"I say the Bible itself endorses reason by noting that the "law of God" is summed up in the principles Love God and Love people. LOVE PEOPLE is the rule (and it's not limited to biblical teaching - all (nearly all?) world religions and philosophies affirm this notion - almost as if it were written upon our hearts and minds and souls. ALL (nearly?) world philosophies affirm the Golden Rule."
So, just because you say something doesn't make it True. Especially in the absence of a definition of "love". Then clearly you are correct in pronouncing that this worldwide consensus is the real arbiter of what is True, right, and correct. The fact that you choose to reject YHWH and His authority, in favor of some consensus on a principle that would seem to have been borrowed from scripture isn't particularly convincing. Which came first, YHWH giving the command in Deuteronomy, and Jesus reiterating the command during His life, or a bunch of societies and religions that didn't exist in the 1st century AD?
"And what is that saying? What was Jesus saying?"
Who cares, it isn't like He was making rules or anything. Hell, you don't NEED a saying from Jesus recorded in the Bible, you've been very clear on that.
"Look guys, it's not that hard. Love people. Love God. Don't do that which causes harm to others. Don't oppress. Don't abuse. Don't enslave. Do unto others the good that you'd like to have done unto you. USE YOUR HEADS, boys!" (my paraphrase of what Jesus was clearly getting at.)"
I guess Jesus words alone just aren't adequate for you, you need to add to Jesus' words to make sure that He says what you want Him to have said. Of course, He also said that the way to demonstrate our love is to keep His commandments. But why muck up your little rewriting of scripture with context or anything. But hey, as long as it's YOU telling us what Jesus REALLY meant, then YOU must be right and everyone else must be wrong.
"I'm literally NOT saying that and that claim itself is a false claim unsupported by reality. That you MAKE the claim does not make your position equally valid."
Yet, you offer no details, proof or anything else. Just "Thus saith Dan. so let it be written, so let it be done."
"So, while that's a great object lesson for you to try to absorb, it remains literally false. Do you understand that?"
If you say so, oh great master of "reality" and scion of "Reason".
Craig...
Which means that you are unable to do what you've been asked. Unable to prove what you've claimed.
None of us can objectively "prove" our opinions about morality. If you ask one million more times, the answer will always be NONE OF US can objectively prove our moral opinions or what God thinks about certain actions.
Nonetheless, and this is the point, we can REASONABLY understand and come to common ground on a wide swath of moral questions. Most of humanity recognizes the Golden Rule and why enslaving people doesn't fit into such a philosophy. Generally speaking, I don't think morality, writ large, is just that hard to agree upon. Don't HURT people. Don't OPPRESS people. Despite what Marshal's fevered imagination tells him, we have no data that suggests that most people think, "Yeah, go ahead and rape and enslave my daughter... I'm cool with that because, whatever!" We recognize the pain such harmful actions cause and can generally agree, let's not do that.
Is it your imagination that questions of morality are some obscure mysterious Unknown that we can only find the answers to by checking with the white conservative men of evangelical traditions?
"We're not out deliberately to be wrong or evil or unkind or harmful."
Proof, please.
I see NO DATA to support such a conclusion. By all means, if you want to offer prove that the vast majority of humanity deliberately sets out to be wrong, evil, unkind and harmful, provide it.
I don't know who YOU hang out with, but I know of not one person like that. And in all my reading and research, I'm only familiar with it happening in isolated (awful) instances, usually as a result of mental illness or some sort of oppression, as with some malignant narcissists or some sociopaths or some cultic groups.
Interesting, I heard a researcher make the case this week that the millions of die hard Trump supporters sort of fit into that brain-washed cult phenomenon, where notions of truth, decency and corruption have been ignored in favor of the cultic identity as poor oppressed people merely fighting for "their" America. And even then, the delusional are acting in such a manner specifically because they want the "good and right" which they conflate with MAGA. Even they are not deliberately seeking to do harm, in their confusion.
Do you have ANY data to support the notion of wide spread evil intent amongst humanity? Are most of your friends, family and colleagues people with deliberate evil intent? Are you?
I find that hard to believe.
"Do you understand that common sense reality?"
The problem is that I didn't offer "common sense" as the answer to a question. I didn't give "common sense" some vast explanatory power.
"One can't measure common sense, but one can certainly test claims, opinions and philosophies. The claim, for instance, that God is opposed to lesbian women marrying lesbian women is a literally unsupported OPINION based upon SOME HUMAN interpretations of some sacred texts. But God has not said that. It's a human opinion, naught else. Demonstrably."
OK, if your "common sense" tells you that the above is True, then you must be 100% correct and beyond questioning.
"You see? I'm measuring/testing the claim and finding it wanting."
based on your subjective standard, where your "common sense" is the determining factor. Further, you're only claiming that you personally find it wanting (not surprising since you created the claim with the express puropse of finding it wanting), not that the claim is objectively false.
"Gay and straight people ARE demonstrably born within a spectrum when it comes to sexual orientation. No one had to tell me or teach me to like the idea of dating/marrying a woman as opposed to a man. It's innate within me. For others, it's innate to be attracted to folks of the same gender. For others still, it's on a spectrum of more or less "gay" or "straight" leaning. The point being, it is demonstrably a natural thing."
If you say so.
"We can test that notion and find it reasonable and just common sense. of course, it's true."
OK, if you say so.
"Further, if I'm straight and attracted to women and find a woman who is attracted to me, then it is our human right of self determination to decide, "hey, let's get married." Again, just common sense. It isn't harming anyone and, indeed, it builds a stronger community. God has not told me NOT to marry her or that I should kidnap a woman/girl from an enemy and force HER to marry me. It's just natural and reasonable. Common sense."
If you say so. Although I can't imagine you having the courage to unilaterally decide that you were going to marry a woman.
"AND the same is exactly true for two lesbians/two gay guys who decide to get married. It isn't harming anyone and it promotes a stronger, healthier community. It's reasonable, demonstrable, observable and for the better of the world and human rights."
If you say so.
"It doesn't matter if SOME religions teach us to stone to death gay folk or throw them in prison or to torture them til they "become straight." Indeed, THOSE behaviors are reasonably considered BAD and harmful."
You are oviously correct and anyone who would question your pronouncements is stupid.
"So a rational and moral case CAN be made for LGBTQ folks marrying who they want. It IS common sense to reasonable people without the baggage of religious traditions that say otherwise."
Oh, you can make up any case you want that sounds rational and moral to your ears and by your subjective standards. Unfortunately, you specifically claimed that you hunches on the topic were "biblical". So you've wasted both your time and my time because you moved the goal posts.
"So, we can't "prove" common sense any more than we can "prove" your/our hunches about morality, but we can test them to see if they promote good or if they cause harm/interfere with human rights and dignity."
Yes, I am aware that you can't prove most of the claims you make even though you act as if you have.
"We should do THAT, I say."
Because what you say, is always the Truth and must be obeyed.
Now they're all parsed, answered, and responded to. I found at least 2-3 questions you didn't answer, too bad you have such a hard time comprehending.
Craig...
The how is wrong determined?
The best we can, using our God-given moral reasoning and looking for avoiding that which causes harm. We have nothing else, no other authoritative, objective system.
Right?
How is wrong determined consistently across time and culture?
The best we can, using our God-given moral reasoning and looking for avoiding that which causes harm. We have nothing else, no other authoritative, objective system.
Right?
Is it possible that something could be wrong for one person, but not wrong for another?
Of course, that can be true. For instance, one person may be able to drink alcohol in moderation with no harmful side affects for anyone while another person may become alcoholic or choose to drink and drive and thereby cause harm. The person who could not control themselves (perhaps due to addiction concerns), for that person it would be wrong to drink even a little, but not for everyone.
And the bible doesn't tell us that and it doesn't NEED to tell us that. We can see that in the real world by the harm that does or does not come from drinking.
Do you think otherwise?
If the bible teaches this in a clear, direct, specific manner, then please show me where.
Why? WHY do I or anyone NEED to provide the Bible to make the case that slavery is wrong, that rape is wrong, that abusive drug use is wrong, etc, etc?
[with apologies for asking WHY twice... I guess you don't believe in some literary grace in communication styles. But just fyi: That I ASKED it twice doesn't mean that I'm asking you to ANSWER it twice. It's a literary shtick to emphasize a point. Like in the Bible, for instance, when the author says "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty..." It's just a common literary device. Naught else. Relax. Read for understanding.]
You keep setting up a hoop for people to jump through that we just don't need to.
PROVE that we "need the bible to teach us moral questions in a clear, direct, specific manner" or admit that it's a magic rule book ruling that YOU have created for yourself (and not you alone, by the way... we've always had Pharisees in the world), that no one else is needing to heed.
Last thing, at least for now.
Unfortunately, you specifically claimed that you hunches on the topic were "biblical".
If one doesn't take the bible as a magic rulebook (and we shouldn't), then how DO we read it and what CAN we glean from it?
Here's the answer:
We should look to any text for the truths and wisdom or joy that the text provides. I read Rumi and his words,
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I’ll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase ‘each other’
doesn’t make any sense."
And I can see the great wisdom in that. It's not a RULE that he's making - Go out in a field and lie down and meet you there. It's a concept and we can choose to find wisdom in it.
Likewise, the Bible has a great wealth of teachings from people over centuries, wisdom from the past - along with some horrors from the past. We should read to learn and embrace the wisdom while eschewing and learning from the horrors, so as not to repeat it.
So we look for themes, wisdoms, teachings, not rules and rulings.
And for those of us who follow Jesus, who we call Christ, who we believe is the ultimate representation of God here on earth, then we BEGIN with the teachings of Jesus to help us understand and interpret the wisdom of the other authors.
In Jesus' teachings, we find certain themes. And even though he rarely/never uses the word, one theme is the notion of Grace. Jesus came specifically and literally, he said, to preach good news of the Realm of God to the poor and marginalized. Those, too, are major, central, core themes of Jesus' teachings.
Likewise, Jesus offers us warnings about what we might call "bad religion..." the Pharisees and other proud abusers of power who cause harm and forget that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not the other way around.
With those themes being recognized and embraced, we can look to the rest of the Bible and to just basic human reasoning, that of God within us, and we can recognize these common themes of a Beloved Community, of doing no harm, of building a Realm of God here and now, where the poor and oppressed and marginalized gain more freedom and welcome. From this we can easily recognize notions of human rights.
cont'd...
And it's not like I'm making this up: Early Baptists and anabaptists were big influences, it has been argued, on developing and improving notions of human rights. They read the Bible, rightly, I say, and saw human rights and religious liberty evident as themes within the Bible. I could go on in detail on this point, but it would be a very long post.
I could link you to notions of human rights arising from Christian understandings of biblical teaching if you're not familiar. These, for instance:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/june-web-only/not-what-you-think-michael-lauren-mcafee.html
file:///Users/mactrabue/Downloads/pvanwingerden,+Journal+manager,+02+Peck+30-46.pdf
Now, I said ALL that to say this: I and others note that HUMAN RIGHTS are a biblical ideal.
Gay folk are, of course, human. We have no reason not to extend to them human rights. Of course. Including the right of self-determination.
And while, in biblical days, ideas that slavery was okay and that killing men who laid with men was okay, we've EVOLVED and IMPROVED and PROGRESSED in our thinking and moral reasoning. We are, in many practical widespread ways, more moral than we used to be. Indeed, it has been argued that the Bible speaks of adapting, progressive moral reasoning.
Slavery used to be accepted and was in the Bible. Now we recognize it as an evil.
Men used to marry multiple women and have concubines in the Bible. Now, we - most of us - recognize the problems of that and how this can, indeed, be oppressive and wrong.
We used to claim the virgin girls of the Enemy and take them home to make them our wives (ie, sex slaves)... this happened in the Bible. Now we recognize how evil that would be.
Or, you have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but JESUS said, turn the other cheek. He improved and progressed the old biblical teaching for an improved, more moral response to violence.
Likewise, we see no rational reason NOT to support gay folk getting married, for instance. It's not unbiblical. God has never said Don't do that, even while it was probably not culturally accepted generally back then. But we can improve and we should.
For THOSE reasons, I think it is clear that not only are LGBTQ rights reasonable, they're biblical.
Not that you'll follow all that. The thing is: I don't NEED to heed your request to provide a verse to support it, any more than I need a verse to support opposition to slavery.
Do you think we need a verse to oppose slavery or men having concubines or can we just conclude that, IN SPITE of what happened long ago, we don't need to embrace those ancient norms?
"Right?"
If you say so. If you think that the best we can do is a subjective guess based on each individual and their personal "common sense", then I guess you've spoken and the matter is settled. Clearly you've closely examined all possible solutions and have come up with the absolute very best possible.
"Right?"
In other words, right/wrong isn't determined across time and culture.
"Of course, that can be true."
But your example isn't really a right/wrong situation. Because this person could decide (using their common sense and Reason) that they are willing to accept the potential negatives that come with drinking, and that therefore it is the right decision.
But, that isn't really the issue and you should know it. If one extends your answer "Of course, that can be true.", then you're saying that slavery can be both wrong and right simultaneously across different cultures, or right during one time period and wrong in another.
"And the bible doesn't tell us that and it doesn't NEED to tell us that. We can see that in the real world by the harm that does or does not come from drinking."
Because the Bible doesn't usually spend a lot of time of things that are a matter of conscience.
"Do you think otherwise?"
I think that you gave an example that dodges the implications of your answer. I think that you are too cowardly to take your answer to it's logical conclusion.
"hy? WHY do I or anyone NEED to provide the Bible to make the case that slavery is wrong, that rape is wrong, that abusive drug use is wrong, etc, etc?"
If you are going to claim that your views on homosexuality etc are "biblical", then you'd need to be able to prove that biblically. But, I see what you've done. You've changed to subject from homosexual issues, to other things. You can make any "case" you want, but that doesn't mean that your case is correct, or that your case is biblical, or that your conclusions apply to anyone else.
"[with apologies for asking WHY twice... I guess you don't believe in some literary grace in communication styles."
Why apologize, you ask everything else multiple times in the same comment.
" But just fyi: That I ASKED it twice doesn't mean that I'm asking you to ANSWER it twice. It's a literary shtick to emphasize a point. Like in the Bible, for instance, when the author says "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty..." It's just a common literary device. Naught else. Relax. Read for understanding.]"
OK, if you want to look like an idiot with your bullshit "literary shtick" and waste time and effort, then do it somewhere else.
"You keep setting up a hoop for people to jump through that we just don't need to."
No I don't.
"PROVE that we "need the bible to teach us moral questions in a clear, direct, specific manner" or admit that it's a magic rule book ruling that YOU have created for yourself (and not you alone, by the way... we've always had Pharisees in the world), that no one else is needing to heed."
Why would I need to prove a claim that I didn't make? YOU made the claim that certain things were "biblical", now you've moved the goal post to all sorts of other subjective categories. Which just means that you can't prove your "biblical" claim and need to obfuscate and dodge.
"If one doesn't take the bible as a magic rulebook (and we shouldn't), then how DO we read it and what CAN we glean from it?"
Please prove the we "shouldn't" follow the commands of YHWH and Jesus that we find in scripture. You made the claim that yoru views on homosexual topics are "biblical". You can either prove the claim you made, or retract the claim you made. But you making all sorts of different claims so you don't have to prove your original claim is pathetic.
"We should look to any text for the truths and wisdom or joy that the text provides. I read Rumi and his words,"
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I’ll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase ‘each other’
doesn’t make any sense."
And I can see the great wisdom in that. It's not a RULE that he's making - Go out in a field and lie down and meet you there. It's a concept and we can choose to find wisdom in it."
I don't care whether you find wisdom in that or not. You made a specific claim, and if you aren't going to prove that specific claim then stop wasting my time with this bullshit.
"Likewise, the Bible has a great wealth of teachings from people over centuries, wisdom from the past - along with some horrors from the past. We should read to learn and embrace the wisdom while eschewing and learning from the horrors, so as not to repeat it."
Where is the proof that we "should" do as you claim? But hey, if you want to ignore parts of scripture, you go right ahead.
"So we look for themes, wisdoms, teachings, not rules and rulings."
Ok. Ignore what Jesus told you to do, that's fine with me.
"And for those of us who follow Jesus, who we call Christ, who we believe is the ultimate representation of God here on earth, then we BEGIN with the teachings of Jesus to help us understand and interpret the wisdom of the other authors."
I'm sure that you meant to say "Jesus, who is The Christ". It appears as though your are saying that Jesus, The Christ was only a "representation" of "God", and that He was not fully divine and one of the three persons of the Godhead. Clarify, please.
"In Jesus' teachings, we find certain themes. And even though he rarely/never uses the word, one theme is the notion of Grace. Jesus came specifically and literally, he said, to preach good news of the Realm of God to the poor and marginalized. Those, too, are major, central, core themes of Jesus' teachings."
So what. Big deal, you can try to separate various facets of Jesus' nature, and teachings to focus on your hunches about one facet while ignoring or minimizing others.
"Likewise, Jesus offers us warnings about what we might call "bad religion..." the Pharisees and other proud abusers of power who cause harm and forget that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not the other way around."
"With those themes being recognized and embraced, we can look to the rest of the Bible and to just basic human reasoning, that of God within us, and we can recognize these common themes of a Beloved Community, of doing no harm, of building a Realm of God here and now, where the poor and oppressed and marginalized gain more freedom and welcome. From this we can easily recognize notions of human rights."
You present all of this as if it's 100% True and should be accepted as gospel simply because you spew a bunch of crap that uses some buzzwords that sound christiany.
Craig...
If you say so. If you think that the best we can do is a subjective guess based on each individual and their personal "common sense", then I guess you've spoken and the matter is settled.
Hey, if YOU have access to a perfect morality scale, by all means, produce it. I would LOVE to know objectively all matters of right and wrong. But so far, you haven't produced such a rubric and, so far as I know, no one has. But I am a finite person, if you have access to this grand secret, please share so that we ALL can have an objective, provable standard of morality.
But when you, once again, don't produce such a grand secret, I will, once again, be forced to believe that you don't have access to this secret arcane knowledge, and yet, you are desperately wanting to pretend you do.
But as always, produce the objectively authoritatively provable Key, and I WILL be forced to believe.
In other words, right/wrong isn't determined across time and culture.
Not perfectly, no. Not in any data that I have seen.
Do you have access to data where right and wrong have been "determined" across time and culture? Also, what does that mean, that it hasn't been "determined across time and culture..."?
Do you think that, while biblically speaking, polygamy and concubinism were accepted practices, that this doesn't mean it's acceptable today? That, indeed, we've progressed/improved on that matter?
How about slavery, have we not improved our understanding of what is and isn't moral when it comes to slavery?
then you're saying that slavery can be both wrong and right simultaneously across different cultures, or right during one time period and wrong in another.
On SOME issues, I would say of course, it could be, right and wrong across different cultures and times. But in the case of slavery, I would argue that it was clearly wrong then and wrong now, it's just that they didn't recognize how wrong slavery was then and now we know better. Just like recognizing how the people of the land having a right to make policy decisions didn't widely exist long ago and now it does. We have improved our moral understanding in many ways.
Do you disagree?
You keep saying...
You made the claim that yoru views on homosexual topics are "biblical".
And...
"God literally has NEVER said that He "blesses gay marriage", yet you insist that He does. You limit what you'll allow "God" to say because He doesn't use specific words or terms."
I'm not sure that I ever said that my views on homosexual topics are biblical. I've said they're reasonable, moral and just and, in my opinion, Godly, given the notion of a good, loving God who created us, gay and straight and otherwise.
You might need to source what you THINK I've said. The closest I can find to something I've said on this topic is this:
1. I say that this is a reasonable conclusion to reach, given the notions of basic human rights and of a perfectly good God.
2. I've never said that the Bible says God blesses gay marriage.
3. The difference is I'm not using the Bible to prop up my opinion.
4. I literally do NOT "limit" what I allow God to say. Noting that the Bible literally never endorses SS or PS Atonement or either
opposing or supporting gay folks getting married
is just noting what is literally found within its gathered pages.
In other words, the only words from me on the topic that I can find directly contradict your claim. So, perhaps this is just another case of you misreading misinterpreting someone's words.
Craig...
Why would I need to prove a claim that I didn't make?
Because, when faced with a moral question, YOU keep saying "produce the Bible passage that says God supports gay folks marrying" or "produce the bible passage that says..." whatever.
A reasonable person would ask, "What is your moral reasoning for reaching that conclusion?" and that question, I've answered repeatedly. Saying in response to my multiple explanations, "But where is the BIBLICAL support?" indicates that, without biblical support for a moral conclusion, all other reasoning doesn't matter to you.
I'm saying we are not beholden to produce a bible verse to support any given moral claim.
I'm opposed to slavery because it is a human rights violation and always has been.
I'm opposed to preventing LGBTQ folks from being self determining when it comes to marriage, dating or having kids is a human rights violation and a manner of oppression.
I'm opposed to impaired driving because the harm that may result.
I'm opposed to polluting the planet because the harm that may result.
etc, etc.
Do you agree with me that we do NOT need to find a bible verse to support any given moral decision? We can just use basic reasoning and appeals to, "Do no harm..."?
"And it's not like I'm making this up: Early Baptists and anabaptists were big influences, it has been argued, on developing and improving notions of human rights. They read the Bible, rightly, I say, and saw human rights and religious liberty evident as themes within the Bible. I could go on in detail on this point, but it would be a very long post."
But none of this is proof that the homosexual issues you brought up and made claims about are actually "biblical". This is just you picking and choosing bits and pieces from various sources and constructing a theology that tickles yoru fancy.
"I could link you to notions of human rights arising from Christian understandings of biblical teaching if you're not familiar. These, for instance:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/june-web-only/not-what-you-think-michael-lauren-mcafee.html
file:///Users/mactrabue/Downloads/pvanwingerden,+Journal+manager,+02+Peck+30-46.pdf"
None of which relates to your claim that the list of homosexual issues you mentioned are "biblical", that's the claim you made, prove that claim. Stop blowing smoke.
"Now, I said ALL that to say this: I and others note that HUMAN RIGHTS are a biblical ideal.
Gay folk are, of course, human. We have no reason not to extend to them human rights. Of course. Including the right of self-determination."
Yet, you've offered nothing that demonstrates your claims about this being "biblical", just more eisegesis and reading things into your prooftexts.
"And while, in biblical days, ideas that slavery was okay and that killing men who laid with men was okay, we've EVOLVED and IMPROVED and PROGRESSED in our thinking and moral reasoning. We are, in many practical widespread ways, more moral than we used to be. Indeed, it has been argued that the Bible speaks of adapting, progressive moral reasoning."
Demonstrate hubris much? Still haven't proven your original claim that your list of homosexual issues are "biblical".
"Slavery used to be accepted and was in the Bible. Now we recognize it as an evil."
I'm not sure who this "we" is that you speak of, but there are more slaves currently in the world than there have ever been. Maybe you should spend more time expanding your "we" instead of wasting it avoiding proving your claim.
"Men used to marry multiple women and have concubines in the Bible. Now, we - most of us - recognize the problems of that and how this can, indeed, be oppressive and wrong."
And yet, polygamy was never actually endorsed or commanded by YHWH, it was always spoken of negatively by YHWH, and was never endorsed. Like many things that Israel did, that YHWH allowed them to exercise their free will in, and to suffer the consequences. But, it's all myth anyway, right?
"We used to claim the virgin girls of the Enemy and take them home to make them our wives (ie, sex slaves)... this happened in the Bible. Now we recognize how evil that would be."
Really, you and your friends did this?
"Or, you have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but JESUS said, turn the other cheek. He improved and progressed the old biblical teaching for an improved, more moral response to violence."
Yet Jesus resorted to violence. Maybe it's not as simplistic as you'd like it to be. But, it's not like turning the other cheek is a command or a rule, it's really just as suggestion.
"Likewise, we see no rational reason NOT to support gay folk getting married, for instance. It's not unbiblical. God has never said Don't do that, even while it was probably not culturally accepted generally back then. But we can improve and we should."
Again with this mysterious "we" that you claim to speak for. Look you can support whatever you want, what you can't do is claim that the activities you support are "biblical".
"For THOSE reasons, I think it is clear that not only are LGBTQ rights reasonable, they're biblical."
Yet not one shred of actual specific, unequivocal, direct, biblical support for this claim. The fact the you can string together a bunch of out of context hunches, eisegete a few things, read into scripture a few other things, and magically come up with something new and improved, isn't proof.
"Not that you'll follow all that. The thing is: I don't NEED to heed your request to provide a verse to support it, any more than I need a verse to support opposition to slavery."
Oh, I followed the entirety of that turgid, meandering, incoherent, rambling, pile of bullshit. You are right, you don't need to heed my request that you prove your claim. But you also forfeit the ability to repeat your unproven claim as if it had been proven. You tacitly acknowledge that there is absolutely zero direct, unequivocal, specific, biblical support for your hunch even though you've tried very hard to obscure that fact. Finally, you forfeit the right to demand that I prove my claims, because I see no reason why you should hold yourself to a lower standard than you hold others to.
"Do you think we need a verse to oppose slavery or men having concubines or can we just conclude that, IN SPITE of what happened long ago, we don't need to embrace those ancient norms?"
I think that if you are going to claim something as being biblical, then that something should actually be in the Bible in a direct, specific, unequivocal manner. Unfortunately, you don't get to make up what's biblical, and what's not.
Please prove the we "shouldn't" follow the commands of YHWH and Jesus that we find in scripture.
I haven't said we shouldn't follow the commands of God and Jesus we find in the bible. I'm saying quite clearly that just because we find a command somewhere in the bible doesn't mean it is universally applicable or even moral.
Just because God endorsed Israelite soldiers in kidnapping and forcibly wedding the enemy's virgin girls does NOT mean that we SHOULD follow that as a reliable, moral rule.
Just because slavery and polygamy and concubinism are practiced with God's blessing (or command) in the bible does not mean that we should follow them.
Just because God commanded the rich man to go, sell all he has and give it to the poor doesn't mean all of us rich folks should follow that rule.
Not every line in the bible holds equal weight or moral rectitude. It's not a magic, wooden rule book.
"Last thing, at least for now."
In Dan's world, "last thing" apparently means multiple additional comments. Unfortunately, they'll have to wait and we'll see how many more comments accumulate after his "last thing".
If these additional comments don't have the clear, direct, unequivocal, biblical proof of your claim about homosexual behaviors being "biblical", don't expect me to continue the section by section parsing, and answering any more questions. At some point your inability to prove your claim, absolves me of any responsibility to pretend like I take you seriously.
Damn, it's already up to 4 more comments after the "last thing". Clearly your poor grasp of the English language doesn't give me any confidence in your ability to grasp scripture.
FYI, if there aren't simple, direct, specific answers to the questions in my comments after your "last thing", don't expect answers to any more of yours.
Yet not one shred of actual specific, unequivocal, direct, biblical support for this claim.
I say the notion of human rights can be found in the Bible.
Do you agree or disagree?
IF human rights are in the Bible, THEN extending basic human rights to LGBTQ folks IS biblical at least in that sense.
How is that not just practically reasonable?
Look, I've been ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that there are no lines in the Bible that either endorse or condemn gay folks marrying. I'm extrapolating what I think is reasonably consistent with the Bible and with just basic moral reasoning. Don't think that because I'm saying, "It's biblically reasonable" it means I'm saying there is a line in the Bible.
It's BIBLICALLY REASONABLE to oppose slavery, even though it was practiced back then.
Agree or disagree?
The comments after the "last thing", just keep coming.
Craig...
If these additional comments don't have the clear, direct, unequivocal, biblical proof of your claim about homosexual behaviors being "biblical", don't expect me to continue the section by section parsing
What I ACTUALLY said:
"That I point to the reality that NEITHER of us/NONE of us can
objectively prove God's opinion on marriage, on homosexuality,
on war, on making loans, on immigration, on SS or the virgin birth or what is and isn't a sin. We just can't objectively prove it."
and...
1. I say that this is a reasonable conclusion to reach, given the notions of basic human rights and of a perfectly good God.
2. I've never said that the Bible says God blesses gay marriage.
Craig...
God literally has NEVER said that He "blesses gay marriage", yet you insist that He does.
God literally has never condemned slavery (and indeed, in the Bible, it reads at times as if God DOES command slavery), yet I and reasonable humanity would say it's reasonable to think a perfectly good and just God WOULD and DOES oppose slavery.
Do you disagree?
God has literally never condemned many bad things that we can recognize are bad and has never endorsed seemingly good things that we can recognize as good. It's not always about the Bible.
IF we're starting with the presumption of a perfectly good, perfectly loving, perfectly just God,
THEN we can make reasonable conclusions that such a God would never command evils like rape or slavery or selling one's children into slavery or opposing gay folks having the nerve to actually get married within their orientation like, you know, people do and have always done.
Do you disagree?
Do you think that we can begin with the notion of a perfectly good, just God and then presume to think, "BUT, that god might sometimes command evil actions..."?
If so, really?
it's already up to 4 more comments after the "last thing".
I believe what I said was "the last thing for now..." and then, more time came available for me to answer questions you asked and addressed points you've made. I didn't realize that would be a problem.
But on that point, it looks like we're past the point of the post and the questions you asked in your post, which I've answered all of those questions multiple times, too. And indeed, it appears you at least vaguely agree at least a bit to the points I've made on SS.
A lot of these matters would be more clear if you'd just be clear on questions like:
Do you agree that we have NO AUTHORITATIVE, OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE way of proving our claims about our understandings of morality?
You continue to mock it as if it's merely whimsical and subjective with no weight, WHILE at the same time, you can't prove your hunches either and, as noted, no one can or has. Why do you do that?
Either step up and "prove morality" (the whole world will thank you) OR admit what is clearly evident, that none of us CAN "prove morality."
To start answering your latest questions (while waiting for you to answer mine directly and clearly)... I had said...
We should read to learn and embrace the wisdom while eschewing and learning from the horrors, so as not to repeat it."
You responded...
Where is the proof that we "should" do as you claim?
I reckon it's just my opinion that people should read to learn and embrace wisdom and learning from our mistakes. But are you saying you think it's a bad thing to do so??
Again, you and I can't prove our moral opinions, so you don't need to ask for objective proof if you REALLY think it's not a good idea to read for understanding and wisdom.
But hey, if you want to ignore parts of scripture, you go right ahead.
I said NOT ONE WORD - not a single word in the entire whole universe from the farthest stars to the inside of your dark head - about "ignoring parts of Scripture." Indeed, for those who read to understand, I said just the opposite. We should LEARN from stories of horrible actions and people. We should not ignore the people of Sodom, but LEARN from them about how wrong it is to ignore the cries of the poor and marginalized. For instance. NOT ignore. Read to LEARN.
The opposite. Understand?
Likewise...
Ignore what Jesus told you to do, that's fine with me.
NOT what I said. I said, in fact, the opposite. Read for understanding, beloved of God.
It appears as though your are saying that Jesus, The Christ was only a "representation" of "God", and that He was not fully divine and one of the three persons of the Godhead. Clarify, please.
Easy. That's NOT what I said. I happen to believe that Jesus is God and God's son, fully divine AND fully human. So, once again, you read, but failed to understand.
you can try to separate various facets of Jesus' nature, and teachings to focus on your hunches about one facet while ignoring or minimizing others.
Not a question but just another example of you reading my words and coming to the OPPOSITE and wrong conclusion about what they mean. I'm speaking specifically of reading ALL the teachings of Jesus and striving with our human understanding the points of his teachings. And clearly, I think, some of the main points of his teaching are:
1. He came to preach good news of God's realm for the poor and marginalized.
2. He came preaching a good news of Grace, not rule-following.
3. He came preaching about a perfectly loving and perfectly just God who is perfectly able to understand our imperfect and fallen nature.
etc. We should take ALL of what Jesus taught and try to understand it and the rest of Scripture in the context of Jesus' understanding and teaching of God and God's Way and God's beloved community.
Not one facet, but ALL of it and the main themes found therein. That, as opposed to picking out one word in one sentence where he used the word "ransom" and trying to build a justification for your human Atonement theories.
So, now you know and hopefully understand.
You present all of this as if it's 100% True and should be accepted as gospel simply because you spew a bunch of crap that uses some buzzwords that sound christiany.
No. I say that to say it's my understanding of the CLEAR words and teachings of Jesus, our Lord. And as you and others like to say, we should go with the clear understanding of the words unless we have reason not to. And that's what you believe WHEN you're talking about YOUR personal understanding of Jesus' words... but you appear less inclined to agree or even be respectful when someone dares disagree with your interpretations.
The thing is, as this illustrates, not all humans agree on what is and isn't a "clear understanding" of the meaning of the words.
Jesus literally spoke about the good news of the realm of God and about wealth and poverty issues and siding with the poor WAY more than any other topics. It's clearly important to him and his teachings. AND he said he came to preach the Gospel and continually tied that to the Good news of the Realm of God and of siding with the poor and marginalized and truly not at all (or barely, at best) about "ransoms" and atonement theories that later humans espoused. So, that I try to take Jesus' teachings literally and dare disagree with your spin on them doesn't mean I'm spewing buzzwords. I'm citing Jesus and his words and ideas.
But none of this is proof that the homosexual issues you brought up and made claims about are actually "biblical".
I disagree with your human opinion that concern for LGBTQ folks, along with concern for justice for ALL the oppressed, are not biblical. You don't like that interpretation, that's fine. It's mine and my understanding and I suspect that one day, Jesus will tell you so. We shall see.
just more eisegesis and reading things into your prooftexts.
Well, it's clearly MY (and others') understanding. But it's certainly no more eisegesis than SS, Atonement and many other conservative hunches and traditions. As long as we both acknowledge there's an element of interpreting and reading into the Scripture what isn't literally there that happens, that's fine. The problem is when one side (mine) acknowledges it's our human understanding while the other side tries to pretend that their interpretations are the same as God's Word.
SS is eisegesis. "God blesses gays" is part eisegesis and part just good common sense and human decency.
I said...
"And while, in biblical days, ideas that slavery was okay and that killing men who laid with men was okay, we've EVOLVED and IMPROVED and PROGRESSED in our thinking and moral reasoning. We are, in many practical widespread ways, more moral than we used to be."
You responded...
Demonstrate hubris much?
I think you're saying that because I note that humanity has improved a great deal in many vital, important ways. But it's observable.
People used to cut off people's hands and gouge out eyes to exact literal eye for eye revenge or "justice." We've progressed from that, by and large. People used to accept slavery, not so much anymore.
(and PLEASE, give it a rest. Yes, slavery still happens in horrible numbers, but NOT because there's anything like widespread support for slavery. Bad actors and, in some cases, bad gov't's still allow slavery or take part in slavery, but it's nothing like the whole world. You have NO proof that more people accept slavery now whereas, even just over 150 years ago, support for slavery was largely a given in Christian nations. So stop that line of bad faith "reasoning," unless you can provide support that shows large percentages of people accept slavery as a moral option.)
Women in the US didn't have the opportunity to vote or be represented until 100 years ago (for white women, largely) and black people until ~55 years ago. Things are better.
100 years ago, we could have wars that killed hundreds of thousands and even millions of people. That just isn't happening now, even in the context of a larger world population.
Children and those with disabilities had few rights until the last 100 - 50 years. Spousal abuse was largely ignored back and often put up with when we were younger.
None of that is true now. We're making progress and slowly coming to improved understandings of morality. Especially when it comes to direct oppression and harmful attacks or denial of human rights. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? There is data to support my observation. I'm not original to noting this.
https://theconversation.com/changing-morals-were-more-compassionate-than-100-years-ago-but-more-judgmental-too-112504
Of course, as that article suggests, it might depend on how one is evaluating "moral..." For many of us in the world, more liberty to make one's own decisions about sexual matters is a GOOD, not a bad, thing. But for many conservatives, it's a bad thing. But when it comes to overt harm, I think the data is pretty solid that we're doing better (not perfect, better). Smaller, less deadly wars (low bar, that!) more human rights acceptance AND expectation, better education, more concern for the poor, children, the oppressed and marginalized.
Craig...
I'm not sure who this "we" is that you speak of, but there are more slaves currently in the world than there have ever been.
The majority of the world is opposed to slavery because OF COURSE, THEY are. That there are still a good many people willing to engage in it doesn't mean that you or anyone you know here or abroad SUPPORTS people enslaving them or their children.
Don't be an ass.
Do you SERIOUSLY think that anything like even 75% of the world is okay with slavery?
I STILL don't know about you, though: DO YOU CONDEMN ALL FORMS OF SLAVERY AS A GREAT EVIL? I can't tell you how EASY a question that should be here, in the 21st century.
Maybe that's it. Maybe because you are not willing to call slavery always evil that you think others think like you...?
You tell me.
And yet, polygamy was never actually endorsed or commanded by YHWH, it was always spoken of negatively by YHWH,
Well, except for that time when God "gave" David his many wives and concubines. But don't let the literal text interfere with your hunches. Or these other examples...
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-is-a-concubine-why-did-god-allow-men-to-take-concubines-in-the-bible.html
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/2-samuel-128-sauls-wives/
At the very least, the Bible is silent about concubines and provides laws for how to deal with them (much like the laws that stated how to deal with slaves). Your problem is that laws that specify (and even protect, in some degree) multiple concubines and slaves give a tacit endorsement of these awful, evil practices.
Do you agree that forced concubines and slaves are ALWAYS a great evil? Or do you think there are some exceptions?
Is it your hunch that God "allowed" something that God didn't endorse, but said, "wellllllll, it's okay in THIS circumstance...."?
Is that where you want to park your morality, if so? A whimsical wink and nod towards slavery and forced sex?
I had said...
"We used to claim the virgin girls of the Enemy and take them home to make them our wives (ie, sex slaves)... this happened in the Bible. Now we recognize how evil that would be."
Really, you and your friends did this?
Nope. Of course, not. "We" here is CLEARLY (for anyone reading for understanding, and not for attacking) referring to "We, humans..." And yes, in the bible, taken literally, you have God endorsing and allowing forced sex slaves. So, now that the reality has been clarified, I must ask you once again: Really? You're OKAY with forced wives as a "moral" option? OR can you join decent humanity (with our flawed and imperfect reasoning) in ALWAYS opposing forced marriages as a great evil?
OR, do you think that morals changed... forced marriages were okay THEN, but not now?
Is that where you want to park your morality and reason?
Yet Jesus resorted to violence. Maybe it's not as simplistic as you'd like it to be. But, it's not like turning the other cheek is a command or a rule, it's really just as suggestion.
Jesus "resorted to violence..." that depends on if you count chasing animals and people (with nary a human reported being harmed - NOT ONE) out of the temple as violence, or if you count it as civil disobedience. I count it as the latter.
But YES, it's not so simplistic as "just pacifism" or "just war." Morality is more complex than simple little answers like "always do what you I tell you my magic rulebook is saying..." Very good. THAT would be precisely one of the points that one should take away from a serious read of the Bible. It's NOT a simple-minded rule book with clear rules that leave no question as to interpretation.
Agreed?
12 comments after the “last one”. If I have time I’ll dig through this pile of excrement, but I’m not going to continue parsing every comment the way I have been. I simply don’t have the time to dedicate to this right now.
“Agreed?”
Not likely.
"12 comments after the “last one”. If I have time I’ll dig through this pile of excrement, "
Such grace. You complain if I don't answer and reanswer questions and you complain if I take the time to patiently, precisely GIVE you answers.
Dan
"Why? WHY do I or anyone NEED to provide the Bible to make the case that slavery is wrong, that rape is wrong, that abusive drug use is wrong, etc, etc?"
Because without the concrete, objective source we Christians refer to as "the Holy Bible", all else is subjective opinion. How many times must we show how common in the world slavery remains and you want to pretend it's common knowledge slavery is wrong? To whom? One can say, "to we Christians", but you aren't a good one and even if we count those like you, we're still not talking about everyone. You want to pretend God's will is "written on our hearts"...as if that concept would ever occur to you if Scripture didn't mention it...but clearly, given the truth about slavery around the world, it seems unlikely it's written on too many hearts. (I think you're abusing the meaning of that expression, anyway.)
Throughout the muslim world, and in other third world countries where "machismo" still looms large, women are still perceived as second class and property. So clearly, not everyone in the world agrees that even rape is wrong.
And look how common drug and alcohol use and abuse is!
Now remove Scripture entirely and tell me those things wouldn't worsen!! Try to make that case!
"PROVE that we "need the bible to teach us moral questions in a clear, direct, specific manner" or admit that it's a magic rule book ruling that YOU have created for yourself (and not you alone, by the way... we've always had Pharisees in the world), that no one else is needing to heed."
A typical Dan tactic. If the roles were reversed, you would support the truth of Scripture's moral authority as "self-evident", and that would be the extent of your "proof". But the proof has been provided in two ways:
1. By the many verses demonstrating Jesus and His Apostles providing the example for us to follow, and by the listing of early church fathers and their devotion to Scripture as the ultimate authority.
2. By your own perversion of Scripture or rejection of it when it proves inconvenient for your promotion of homosexuality, the murder of the unborn and all other heresies you promote with Christ-hating vigor.
As to Pharisees, they were disparaged by Christ for adding to the written Law. That's how they burdened the people, not by insisting on following the Law. Nothing we've done in any way parallels the Pharisaic adding to what is written. That's what you do by pretending what is written informs and supports your heresy.
Worse, while you demand proof of the obvious, you do nothing to prove we could ever do without Scripture to act as our ultimate authority, pretending you have the ability to intelligently reason your way toward God's Will. Clearly THAT'S untrue. You can't even defend your positions.
"If one doesn't take the bible as a magic rulebook (and we shouldn't),"
Prove we shouldn't and then prove you don't. Indeed, you're far more down with admonishing anyone who doesn't follow rules you prefer, than we are with following the rules of life presented in Scripture. Even your condescending "and we shouldn't" is a rule. "Should/shouldn't" suggests rules, because if they don't, the use of such words is useless for anything. "I'm not saying 'Thou shalt not murder' is a rule of God we need to follow, but we shouldn't murder people, because...uh..." "OH! The Bible isn't a 'magic rule book', but it teaches us to care for the poor and we should, even though it's not a rule!" You're absurd. Of COURSE Scripture is a rule book and you reject following rules you find inconvenient in favor of rules you make up with the flimsiest of support from the "Magic Rule Book" you reject as less than our ultimate authority!!
"I read Rumi and his words,"
...and from the first line we see you've proven what I've said about you.
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I’ll meet you there."
It is here where you feels you have the ability to reject the teachings of Scripture in order to enable sexual immorality and the murder of innocents, among other heresies. It's the field where the Evil One waits for those like you, for whom the teachings of Scripture are too inconvenient. Without Scripture, where "wrongdoing and rightdoing" are spelled out so clearly even morons like you can understand it, you "reason" your way into supporting anything which is fashionable and enjoying support of those of the world.
"And I can see the great wisdom in that."
You see opportunity to reject God to support that which rewards you with the praise of the corrupt.
"So we look for themes, wisdoms, teachings, not rules and rulings."
This is rank bullshit which is also contradictory. What you find to be "wisdom" you regard as rules, so you're lying now, too. NOBODY "teaches" a concept without the expectation the concept will be embraced and followed as a rule. You seek to pretend there's some distinction between "thou shalt not" and "Jesus taught". There isn't one. But you reject enough of what Jesus taught, retaining only that which strokes your marxist bent and then pretend you're Christian. Your "reasoning" is an insult to God. A blasphemy.
"In Jesus' teachings, we find certain themes."
Such as obeying the Father's commandments, among which is Lev 18:22.
"And even though he rarely/never uses the word, one theme is the notion of Grace."
A concept of which you have no understanding. You think it means "being nice". God's Grace was manifested in the birth and crucifixion of Christ.
"Jesus came specifically and literally, he said, to preach good news of the Realm of God to the poor and marginalized."
And what was that "Good News", Dan? When will you actually present what It was? You either don't know, or you're too unwilling to say because it conflicts with your marxist crapola.
"Those, too, are major, central, core themes of Jesus' teachings."
Jesus' teachings included the authority of Scripture. One can easily tell given how many times He references Scripture prior to teaching His "core themes".
"Do you disagree?"
With what? This detour around slavery doesn't answer the question.
"God has literally never condemned many bad things that we can recognize are bad and has never endorsed seemingly good things that we can recognize as good. It's not always about the Bible."
This makes no sense, in the context of the question, and the claim you've made repeatedly.
'IF we're starting with the presumption of a perfectly good, perfectly loving, perfectly just God,
THEN we can make reasonable conclusions that such a God would never command evils like rape or slavery or selling one's children into slavery or opposing gay folks having the nerve to actually get married within their orientation like, you know, people do and have always done.
Do you disagree?"
I disagree with you thinking that this pile of steaming excrement answers the question.
You claimed that "God blesses gay marriage". Nowhere in this comment have you demonstrated that "God blesses gay marriage.".
Do you think that we can begin with the notion of a perfectly good, just God and then presume to think, "BUT, that god might sometimes command evil actions..."?
If so, really?
Art,
"Jesus' teachings included the authority of Scripture. One can easily tell given how many times He references Scripture prior to teaching His "core themes""
I'm going to take a break from addressing Dan's plethora of comments, because this is critical. Jesus repeatedly says something like "It is written.", clearly referencing the written scripture up to that point. Jesus repeatedly quotes scripture as if it is authoritative. Hell, Dan's pet scripture that underpins his entire theology of "the poor", is an example of Jesus quoting scripture about Himself. Dan reads this bit of Jesus quoting scripture, in the Bible, then considers it authoritative enough that he bases a big chunk of his theology on Jesus quoting scripture as if it's authoritative.
Insane.
"Do you agree that we have NO AUTHORITATIVE, OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE way of proving our claims about our understandings of morality?"
1. I answer this question every time you ask it, why not once more.
2. However, what would (in your mind) constitute proof?
3. It's strange because your view of morality has plenty of "proof" that supports morality being a subjective construct based on the beliefs and mores of a given society, culture, tribe, or other grouping.
4. IF the Bible is what it's author's claim it to be, then it should be considered proof of a standard of morality authored by YHWH.
5. I don't believe I've ever argued that an absolute standard of morality exists in any "provable" way.
6. I have argued that without an objective, universal, standard of morality, then there is no grounding to refer to any culture with a different moral standard than yours as "immoral".
"You continue to mock it as if it's merely whimsical and subjective with no weight, WHILE at the same time, you can't prove your hunches either and, as noted, no one can or has. Why do you do that?"
Then you are either a fool or incapable of basic comprehension of written English.
I am not mocking when I point out the obvious Truth that you cannot apply a subjective morality in an objective way. If the social scientists, and sociologists (and you) are right, that morality flows out of the standards, mores, and traditions of cultures, societies, tribes, and other groups, then it is impossible to brand one set of moral standards as "immoral".
"Either step up and "prove morality""
I've never claimed that I can prove morality, so why would I jump through your hoop (which you've been clear that you won't jump through my hoops) and prove something that is a position that you have made up and attributed to me?
"I reckon it's just my opinion that people should read to learn and embrace wisdom and learning from our mistakes. But are you saying you think it's a bad thing to do so??"
So, you can't prove that anyone "should" do so, you personally hold the opinion that anything you find wisdom in is automatically a good thing and that everyone "should" follow your example.
Personally, I have no problem with it as long as the source and worth of it is kept in perspective.
"The opposite. Understand?"
"So, once again, you read, but failed to understand."
When you try these little passive aggressive comments, it makes me laugh. I literally prefaced my question with "it seems", then asked for clarification. Precisely because I wasn't sure if I understood you correctly. That is literally exactly how conversation is supposed to work, yet you choose to make my seeking of understanding into a negative.
"We should take ALL of what Jesus taught and try to understand it and the rest of Scripture in the context of Jesus' understanding and teaching of God and God's Way and God's beloved community."
Yet you continue to give primacy to certain teachings of Jesus that fit with your worldview more so than others.
"Not one facet, but ALL of it and the main themes found therein. That, as opposed to picking out one word in one sentence where he used the word "ransom" and trying to build a justification for your human Atonement theories."
Let's be clear here. This notion of "main themes" is yours and yours alone. These themes are the ones that, IN YOUR OPINION, are the main themes. You can't prove that those three, in that order, are the objective "main" themes. Yes, Jesus use of the word "ransom" is one example of His indicating what His purpose was. As usual, you haven't (to my knowledge) offered an alternative explanation of "Give MY life as a ransom for many.", that makes more sense than the plain meaning of the text.
So, now you know and hopefully understand.
If you say so. I tend to look at your actions, not just your words.
"NOT what I said. I said, in fact, the opposite. Read for understanding, beloved of God."
OK, I must have misunderstood you when you claimed (in various ways) that the Bible is not a "magical rule book". It seems strange to hear you deny the existence of rules that must be followed in the Bible, then say that you do think that Jesus commanded us to follow His rules (commandments). Or did He only mean that we follow some of His rules, when we agree with them?
"I disagree with your human opinion that concern for LGBTQ folks, along with concern for justice for ALL the oppressed, are not biblical. You don't like that interpretation, that's fine. It's mine and my understanding and I suspect that one day, Jesus will tell you so. We shall see."
I don't care if you disagree. The point remains that you claimed that your hunches about homosexual issues were "biblical". You haven't shown that to be the case, and you haven't retracted your original claim.
"I think you're saying that because I note that humanity has improved a great deal in many vital, important ways. But it's observable."
1. You're wrong. I'm saying it because you are implying that we've know better than YHWH.
2. Yet, some of that "improvement" isn't really an improvement.
"People used to cut off people's hands and gouge out eyes to exact literal eye for eye revenge or "justice." We've progressed from that, by and large. People used to accept slavery, not so much anymore."
Yet numerous countries under Sharia law still do this sort of thing on a regular basis. Yet, there are more people enslaved in 2023 than at any point in human history. Human trafficking is rampant, but you just keep living in your white, liberal, Eurocentric fantasy world.
I'm not parsing the rest of the coment since I didn't have any bearing on Dan's claims about what is "biblical", and it just wasn't interesting, intelligent, or worth my limited time.
"So stop that line of bad faith "reasoning,""
Noting accurately that there are more enslaved people in 2023 than at any previous time in history is simply pointing out the factual reality of the world we live in. Pointing out that a look at a map of the countries where slavery is rampant shows that the geographic % of the earths inhabited landmass where slavery is prevalent is significant.
"Such grace. You complain if I don't answer and reanswer questions and you complain if I take the time to patiently, precisely GIVE you answers."
You complaining about anyone lacking grace is definitely a pot/kettle situation. You answering a significant number of questions in a simple direct manner is such a rarity, I'm not sure how to handle it.
FYI, I was more poking fun at your tendency to announce that you have made your last comment on something, then proceed to make more comments. Grow a sense of humor.
"The majority of the world is opposed to slavery because OF COURSE, THEY are. That there are still a good many people willing to engage in it doesn't mean that you or anyone you know here or abroad SUPPORTS people enslaving them or their children."
Wow, it must be quite a burden to speak for the "majority of the world", and to assume that your ex cathedra pronouncements should be simply believed with no proof.
"Don't be an ass."
You always show such grace.
"Do you SERIOUSLY think that anything like even 75% of the world is okay with slavery?"
I seriously think that there are more enslaved people now than ever. I seriously thing that when incredibly populous countries like India, China and others are where the most slaves are currently being held. I seriously think that it's insane to bitch and moan about "slavery" @4000 years ago in a tiny part of the world, while remaining virtually silent on slavery in the 21st century.
I know, I know, you think all slavery is bad and icky. But slavery in ancient Israel, and the antebellum US are so much more worthy of your time, words, and effort. Blah, blah, blah, whatever.
"I STILL don't know about you, though: DO YOU CONDEMN ALL FORMS OF SLAVERY AS A GREAT EVIL? I can't tell you how EASY a question that should be here, in the 21st century."
then you are illiterate, stupid, or willfully obtuse, as I've given you multiple clear, direct answers over several years.
"Maybe that's it. Maybe because you are not willing to call slavery always evil that you think others think like you...?"
Nah, but I suspect that your tendency to make this sort of idiotic bullshit attempt at some sort of gotcha moment is more about your self esteem, than about getting me to answer the question again.
"You tell me."
I have. many times. That you didn't pay attention, or can't remember isn't my problem.
"Do you agree that forced concubines and slaves are ALWAYS a great evil? Or do you think there are some exceptions?"
I'm not sure that I'd go to "evil" in 100% of all circumstances, but I'd agree that YHWH intended humans to thrive in the marriage of one man and one woman. Yet, many cultures find plural marriages moral, and several religious faiths believe that their god commands plural marriages. In the absence of any objective, universal, standard how does one tell these folks that they are wrong and "evil". Again, the focus on plural marriage 4000 years ago, yet virtual silence on parts of the world where it's happening right now.
"Is it your hunch that God "allowed" something that God didn't endorse, but said, "wellllllll, it's okay in THIS circumstance...."?"
No.
"Is that where you want to park your morality, if so? A whimsical wink and nod towards slavery and forced sex?"
No.
As far as I can tell, I've parsed the majority of Dan's comments (more than I should have), and answered a lot of his questions. I'm a finite person with limited time, and I'm not going to spend a lot of time going into the detail that I have previously.
I can sum up Dan's comments and questions pretty simply.
Dan can't prove his claim that his hunches about various homosexual activities are "biblical" in any direct way. He's tried to sneak "proof" in various back doors, and he's even tired to suggest that the deciding factor is that more people accept his hunches. But, he can't prove his claim, so he's resorted to all sorts of tactics to avoid dealing with that. He's even answering questions as a way to divert attention.
Earlier Dan made a somewhat snarky reference to the Holy Spirit, seeming to suggest that the Holy Spirit and his Reason are equivalent.
If the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead, and is one in essence with both The Father and The Son, then it seems reasonable to conclude that the Holy Spirit was an integral part of the inspiration of scripture, and would be unlikely to contradict any of the three persons of The Godhead.
Your last point is a good one as both Dan and his troll have tried to excuse their heresies by suggesting they're the result of the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of themselves and other "progressives". For example, the troll...if not Dan, too...has suggested the Holy Spirit's work led to women as pastors, despite such being in direct contradiction with the Scripture they pretend to revere when it's convenient for them to do so. But there is no such Scriptural defense, so they play this "Holy Spirit" game. Yet it's just as blasphemous as their corruption of God and His Will.
It is just this sort of fantasy which requires their diminishing of Scripture. They can't get to where they want to go when Scripture stands in between. They need to reject Scripture and put irrational value on things like "reason" and sources other than Scripture which are themselves corrupt or corrupting.
False claims/stupidly false misunderstandings of what my words said and didn't say...
Dan made a somewhat snarky reference to the Holy Spirit
Of course, I didn't. I have no idea what Craig is referencing on this, but most likely, I made a snarky reference to Craig and he thought I was referencing the Spirit of God.
Of course, I wasn't.
seeming to suggest that the Holy Spirit and his Reason are equivalent.
Of course, I didn't.
Read for understanding, not trying to find ways to attack and tear down.
I answered a lot of his questions
You responded to many, answered a few, opted to NOT answer many, in any direct way.
he can't prove his claim, so he's resorted to all sorts of tactics to avoid dealing with that.
I've said quite clearly that I read the text and reach what I think are very reasonable and most likely correct conclusions about support for LGBTQ folks and I can and have explained WHY I think it's both reasonable and reasonable conclusions to reach from biblical text.
As always:
NONE OF US - and most certainly Craig - can objectively prove our opinions about LGBTQ issues from the Bible. GOD has not told Craig to oppose gay folk getting married. That's a hunch that people from his human traditions (including me, once upon a time) concluded on our own without any demonstrable authoritative proof.
As Craig feebly admits, he can't "prove" his ideas about morality. Wow, way to go. Tell Marshal and Stan that, now.
it must be quite a burden to speak for the "majority of the world", and to assume that your ex cathedra pronouncements should be simply believed with no proof.
Not speaking for the majority of the world. I'm stating what is a reasonable conclusion. That people are enslaved in comparable percentages today as they were long ago does NOT MEAN that the majority of the human population thinks, "Enslave and rape my children? SURE! Go for it!"
It's an offensively stupid and immoral suggestion to make. Especially when you have ZERO evidence to support the alternative, that large percentages of people DO support slavery. Craig can cite NOT ONE STUDY or bit of research that shows something like a large number of people support slavery and THAT is what he's hedging his bets upon? You're wanting to suggest that a large percentage of the modern world supports slavery? PROVE IT.
A large percentage of modern slavery is forced/arranged marriages, fyi, like many Christians will say the bible taught. Those who treat the Bible like a magic rule book.
Along those lines...
I seriously think that there are more enslaved people now than ever.
The world population in 1 AD was 300 million. It's now approaching 8 billion. That's less than 4% of the population today. There are more FREE people by BILLIONS and by a massive percentage today than there were in Jesus day and earlier. It's a mathematically stupid argument to try to make. I don't know if you're just not understanding how inane the argument is or if you don't care how stupid you appear.
What percentage of those way-too-large number of enslaved people today support their enslavement? Of the women forced into marriage (the way you believe God sometimes commands people to do) support their sex slavery?
Don't be an idiot.
The pertinent number, fyi, would NOT be the total number of enslaved, but the total number of people who SUPPORT slavery as an ideal and what percentage of the world that is.
What do you expect? ONE percent? Not even?
Don't be a goof.
"Do you agree that forced concubines and slaves are ALWAYS a great evil? Or do you think there are some exceptions?"
I'm not sure that I'd go to "evil" in 100% of all circumstances, but I'd agree that YHWH intended humans to thrive in the marriage of one man and one woman. Yet, many cultures find plural marriages moral
Wow. You can't condemn forced concubines and slaves as always a great evil. And why do you think that God intended humans to thrive in one man/one woman marriages? WHY did God "give David" all his wives and concubines if he didn't INTEND for that to be the case? Why did God not speak out about ALL the many polygamists and concubin-ists in the Bible?
On THAT topic (polygamy/concubinism), God was either completely silent OR tacitly endorsed OR sometimes commanded it but you're certain that God wanted only one man and one woman in marriages - and NEVER two men or two women - even though God never said that at all! Never once condemned it.
Your selective biblical hypocrisy is showing.
Noting accurately that there are more enslaved people in 2023 than at any previous time in history is simply pointing out the factual reality of the world we live in. Pointing out that a look at a map of the countries where slavery is rampant shows that the geographic % of the earths inhabited landmass where slavery is prevalent is significant.
But - and follow closely here - it DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN THOSE PLACES the majority of people SUPPORT slavery. Many (most?) of those nations are not free democracies (much like in Jesus' day) and they just don't have a say in it.
Further, even in most of those places where it's rampant, it's not legal.
Further, there are ~50 million people in slavery - a horrifying number! But it's ~.6 percent of the world that is enslaved. And those are the ENSLAVED. But it's not like each slavery is only enslaving one person. There are far fewer slavers than .6%.
Further, as noted, a large percentage (22 million out of the 50 million) of those enslaved are "arranged/forced marriages," which literalists like you will have to recognize is accepted in the Bible as at least tolerable to god and at worst, commanded by god.
Further, in 1865 in the US, slaves made up ~13% of the population - a much greater percentage and thus, much worse, relatively speaking, just in terms of the percentage of enslaved. Further, it was ~32% enslaved people in the slave states of the South - the people who created the myth of the "noble lost cause..."
This is a daft and embarrassing-for-you argument to try to make. Stop it.
It seems strange to hear you deny the existence of rules that must be followed in the Bible, then say that you do think that Jesus commanded us to follow His rules (commandments). Or did He only mean that we follow some of His rules, when we agree with them?
As I've been clear on: Jesus came teaching a way of Grace, of love and welcome for all, starting with the poor and marginalized. We should listen to Jesus (and the basic moral reasoning) of embracing Grace. We should NOT say that Jesus treated the Bible like a magic rule book, given his many run-ins with and eventual murder by the Pharisees and their clinging to death-dealing rules.
The Pharisees say, "The Magic Rulebook says she's a sinner, AND the MRB says to kill her for her sins."
Jesus says, "To hell with your mean-spirited, deadly 'rules.' Welcome her into the beloved community of God."
Craig...
"Do you agree that we have NO AUTHORITATIVE, OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE way of proving our claims about our understandings of morality?"
1. I answer this question every time you ask it, why not once more.
2. However, what would (in your mind) constitute proof?
And yet, you can't point to ONE SINGLE PLACE where you've answered it. RESPONDING to it by asking "what would constitute proof" is NOT answering it.
IF you're making the claim that we can objectively, authoritatively provably show your claims about morality are correct, THEN you have to objectively, authoritatively prove it.
And since you're suggesting that it's GOD who would have us believe what you think is and isn't moral, then that proof would be some provable word from God endorsing your understanding. You don't have that. Of course.
As always, WE CAN'T AUTHORITATIVELY OBJECTIVELY PROVE our understandings of morality.
Craig...
I've never claimed that I can prove morality
But you've never admitted that you CAN'T prove it. You try to live in this vague shadowy wimpy-ass world of mebbe I can and mebbe I can't.
ANSWER THE QUESTIONs: CAN YOU OBJECTIVELY PROVE YOUR OPINIONS - WHAT YOU THINK THE BIBLE SAYS - ABOUT MORALITY OR NOT?
Can you prove objectively and authoritatively your hunches about gay people marrying being wrong?
If you can't, then just say, "NO, none of us can prove it that I've ever seen."
Stop talking in evasive obtuse circles. Make yourself clear. There are SO many of these topics where you cling to vague pablum non-answers. It's embarrassing for you and for conservatives.
I'm not sure which is worse: The Marshals who insist they can authoritatively prove their moral opinions or the Craigs who give vague, wishy washy responses acting as if he thinks he can, but never being clear, but it's all embarrassing for conservative religionists.
"NONE OF US - and most certainly Craig - can objectively prove our opinions about LGBTQ issues from the Bible."
Yet Dan continues to insist that "God blesses gay marriage" even though he admits it's just something he made up.
"As Craig feebly admits, he can't "prove" his ideas about morality. Wow, way to go. Tell Marshal and Stan that, now."
This feeble attempt to pretend like my not proving claims I've never made is a childish, pathetic attempt to avoid the fact that you can't prove virtually any of the claims you've made.
it must be quite a burden to speak for the "majority of the world", and to assume that your ex cathedra pronouncements should be simply believed with no proof.
"Not speaking for the majority of the world."
Yet you continue to claim that your hunches represent some majority view.
"I'm stating what is a reasonable conclusion."
As "reasonable conclusion" based on your subjective hunches, not on any objective criteria.
"That people are enslaved in comparable percentages today as they were long ago does NOT MEAN that the majority of the human population thinks, "Enslave and rape my children? SURE! Go for it!"
Again with the made up claims, in an attempt to avoid the reality that slavery is more prevalent today than ever.
"It's an offensively stupid and immoral suggestion to make. Especially when you have ZERO evidence to support the alternative, that large percentages of people DO support slavery. Craig can cite NOT ONE STUDY or bit of research that shows something like a large number of people support slavery and THAT is what he's hedging his bets upon? You're wanting to suggest that a large percentage of the modern world supports slavery? PROVE IT."
Here's the problem with the above obfuscation. I'm simply pointing out the reality that slavery is more prevalent now than ever, and that the geographic areas where slavery is prevalent cover a large % of the earth. I guess you could argue that the millions of people who's countries engage in slavery don't support slavery. I'm not sure why it would be expected to "prove" the reality that slavery is more prevalent today than ever.
"A large percentage of modern slavery is forced/arranged marriages, fyi, like many Christians will say the bible taught. Those who treat the Bible like a magic rule book."
Strange, you make this sort of claim, yet provide no proof. Again with the double standard.
"What percentage of those way-too-large number of enslaved people today support their enslavement? Of the women forced into marriage (the way you believe God sometimes commands people to do) support their sex slavery?"
No idea.
"The pertinent number, fyi, would NOT be the total number of enslaved, but the total number of people who SUPPORT slavery as an ideal and what percentage of the world that is."
I love it when you make these sorts of pronouncements, as if your hunches about what's pertinent carry any weight at all.
"What do you expect? ONE percent? Not even?"
I'd expect that the numbers of slaves would have decreased. But I love the goal post move there, by unilaterally changing the metric as if you set the standards of any and all discussions.
"Wow. You can't condemn forced concubines and slaves as always a great evil."
No, I was merely pointing out the reality that many cultures hold a different moral code from yours, and that your moral code doesn't give you any grounds to decide that what other cultures consider moral is not moral.
"And why do you think that God intended humans to thrive in one man/one woman marriages?"
The obvious is that YHWH is clear in scripture (including the teachings of Jesus).
"WHY did God "give David" all his wives and concubines if he didn't INTEND for that to be the case? Why did God not speak out about ALL the many polygamists and concubin-ists in the Bible?"
I'm not YHWH, I don't try to speak for Him. There are several places in scripture where YHWH did speak about these topics. I'll note that scripture gives many examples where YHWH "gives" people over to their desires. For example, YHWH was clear in telling the Israelite people that
their desire for a king would and badley, yet He chose Saul to be their king. It seems clear that YWHW has a history of allowing people to indulge their desires, even though He has told them that the outcome will be bad.
"On THAT topic (polygamy/concubinism), God was either completely silent OR tacitly endorsed OR sometimes commanded it but you're certain that God wanted only one man and one woman in marriages - and NEVER two men or two women - even though God never said that at all! Never once condemned it."
Prove your claims.
"Your selective biblical hypocrisy is showing."
If you say so, although yours is so prevalent this is quite a claim.
"But - and follow closely here - it DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN THOSE PLACES the majority of people SUPPORT slavery. Many (most?) of those nations are not free democracies (much like in Jesus' day) and they just don't have a say in it."
It also doesn't prove that they don't. It's just you spewing hunches.
"As I've been clear on: Jesus came teaching a way of Grace, of love and welcome for all, starting with the poor and marginalized. We should listen to Jesus (and the basic moral reasoning) of embracing Grace. We should NOT say that Jesus treated the Bible like a magic rule book, given his many run-ins with and eventual murder by the Pharisees and their clinging to death-dealing rules."
Well we could assume that your unproven hunches about the limits of Jesus teaching are correct, even though you've never proven them. We could also ignore the reality that Jesus made several references to His expectations that we would obey His commandments. Unless you are arguing that commandments are somehow not equivalent to "rules"
"The Pharisees say, "The Magic Rulebook says she's a sinner, AND the MRB says to kill her for her sins."
Not exactly, but feel free to make shit up.
"Jesus says, "To hell with your mean-spirited, deadly 'rules.' Welcome her into the beloved community of God."
Well, I don't recall where Jesus says that exactly. He did say that those who love Him will follow His rules. It seems germane to note that the Pharisees had ADDED significantly to the commandments that YHWH laid down in (as Jesus called them) the scriptures. Perhaps Jesus was condemning the Pharisees for expecting people to follow the rules they'd ADDED, not telling people not to obey the rules He instituted.
"And yet, you can't point to ONE SINGLE PLACE where you've answered it. RESPONDING to it by asking "what would constitute proof" is NOT answering it."
No, I do point out that I've answered it multiple times, in multiple places. The fact that you can't remember this reality isn't my problem.
"IF you're making the claim that we can objectively, authoritatively provably show your claims about morality are correct, THEN you have to objectively, authoritatively prove it."
What claim? It seems strange that you expect me to do things you won't/don't/can't do.
"As always, WE CAN'T AUTHORITATIVELY OBJECTIVELY PROVE our understandings of morality."
As if repeating this bullshit made it somehow True. YOU can't objectively prove YOUR hunches about morality, yet you expect others to do so.
"But you've never admitted that you CAN'T prove it. You try to live in this vague shadowy wimpy-ass world of mebbe I can and mebbe I can't."
This notion that I am obligated to prove claims I haven't made, claims which you have made up and tried to attribute to me, doesn't require me to jump through any of your hoops. My refusal to jump through your hoops, doesn't mean anything.
":ANSWER THE QUESTIONs: CAN YOU OBJECTIVELY PROVE YOUR OPINIONS - WHAT YOU THINK THE BIBLE SAYS - ABOUT MORALITY OR NOT?"
I've never made the above claim, why would you demand that I prove a claim I haven't made? The fact that you keep asking this idiotic question, despite the fact that it's based on a false premise. Why would I jump through your hoops?
"Can you prove objectively and authoritatively your hunches about gay people marrying being wrong?"
Again, I've never made the claim above, and don't prove claims I haven't made.
I'm simply not wasting any time with your idiotic bullshit.
Then let me!!!
As regards SSM, in order suggest any possibility of God blessing such detestable unions, one must first demonstrate anything in Scripture which so much as hints at the possibility that "marriage" is defined in a manner which goes beyond one man/one woman.
-------------------------------------------
SIDEBAR::: Polygamous marriages do not satisfy that requirement, because there's no way to insist or suggest that polygamous marriages are anything more than one man marrying one woman, than another woman, than another. This means that...even if multiple women are married by one man all at the same time (in a single marital ceremony)...they are adulterous unions after the man had married the first, and he is not in any way required to divorce them all if he chooses to divorce one. I say this for two reasons:
1. Dan will pretend this hasn't been pointed out multiple times in the past, and
2. In order for polygamous marriages to be used as an example of the true definition being distorted in Scripture, there would be no way for the man to divorce only one woman if he is somehow tied to them all. I've never gotten anyone to provide any evidence which disputes this understanding in any way.
END OF SIDEBAR...
-----------------------------------------------
So...throughout Scripture, as has been mentioned numerous times over the years in an easy to understand list of facts, all references to marriage confirm the one man/one woman definition. Thus, "marriage" means something specific in Scripture and there is no way to refute that it means one man/one woman only.
In the meantime, as God regards homosexual behavior as detestable...an abomination...with absolutely no evidence suggesting any scenario or context in which the behavior can be perpetrated and NOT be an abomination, and as every single mention of the behavior speaks of it as sinful and a behavior which would result in one's denial of heaven, it is an example of a REASONABLE CONCLUSION that God would NEVER bless or approve of a same-sex marriage. Indeed, the very notion is laughable as well as a rank heresy of the most blasphemous proportions!!
more coming...
Dan has NEVER provided an argument which can be said to be a reasonable conclusion based on anything Scripture has ever revealed. He simply imposes meanings which provide him the liberty to make such a preposterous claim and then expects honest people who don't mess around with Scripture as he does to take it seriously. No self-respecting, true Christian ever would or does.
Dan does this childish crap about Scripture regarding marriage as a good thing so therefore it is good and worthy of God's blessing should two dudes (pretend to) "marry". It's an incredible absurdity given absolutely no Scriptural basis to suppose it could possibly be true. So, with all we know about what Scripture DOES say about marriage and homosexual behavior, can we say that we can't "prove" God would never bless or condone a SSM? Quite clearly, I just did. Again.
EPILOGUE: So this is how Dan "reasons" and this is how Dan "rebuts". First, he gives no true alternative to what is stated as clearly presented in Scripture. He simply insists one is wrong. He distorts, perverts and corrupts Scripture, imposing his own meaning which aligns with his ideology and claims he's "reasoned" his way to his position. Throughout everything I laid out above regarding God rejecting SSM, there is nothing Dan can point to which isn't true and factual regarding what Scripture does and doesn't say with regard to marriage and homosexual behavior. Nothing, because all I said is based on what Scripture actually DOES say. And what Scripture actually DOES say leads incontrovertibly to God rejecting any notion of SSM. Dan, in the meantime, makes the loosest of connections, which aren't actual connections at all, but wishes of Dan and his sexually immoral cohorts that it be true. And what Dan rejects is the result of the same "reasoning", which is especially weak reasoning looking to make true what isn't and can't be. It's how he blows off things like PSA and Sola Scriptura.
Post a Comment