At Dan's blog, he's cherry picked a few proof texts that he believes make his case that there is a "god for the oppressed".
The problem that immediately seems evident is that his proof texts all seem to be referring to the oppression of the Hebrews by others. Obviously, when these proof texts are removed from the context, it's easy to build up a narrative that seems to back one's hunches. So, when one removes the context, it's easy to pretend that these proof texts, support a pretext, that may not may not make sense in context.
Of course, it's all myth anyway, so we needn't take it seriously or literally.
105 comments:
Yes. In books written to and for oppressed Israelites (who sometimes were also the oppressors, to be clear), it's speaking of oppressed Israelites. But are you saying that you imagine that God is ONLY concerned about oppressed Israelites? Or do you recognize the reasonable conclusion that a perfectly good, perfectly loving, perfectly just God is concerned about any and all oppression of poor, oppressed and marginalized people?
Do you truly think that it is reasonable that for a perfectly loving and just God, that such a God would ONLY be concerned about oppressed Israelites?
If so, do you see what a shallow, dysfunctional jerky sort of "god" that would be? HARDLY a "god" worthy of being called perfectly loving and perfectly just.
It's shameful for Dan to use those verses to pretend they include the sinful people he admires so much. But those he whines are "marginalized and oppressed" are no more so than any other sinner. It's just that Dan likes the sins of the community he defends. Unlike Trump being accused of accusing DeSantis, I think Dan's a closeted LGBTQ guy. He wishes he could be free to indulge his own perverse compulsions. I can't think of any sane reason he champions the disordered and immoral and dares to pervert Scripture to do so. He's shameful.
I'm suggesting that what YHWH has to say to Israel (His "chosen" people) might not be the same thing He'd say to other people groups. It seems that He had a specific plan for Israel, and a specific purpose for them to fulfill. I'd suggest that it's not the best option to automatically assume that what YHWH said/did with/for Israel applies equally and exactly the say way for all people groups.
As I just pointed out YHWH and His concern for Israel (His "chosen" people) might manifest differently than for other people groups, or for individuals. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the "oppressed/marginalized" don't have a separate god/means of salvation or that the message of YHWH to them is that of material wealth, political power, or relief from any suffering.
No, but if one reads the OT in context, it's clear that He has a unique/special relationship/covenant with Israel that He doesn't have with any other people group. It's also clear in the NT, that this relationship/covenant expands to include The Church as His "chosen" people. The problem comes when one assumes that YHWH will treat every people group in the exact same way He treated Israel in the OT.
But, of course, my original post addressed this.
If you choose to see YHWH is a "disfunctional, jerky "god") because He doesn't conform to your hunches about proper behavior, you are free to do so. I'd say that for the Creator of everything that has ever existed, the omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, the I Am, to come to a people group and make a covenant with them (and to keep that covenant regardless of what Israel did) speaks volumes about the character of YHWH. Frankly, your hunches about what YHWH should do are of little interest to me.
Art,
You're right, it seems absurd to think that the context of the OT supports Dan's hunches. But you know that he doesn't seem to have a problem telling others what YHWH should do or should have done. What's even stranger is that Jesus didn't actually do anything to help the marginalized/oppressed during His earthly ministry. You could argue that those HE healed were marginalized/oppressed, but He didn't heal everyone. He didn't free any slaves, He didn't throw off the oppressive yoke of Rome. Jesus literally did not help tha marginalized/oppressed in any sort of large numbers. But, that's what you get when you ignore context.
I'm sure you'd agree Christ's teachings with regard how WE treat people may indeed represent a move to help "the marginalized/oppressed". The problem here, most certainly, is Dan including among the people we're to help and defend are those identified by clearly, unmistakably and absolutely immoral behavior, particularly the sexually immoral behaviors of Dan's cherished "LGBTQ" community. Never in Scripture do we see Christ ignoring the sins of those with whom He associated, dined, taught or pretend their sins were no longer sins. His admonishment that we not "oppress" sinners as if we haven't ourselves sinned is not the same as tolerating openly sinful behaviors, such as that of the "LGBTQ" community. There is no teaching by Christ...in either Testament...that we should tolerate openly sinful practice in our midst, and certainly not teaching to celebrate it, defend it, promote it or attack those who preach the truth about it...like Dan does.
I'm going to say the following for the last time, but I shouldn't need to ever say it again: throughout my life I've known...personally...members of this vile community of sexually immoral people. A family member died from disease he would never have gotten had he obeyed God's Will rather than his perverse compulsions. It was horrible to witness, but I never disliked the guy nor "oppressed" him in any way. I worked for a homosexual and aside from certain questionable actions on his part, found him fascinating. There's also a lesbian in the family, and while I haven't much contact with this person, I've not shunned her in any way when she and her "spouse" were present at family functions. There have been several other examples I've no obligation to list here. Only once, with the first person I mentioned, did I have the opportunity to express my opinion on the subject of his homosexuality...by his request. I made it clear what my position was and it had no negative impact on our relationship, because honest people who care about each other do not whine about disagreement. (By the way, this guy lived in an area in Chicago very near the known "gay" neighborhood and found the majority of those he encountered to be severely disturbed. Just sayin')
Throughout all of Dan's defense of the "oppressed" "LGBTQ folk", what is referred to as "oppression and hate" is nothing more than the righteous objection to their openly sinful behaviors, practices, lifestyles and agenda. They don't like being told their sin is sin and that is "oppression and hate" to them. Said another way, a lie. Dan falsely uses the term "oppression" to force compliance with the "LGBTQ" agenda...to be a chump for the cause as he is. Insisting on and expectations of moral behavior is not oppression, nor is it what any of Dan's abhorrent misuse of Scripture preaches.
Dan is far worse a sinner than the sinners he defends, who are not oppressed at all.
Craig...
I'm suggesting that what YHWH has to say to Israel (His "chosen" people) might not be the same thing He'd say to other people groups.
Are you suggesting that the Almighty Perfect God of perfect love and perfect justice DOES NOT CARE ABOUT SUFFERING PEOPLE WHO AREN'T Hebrew??
Why is that a hard question?
There is ONE rational, biblical and obvious answer to that question:
IF there is a perfectly loving, perfectly just God
THEN of course that God is concerned about oppression of ALL oppressed people.
Are you suggesting otherwise?
Why not answer the question that was put to you? Is it possible you recognize how evil that answer is? How it portrays your puny little god as a worthless, bullshit godling who doesn't really give a damn about justice or love?
Answer the question.
Craig...
If you choose to see YHWH is a "disfunctional, jerky "god") because He doesn't conform to your hunches about proper behavior, you are free to do so.
Listen closely and understand: I DO NOT consider God to be a dysfunctional jerky God. I consider the God almighty of the universe to be JUST as the Bible describes God: Perfectly loving. Perfectly just.
PERFECTLY so. And I believe that to be true and rational as all of creation.
But I DO consider ANYONE who says they have a puny loveless godling wimp-shit that doesn't care about justice for all and who doesn't care about the oppressed, well, THAT godling isn't worth the effort to use it as toilet paper. THAT would be a useful, pathetic, hateful god-vomit.
Now, the question to YOU is: DO you agree that a perfectly loving, perfectly just ALMIGHTY God would of course be concerned about the oppression of ANY and ALL within humanity?
Or is your god some worthless ass-wipe?
Craig...
Frankly, your hunches about what YHWH should do are of little interest to me.
Well frankly, anyone who worships a hateful ass-wipe god that is useless, that would be of little interest to me. What I DO care about is anyone who might say that the almighty God of the universe who is perfectly loving and perfectly just doesn't care about poor and marginalized people.
The Bible (and simple obvious reason) paints a very different image of the almighty God.
Are you suggesting otherwise?
I'm wondering if it's possible that Craig actually thinks that God is ONLY concerned about the oppression of Israel (and later, the Church)? It's mind-bogglingly stupid opinion to hold... could Craig actually believe that crap?
The problem that immediately seems evident is that his proof texts all seem to be referring to the oppression of the Hebrews by others...
It's also clear in the NT, that this relationship/covenant expands to include The Church as His "chosen" people. The problem comes when one assumes that YHWH will treat every people group in the exact same way He treated Israel in the OT...
I'd suggest that it's not the best option to automatically assume that what YHWH said/did with/for Israel applies equally and exactly the say [sic] way for all people groups.
COULD it be...?
As to the first quote above, that "[Dan's] proof texts all seem to be referring to the oppression of the Hebrews by others..."
As I have noted, the Bible speaks from A to Z against oppression of ALL people, that God is on the side of the oppressed, period. Not some subset of "ONLY oppressed Israelites..."
From Psalms 9 for instance...
The Lord reigns forever;
God has established his throne for judgment.
God rules the world in righteousness
and judges the peoples with equity.
The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed
Not "the oppressed of Israel..." But that God is ruling THE WORLD (ie, not JUST Israel) in righteousness.
Or Psalm 72...
"May all kings bow down to God
and all nations serve God.
For God will deliver the needy who cry out,
the afflicted who have no one to help.
God will take pity on the weak and the needy
and save the needy from death.
God will rescue them from oppression and violence,
for precious is their blood in God's sight
In the passage, God is speaking to/of ALL nations and says that God will save "the needy" and "afflicted" and "oppressed..." not JUST the poor and oppressed of Israel.
Or Psalm 103...
The Lord works righteousness
and justice for all the oppressed.
NOT "all the oppressed of Israel..." It literally says "ALL the oppressed." Period.
Or Zechariah 7...
“This is what the Lord Almighty said:
‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.
Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
the FOREIGNER or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’"
Since the foreigner listed here are clearly not from Israel, this passage is not speaking of oppression ONLY of those in Israel.
Or Jesus' own words, citing Isaiah...
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”
ZERO mentions of the poor ONLY of Israel.
I hope you know I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on... IF you are trying to say that any instances of biblical authors referring to God's opposition to ONLY the oppression of Israel, well, it's laughably stupid and unbiblical and hyper-eisegetical.
So again, clearly, you could not POSSIBLY be trying to suggest that God isn't concerned about the oppression of any and all?
I've never heard anything so thoroughly and hellishly unbiblical and irrational at the same time.
Just to beat a dead horse, more verses about God's concern for the poor, marginalized and oppressed, PERIOD, no matter what plot of land they were born in.
Proverbs 14:
Whoever oppresses
the poor
shows contempt for their Maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.
Malachi 3:
“So I will come to put you on trial.
I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers,
against those who defraud laborers of their wages,
who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and
deprive the foreigners among you of justice,
but do not fear me,”
says the Lord Almighty.
James 5:
Now listen,
you rich people,
weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.
Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.
Your gold and silver are corroded.
Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire.
You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields
are crying out against you.
The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
You have condemned and murdered the innocent one,
who was not opposing you."
Nothing about failing to pay "the workers who were Israeli or part of the church community..."
Jesus, in Luke 6:
“Blessed are you who are poor, [period]
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now, [period]
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
No mention of the church or Israel in these literal words.
Psalm 12:
Help, Lord, for no one is faithful anymore;
those who are loyal have vanished from the human race. [establishing that these words are universal in nature - ALL the human race]
Everyone lies to their neighbor;
they flatter with their lips
but harbor deception in their hearts.
May the Lord silence all flattering lips
and every boastful tongue—
those who say,
“By our tongues we will prevail;
our own lips will defend us—who is lord over us?”
“Because the poor are plundered and the needy groan,
I will now arise,” says the Lord.
“I will protect them from those who malign them.”
NO mention of "the oppressed and poor OF ISRAEL ALONE..." in that text. IF that's what you're saying in these no doubt dozens or probably hundreds of passages, you're literally reading INTO the text something that is literally not there.
A helpful, apt resource...
https://overviewbible.com/oppression/
Consider this, from Deuteronomy:
"To the Lord your God belong the heavens,
even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.
Yet the Lord set his affection on your ancestors and loved them,
and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations—as it is today.
Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.
For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God,
mighty and awesome,
who shows no partiality and
accepts no bribes.
God defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and
loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.
And you are to love those who are foreigners,
for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt."
And, indeed, in this passage, God is clearly speaking specifically to Israel. But what does God tell Israel?
That God shows NO PARTIALITY, God defends the poor and fatherless and outsiders. Period.
IF God did that ONLY for the nation of Israel and some whimsical set of "others" (the church), then God would have lied, because God would be showing partiality. To say, "I show no partiality, EXCEPT FOR Israel..." then that WOULD be showing partiality.
I've never heard a Christian make this case. Are you sure you don't want to clarify and clearly reject this diabolical, foolish notion that God ONLY cares about the oppression of "God's people..."?
"I'm sure you'd agree Christ's teachings with regard how WE treat people may indeed represent a move to help "the marginalized/oppressed"."
I think that they do, but if one looks at the early church led by those who knew Jesus best, they certainly focused their charitable actions on those in the family (so to speak). We don't hear of them starting food pantries, or jobs programs, or much of anything for random people. I'm not saying that we shouldn't care for those in need, but I'm thinking that it's not as cut and dried as Dan thinks it is. Nor does it have anything to do with salvation.
"Are you suggesting that the Almighty Perfect God of perfect love and perfect justice DOES NOT CARE ABOUT SUFFERING PEOPLE WHO AREN'T Hebrew??"
No.
"Why is that a hard question?"
It's not.
"Are you suggesting otherwise?"
1. YHWH cares about all people.
2. YHWH clearly, biblically, has a special relationship with Israel, and The Church that He doesn't have with those who are not. This doesn't prevent people from becoming a part of The Church
"Why not answer the question that was put to you?"
You don't do so, therefore it's amusing that you hold me to a different standard than you hold yourself to. Of course, I choose to answer your questions anyway, just to make these inevitable accusations look stupid.
"Is it possible you recognize how evil that answer is? How it portrays your puny little god as a worthless, bullshit godling who doesn't really give a damn about justice or love?"
If I haven't answered the question, how can you characterize an answer that you claim doesn't exist? Do you understand how foolish you look by treating your imaginary hunches about my answers as if they are real and prejudging me?
"Answer the question."
Done.
Craig...
"Now, the question to YOU is: DO you agree that a perfectly loving, perfectly just ALMIGHTY God would of course be concerned about the oppression of ANY and ALL within humanity?"
1. I don't see any indication that YHWH limits His concern to only the "oppressed".
2. I do see that YHWH has indicated that He chose to engage in s special, unique, covenant relationship with Israel and The Church that He did not establish with any other groups.
3. I think that YHWH has a general concern for everyone, in the sense that He has offered salvation to "all". But that He shows special interests for those that have been adopted into His family and who are joint heirs to His kingdom.
"Or is your god some worthless ass-wipe?"
I would not refer to YHWH is such derogatory, dismissive, terms. I would never seek to impose my hunches about what YHWH is or does on Him.
"The Bible (and simple obvious reason) paints a very different image of the almighty God. Are you suggesting otherwise?"
I have no problem with the picture the Bible paints of YHWH. My problem is you insisting that your hunches about YHWH are equal to or more accurate than the full picture scripture paints.
"I'm wondering if it's possible that Craig actually thinks that God is ONLY concerned about the oppression of Israel (and later, the Church)? It's mind-bogglingly stupid opinion to hold... could Craig actually believe that crap?"
Then perhaps you should read what I write more closely, because the above bullshit is wrong.
"COULD it be...?"
Could it be that YHWH treats those He established a covenant with (Israel) and those who He refers to as adopted children (or as The Bride of Christ), differently than those who are not part of His covenant/familial relationships? Yes, it could be. Don't you treat your family differently than strangers?
Just because you have "noted" some unproven hunch that you have, there's no reason to believe that you hunch represents The Truth. You asserting something, doesn't make it True.
"So again, clearly, you could not POSSIBLY be trying to suggest that God isn't concerned about the oppression of any and all?"
No, I haven't ever said that. Which makes me wonder why you are so obsessed with attacking something I didn't say.
"And, indeed, in this passage, God is clearly speaking specifically to Israel. But what does God tell Israel?"
That Israel should treat the "foreigners" who live "within" the territory of Israel, with decency.
"That God shows NO PARTIALITY, God defends the poor and fatherless and outsiders. Period."
Well, if you say so then it must be True. Thanks for speaking for YHWH, I'm sure He appreciates your help.
"IF God did that ONLY for the nation of Israel and some whimsical set of "others" (the church), then God would have lied, because God would be showing partiality. To say, "I show no partiality, EXCEPT FOR Israel..." then that WOULD be showing partiality."
Yet YHWH did show partiality to His "chosen people". YHWH does show partiality to His Church. Even as limited, fallible human parents we show partiality to those in our family over those not in our family. I think your problem is that you do a simplistic, surface level, key word search for proof texts, and simply leave it at that.
"I've never heard a Christian make this case. Are you sure you don't want to clarify and clearly reject this diabolical, foolish notion that God ONLY cares about the oppression of "God's people..."?"
You've never heard me make that case, yet you insist that your guesses about what you'd like me to have meant represent what I actually said/meant.
I', not going to invest time in countering Dan's proof texts. Given his stance on much of the OT being myth and unreliable, I see no reason to think that he can demonstrate why these proof texts are reliable and should be taken in a wooden literal sense, while other similar passages should not. I see no reason, why the extensive passages detailing YHWH and his special, covenant, relationship with Israel should be ignored. Finally, I see no reason why I should blindly accept Dan's hunches about what YHWH might mean when He uses terms like "oppressed" and the like. I suspect that YHWH has a much larger and more complete view of things than Dan does, and I see no reason to blindly accept Dan's pronouncements just because he repeats them.
Craig...
"Given his stance on much of the OT being myth and unreliable..."
1. I have not said any of that. Period.
2. I do not think ONE single word of the OT is unreliable.
3. Indeed, I've been abundantly clear that I love biblical teaching and it's CLEAR, CONSISTENT teachings, rightly understood.
4. So your claim here is abundantly, stupidly false, another signal of your inability to understand the written word.
Which gets us right back to the actual point... I don't distrust, disbelieve or dismiss biblical teaching. I disagree with some humans and their clear misunderstanding of the written word and the written Word.
-Dan
Craig...
why these proof texts are reliable and should be taken in a wooden literal sense, while other similar passages should not. I see no reason, why the extensive passages detailing YHWH and his special, covenant, relationship with Israel should be ignored.
1. WHERE? WHERE have I said that passages that speak to God's "special, covenant, relationship with Israel" should be ignored?
Is it fair to say (it is) that you just made it up and have the intellectual integrity to admit I never said ANYTHING like that?
2. As you know, I don't say ANY passage should be taken woodenly literally simply because it's a passage from the Bible. Period. I've consistently argued against that.
Are you able to acknowledge that reality?
3. The REASON we should take biblical concerns about the oppressed that are raised throughout the pages of the Bible is simple God-given reasoning.
IF we believe in a perfectly loving, perfectly just God (and I do, I presume you do)
THEN it is obvious that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God is always concerned about oppression and abuse of the marginalized and poor, because why WOULDN'T a just, loving God be concerned about the abuse of the marginalized and poor - REGARDLESS of their hometown or parental lineage or religion.
REGARDLESS.
It's a logical given, IF one accepts the premise.
Do you agree?
Do you think that it's logically POSSIBLE that a perfectly loving, just God would NOT be concerned about the oppression of the poor and marginalized?
Use your head... read for understanding, not irrational fights and attempts to demonize.
Along those lines, Craig irrationally said...
I see no reason why I should blindly accept Dan's hunches about what YHWH might mean when He uses terms like "oppressed" and the like.
Why would we NOT assume that "poor" means poor, that "oppressed" means oppressed? Is there ANY rational, biblical reason why we should think that God or the biblical writers are making up some alternate, non-literal meaning for the word used?
Especially when the concern for the poor, oppressed and marginalized - ALL of them - is consistently found throughout the pages of all the books of the whole Bible.
Look, if we have a passage that is written in a clearly mythic style, where there is no reason to assume it's speaking of a literal history, in that case, we have rational, biblical reasons for thinking it probably isn't speaking of literal history. But in cases where someone says "oh, the poor are suffering, the hungry are dying, won't someone rise up and help!" and it continues in that vein, we have no reason to think "Wellllll, that might not mean literally poor and hungry..."
How is that irrational? Unbiblical?
Glaring deceit in Dan's comments:
1. "Oppression" is not defined or illustrated in order for Dan to truly make his point. As is his wont, he purposely remains as vague as possible, while asking questions demanding specific answers. In this he's like a lefty pollster who purposely words polling questions in a manner which forces agreement and compliance with lefty ideology.
Who are the oppressed of about whom Dan speaks? Well, it's not the poor because there's nothing we've ever said which suggests we support oppression of the materially poor in any way. How about Dan's beloved sexual perverts, "LGBTQ folk"? Yes. He means them mostly. But they are neither oppressed by Godly people rejecting their selfish perverse demands and agenda, anymore than a common criminal is rejected by the same people over the criminal's intentions and agenda. To Dan and those other sinners he enables, celebrates, defends and supports, they whine about being "oppressed" simply because their selfish immoral demands are righteously rejected. Disagreement is oppression to the sinful.
Another group are the "foreigners", as if any verse or passage in Scripture demands we subordinate our just immigration laws and also subordinate the welfare of our own people, to deny entry to those who intentionally enter contrary to our laws, ignoring our sovereign borders on the unproven premise of oppression somewhere else, when international law would oblige them to take refuge long before the get to OUR borders. But the vast majority of illegals invading our nation are not the "sojourners" reference in the OT. Those people were expected to abide the laws of Israel, just as we expect foreigners to abide ours. There was no "treating foreigners with decency" when they were acting in conflict with Israeli law.
So Dan again perverts Scripture to defend those who break American laws and those who break the laws of God and pretends God regards holding them accountable to laws and expectations of true and legitimate decency as "oppression". Dan like to regard our defense of the clearly revealed Word of God as our "hunches" or "human traditions". But he intentionally perverts Scripture in support of the immoral and the wicked. That is to say, his isn't even rightly called "hunches". They're straight up lies.
Finally, one can't speak truthfully at Dan's blog without being deleted as if one was insulting anyone or using rude and crude language. But look at the words he uses in relation to our devotion to God and His clearly revealed Will! And he dares to shame others!! What a rank hypocrite of the worst kind!
"1. WHERE? WHERE have I said that passages that speak to God's "special, covenant, relationship with Israel" should be ignored?"
No, you've just chosen to ignore those passages.
"Is it fair to say (it is) that you just made it up and have the intellectual integrity to admit I never said ANYTHING like that?"
No. It's fair to say that I simply look at your actions and draw rational conclusions.
"2. As you know, I don't say ANY passage should be taken woodenly literally simply because it's a passage from the Bible. Period. I've consistently argued against that.Are you able to acknowledge that reality?"
Sure, I can acknowledge that you've said something similar to that. Yet I can also acknowledge that you regularly take cherry picked passages in a woodenly literal sense when you offer them as proof texts, with no rhyme or reason as to why those cherry picked texts are to be taken woodenly literally as opposed to other texts.
"3. The REASON we should take biblical concerns about the oppressed that are raised throughout the pages of the Bible is simple God-given reasoning."
This literally makes no sense. That you are suggesting that the reason that there is value in Biblical teachings lies only in ourselves is simply one more example of you placing yourself as the ultimate authority (for yourself).
"IF we believe in a perfectly loving, perfectly just God (and I do, I presume you do)
THEN it is obvious that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God is always concerned about oppression and abuse of the marginalized and poor, because why WOULDN'T a just, loving God be concerned about the abuse of the marginalized and poor - REGARDLESS of their hometown or parental lineage or religion. REGARDLESS."
Yes, I am aware of the fact that you continue to assert this claim as if it's True or proven. The problem is that it hinges on how YOU choose to define the terms, and how YOU think that YHWH's concerns are demonstrated. The problem this leaves is that YOU haven't demonstrated that YOU are correctly interpreting the text, leaving us with YOU and YOUR hunches, not with anything substantive.
"It's a logical given, IF one accepts the premise. Do you agree?"
Yes, it's logical if one accepts YOUR premise that YOU have correctly interpreted the cherry picked passages and that YOUR hunches about those specific passages are correct. It also assumes that YOU have not pulled those passages out of context or chosen not to interpret those passages in light of the whole of scripture. In short, the problem isn't the cherry picked passeges you've offered as proof texts, the problem is you.
"Do you think that it's logically POSSIBLE that a perfectly loving, just God would NOT be concerned about the oppression of the poor and marginalized?"
The fact that you think that slightly rewording a question that I've already answered somehow makes it a new and unique question is silly, childish and absurd.
Use your head... read for understanding, not irrational fights and attempts to demonize.
"Why would we NOT assume that "poor" means poor, that "oppressed" means oppressed? Is there ANY rational, biblical reason why we should think that God or the biblical writers are making up some alternate, non-literal meaning for the word used?"
The problem is that we're not talking about what scripture says, we're talking about what YOU claim scripture says. You don't seem to be able to provide actual proof that your proof texts mean exactly what you say they mean. Scripture clearly uses terms like poverty, and the like to refer to our spiritual condition, yet you insist that it must always refer to our material condition. I don't recall many instances of the use of "oppressed", but you seem to have some interesting ways to define oppressed, so I'm not sure that helps. Again, my problem isn't with scripture, it's with your hunches about your cherry picked proof texts.
"How is that irrational? Unbiblical?"
I don't know how I'm supposed to call your hunches about some made up paraphrase of some unidentified scriptural passage is rational or biblical, because you haven't offered anything but your hunch disguised as a paraphrase.
But, of course, what the Bible actually says isn't my problem. It's what YOU claim that it means when you cherry pick texts as proof texts.
The problem with your "It's logical if...", is that YOU have given me no reason to accept your premise. You've offered nothing that would lead me to conclude that your ability to interpret scripture is more reliable than other people's. Because your entire "theology" rests on YOUR Reason and YOUR hunches.
Craig...
1. I don't see any indication that YHWH limits His concern to only the "oppressed".
sigh. When one reads the Bible or just uses their God-given reason in considering the world... when one reads the Bible, one finds hundreds of passages speaking of/warning against oppression and causing harm... to the poor, to foreigners, to widows, orphans, the "least of these..." the marginalized in general. Those who have been oppressed by the rich and powerful. It's throughout the Bible, just as a point of fact.
On the other hand, there is probably not ONE SINGLE VERSE where God or a godly person says, "Alas! But consider the awful trials and tribulations of the sad rich man who must suffer through such deprivation and torment in this life of ease he lives!"
Does the absence of even ONE place where God laments the plight of the rich some indication that God doesn't love the rich and well-off? The powerful and privileged? Does it mean that God even hates them?
That is not a reasonable conclusion.
In this world, quite often, the rich are doing just fine. If they're struggling, they have resources to get help. Now, as we know and as the Bible and reason indicate, of course the rich struggle. For one thing, they have the temptation of letting that power and privilege go to their head, to act as a trap to lure them into not caring about God or humanity. Nonetheless, they are in a position of privilege where they have resources to plug into getting help and making changes.
On the other hand, the poor, marginalized and oppressed do NOT have resources readily available to/for them. By definition, they are deprived of a lot AND have the reality of oppression that so readily happens to the poor and marginalized by virtue of being poor and marginalized.
So, when God, Jesus, the prophets and wise people in general remind us to side SPECIFICALLY with the poor, marginalized, least of these, it's reasonably because in societies and communities where the poor and marginalized have a/the primary attention and concern of the community, THEN that is where the most healthy communities will emerge, where the realm of God lives.
So, no one is saying that God ONLY cares about the poor and marginalized and oppressed. We are simply noting the REALITY that in the Bible, throughout the Bible, THESE are the ones God specifically identifies as who we should side with and support, because, as Jesus himself says, "When you've done for/with the least of these, you've done for/with me."
Why do YOU think biblical authors spend SO MUCH time mentioning the least of these and so very little or no time worrying about the wealthy and privileged?
Do you just ignore the reality of biblical passages throughout the Bible citing the least of these, the poor, marginalized, oppressed as insignificant? If so, why would you do that?
I'll note that your response regarding YHWH and His covenant, special relationship with Israel and The Church (which takes the role of Israel) never actually addressed my point and questions about it. You merely asserted that you haven't ignored this Biblical reality and moved on.
The Bible frequently uses imagery of marriage and family to describe the relationship YHWH has with Israel/The Church. He refers to Israel as His "chosen" people through whom salvation comes. He refers to The Church as "The Bride of Christ", individual believers are referred to as "sons, daughters, heirs" of/to YHWH and His kingdom. Given this, why would anyone assume that YHWH won't give additional favor to those in His family? Why would YHWH treat His "chosen" people in exactly the same way as all others?
Craig...
I don't recall many instances of the use of "oppressed", but you seem to have some interesting ways to define oppressed, so I'm not sure that helps.
Well, at least 133 times with the direct word "oppress..." as you can see here. Not to mention other words that convey similar ideas ("exploit," "take advantage," "cause to live in fear," "abuse," etc, etc)
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=oppress&version=NASB
This suggests to me one of the serious problems of modern white conservative religiosity: They spend so much time on emphasizing the importance of the Bible but somehow are able to completely MISS such a common (one of the most common) theme in the Bible. Indeed, how can one understand The Good News of God specifically for the poor and marginalized that Jesus spoke of if they don't understand how central opposition to oppression IS in the Gospel?
It does explain a lot.
I don't recall many instances of the use of "oppressed", but you seem to have some interesting ways to define oppressed, so I'm not sure that helps.
Oppress (from the KJV dictionary):
1. To load or burden with unreasonable impositions; to treat with unjust severity, rigor or hardship; as, to oppress a nation with taxes or contributions; to oppress one by compelling him to perform unreasonable service.
2. To overpower; to overburden; as, to be oppressed with grief."
From the Bible Study Tools website:
"oppress" is the rendering of katadunasteuo, "to exercise harsh control over one," "to use one's power against one."
Or just from dictionary.com:
Oppress: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
I don't mean anything at all unusual or out of the ordinary in my use of the word oppression. So, not sure what your concern is there.
In the Bible specifically, oppression typically/nearly universally is speaking of the abuse of power by the rich and powerful to cause harm, to abuse, to keep down specifically the poor, the sick, the widowed and orphaned, the foreigner and the otherwise marginalized.
Seriously: Are you not aware of how common a them Oppression is in the Bible? Or are you aware, at least, that the passages are there throughout the Bible, you just don't think that all of the people throughout church history who took them fairly literally because there was no reason not to are mistaken in our understanding and that "most" of the voluminous passages against oppression should be understood as a spiritual metaphor, and not just against the literally poor, sick and marginalized as literally spoken of?
John Wesley:
https://good-works.net/newsletters-articles-and-bible-studies/a-word-about-john-wesley-and-other-writings/
Dr King:
https://jsr.shanti.virginia.edu/back-issues/volume-15-no-1-march-2016-public-scripture/breaking-the-backbone-of-oppressive-power-martin-luther-king-jr-the-state-and-the-wrath-of-god/
etc, etc.
Craig...
Given this, why would anyone assume that YHWH won't give additional favor to those in His family?
Why would YHWH treat His "chosen" people in exactly the same way as all others?
Okay, given ALL of what you've said so far, I'm going to assume that these are sincere questions that you just truly aren't aware of the answers to. I'm going to assume that you are one of those who were nurtured by white conservative religionists who just ignored the wealth of the Bible's teachings on poverty and oppression.
Maybe I'll try to answer this more fully on my blog soon. But the short answer is:
God is a Good God. God is perfectly loving. God is perfectly just. God is not a monster. This is how the Bible speaks of God and, aside from the Bible, if you have a belief in a perfectly good, loving and just God, then, well, it is logical that such a God would act in a perfectly good, loving and just manner. Consistently. Across the board.
After all, a god that is only good and loving to some but who chooses to abuse and terrorize and hate the majority or even a minority of humanity, well, that's not reasonably a PERFECTLY good, loving and just God.
This is simply reasonable, right?
God will always act in perfectly good, loving and just ways. God is not changing in that regards.
Again, just reasonable, right?
If one gives "additional favor" to some but not to others, then that isn't perfectly loving or just. It's showing of preference to some that one isn't willing to give to others.
Now, within humanity, it is of course understandable that we can't love everyone perfectly, we can't look out for everyone perfectly and consistently. We are finite.
But IF we believe in an INFINITE, all-powerful God, then such a God would not have the same limitations that we have.
So, if there is a perfectly loving and just God, why would we assume that God plays favorites? ESPECIALLY when we're talking about something as basic as oppression and perverse, awful harm?
It's one thing if I have two children and maybe give extra effort to one of them when they're struggling that I don't give to the other who's currently doing fine. But that's the point, isn't it. The reasonable explanation for the concern for specifically the poor and oppressed in the Bible is that THEY are the ones needing extra care and support. IF we want to say that God plays favorites, biblically and reasonably speaking, it would be to those who are especially and currently in need.
How is that not reasonable?
How is that not biblical?
God's "chosen people," to the degree that maybe God "chooses people, one over the other," biblically speaking, are the poor and marginalized. Identified as such hundreds of times in the biblical pages, whereas "the elect" or "chosen" ARE mentioned in the Bible (primarily in terms of the oppressed people of Israel being chosen by God TO DEMONSTRATE God's concern for the oppressed and marginalized), just not as often.
This is just my quick, knee jerk answer, but may be worth a post on my blog.
Craig...
Given this, why would anyone assume that YHWH won't give additional favor to those in His family? Why would YHWH treat His "chosen" people in exactly the same way as all others?
Indeed, biblical authors regularly use ideas like family and children to describe God's concern for humanity. But here, I would just ask you a reasonable question:
If someone had two children and one was doing fine and one was struggling, would it NOT make sense that the parents and family would surround and give extra support specifically to the one who was struggling (while continuing to affirm the one doing fine - and if the second child is truly doing fine, well, of course, THEY are going to be wanting to support the sibling who is struggling).
Now, just from a human point of view: Don't you agree that the family should give extra support of a type that is needed to the struggling one? As Jesus noted:
"If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"
We innately know to give to our children what they need and we're imperfect humans.
BUT, on the other hand, what if we had those two children and deliberately turned our backs on the one who was struggling to just shower love and attention on the one who was doing okay... Would you call such a parent a loving parent?
If we imperfect humans recognize the need for giving to those in need, then isn't it only reasonable that a perfect, infinitely loving and just God would do so all the more!? Indeed, for a loving God to turn his back on the oppressed because, for instance, they were from the "wrong" tribe or family or religion, can such a god be called perfectly loving or just?
Consider the time that Jesus was schooled by the outsider woman - a hated pagan Canaanite woman!...
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out,
“Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
He replied,
“It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
[Day-um, Jesus! That's cold!! But what did this pagan woman say??]
“Yes it is, Lord,” she said.
“Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
[Man! That's hot! And fearless!! I guess Jesus really kicked her in the teeth at this uppity response, right? But, no...]
Then Jesus said to her,
“Woman, you have great faith!
Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
May we all recognize the humanity of ALL in need, not just those who we favor!
"Does the absence of even ONE place where God laments the plight of the rich some indication that God doesn't love the rich and well-off? The powerful and privileged? Does it mean that God even hates them?"
I'm not sure what you hope to gain with these questions as they are divorced from anything I've actually said. My point is, has been, and will be that YHWH is concerned about people without special regard to their circumstances.
"Why do YOU think biblical authors spend SO MUCH time mentioning the least of these and so very little or no time worrying about the wealthy and privileged?"
This is one of a number of things the Bible addresses, I see no reason to single out this one issue and make it the focus of one's theology. Why did Jesus spend so much time talking about "hell"?
"Do you just ignore the reality of biblical passages throughout the Bible citing the least of these, the poor, marginalized, oppressed as insignificant? If so, why would you do that?"
No.
Craig...
"This is one of a number of things the Bible addresses, I see no reason to single out this one issue and make it the focus of one's theology."
The reason is, if you miss the central theme of oppression and marginalization of people and the acceptance of the poor, the abused, the least of these, the marginalized, you may well miss the point of why Jesus told us he'd come to preach specifically GOOD NEWS to specifically THE POOR and marginalized.
It's like reading Harry Potter and ignoring any references to Voldemort ("Well, he's the one who should not be named, so let's just ignore him and enjoy the story without any reference to him and what he represented...")
It's kind of a critical point, I'd say. And it's NOT the focus of my theology, it's the reason WHY we need to embrace grace and side with the poor and marginalized. Otherwise, we live in a hellish world of might makes right and dogs eating dogs.
I want to choose life, love, grace, justice... God and God's Way. And it's therefore important to recognize what ISN'T God's ways, what is the antithesis of God's ways? Oppression, ignoring the least of these, THIS is the antithesis of God's Ways.
"Okay, given ALL of what you've said so far, I'm going to assume that these are sincere questions that you just truly aren't aware of the answers to. I'm going to assume that you are one of those who were nurtured by white conservative religionists who just ignored the wealth of the Bible's teachings on poverty and oppression."
Condescending much? I guess my asking the same thing finally convinced you to at least acknowledge the reality that you weren't answering the questions.
"God is a Good God. God is perfectly loving. God is perfectly just. God is not a monster. This is how the Bible speaks of God and, aside from the Bible, if you have a belief in a perfectly good, loving and just God, then, well, it is logical that such a God would act in a perfectly good, loving and just manner. Consistently. Across the board."
This is quite the hunch, too bad it doesn't align with what we find in scripture. Just more of YOU believing that YOUR Reason is the arbiter of what's Reasonable.
"After all, a god that is only good and loving to some but who chooses to abuse and terrorize and hate the majority or even a minority of humanity, well, that's not reasonably a PERFECTLY good, loving and just God."
That's an interesting example of YOU imposing YOUR judgement on actions attributed to YHWH and deciding that YOUR hunches are more correct.
"This is simply reasonable, right?"
Clearly it's Reasonable to YOU based on YOUR subjective, biased, standards for what's Reasonable.
"God will always act in perfectly good, loving and just ways. God is not changing in that regards. Again, just reasonable, right?"
Again the problem I have is with YOU and how you are imposing YOUR standards on YHWH.
"If one gives "additional favor" to some but not to others, then that isn't perfectly loving or just. It's showing of preference to some that one isn't willing to give to others."
Really? Are you really suggesting that YHWH would have given equal favor to Adolph Hitler and Corrie Ten Boom? That the scripture passages where YHWH is recorded as "hating" something or someone, really mean that He loves those things equally with all others?
"Now, within humanity, it is of course understandable that we can't love everyone perfectly, we can't look out for everyone perfectly and consistently. We are finite. But IF we believe in an INFINITE, all-powerful God, then such a God would not have the same limitations that we have."
Wow, talk about something that is so glaringly obvious that it didn't need to be said.
"So, if there is a perfectly loving and just God, why would we assume that God plays favorites? ESPECIALLY when we're talking about something as basic as oppression and perverse, awful harm?"
We wouldn't "assume" anything. We would look at His revelation through scripture and realize that YHWH is clearly revealed as having a special, unique relationship/covenant with Israel/The Church.
"It's one thing if I have two children and maybe give extra effort to one of them when they're struggling that I don't give to the other who's currently doing fine. But that's the point, isn't it. The reasonable explanation for the concern for specifically the poor and oppressed in the Bible is that THEY are the ones needing extra care and support. IF we want to say that God plays favorites, biblically and reasonably speaking, it would be to those who are especially and currently in need. How is that not reasonable?"
1. The problem with your example, is that we're not talking about two children. We're talking about the difference between how one treats their wife or children and how one treats strangers. It's ridiculous to think that you treat strangers with equal of greater favor than you do your family.
2. The problem with your hunch is that IF YHWH is more concerned with those who are materially poor and oppressed by humans, is that YHWH did nothing to eliminate these conditions. Earlier you indicated that YHWH is all powerful, yet how is it perfectly loving for this all powerful God to leave those about whom is is extra concerned in poverty and oppression? What's YHWH's plan to alleviate their suffering?
"How is that not biblical?"
Because it's your hunch.
"God's "chosen people," to the degree that maybe God "chooses people, one over the other," biblically speaking, are the poor and marginalized. Identified as such hundreds of times in the biblical pages, whereas "the elect" or "chosen" ARE mentioned in the Bible (primarily in terms of the oppressed people of Israel being chosen by God TO DEMONSTRATE God's concern for the oppressed and marginalized), just not as often."
Yet YHWH repeatedly identifies Israel as His "chosen" people, not just when they were oppressed, but throughout the entirety of the OT. But this is an interesting and creative hunch.
"This is just my quick, knee jerk answer, but may be worth a post on my blog."
I understand that it's easier to retreat to your blog where you have complete control, and have made it clear that I am not welcome. Or am only welcome if I jump through whatever random, capricious hoops you decide to impose.
Why did Jesus spend so much time talking about "hell"?
He mentions hell about seven times. Hardly a large part of his message. He talks about the poor and oppressed throughout the Gospels.
AND some of those times he mentions hell, it's in response to the grace-less way of the Pharisees, which is creating a hellish, grace-less oppressive world.
Again, if we fail to understand what Jesus is responding TO, then we may well miss the point of what he's saying.
"Indeed, biblical authors regularly use ideas like family and children to describe God's concern for humanity. But here, I would just ask you a reasonable question:"
What a strange response to the questions I asked you. You chose NOT to answer the questions asked, but instead to ask me a question.
"If someone had two children and one was doing fine and one was struggling, would it NOT make sense that the parents and family would surround and give extra support specifically to the one who was struggling (while continuing to affirm the one doing fine - and if the second child is truly doing fine, well, of course, THEY are going to be wanting to support the sibling who is struggling)."
Does it somehow (in the fantasy world you live in) make sense to reuse the same example in two consecutive comments without giving me the chance to respond? I pointed out the flaw in this example up above, and see no reason to waste more time with it.
"Now, just from a human point of view: Don't you agree that the family should give extra support of a type that is needed to the struggling one?"
1. Except in the case of YHWH, we're talking about how HE interacts with His "family" (sons/daughters/heirs/etc) as opposed to those who are not in His family.
2. Giving one child extra help in a specific circumstance is not showing more favor to that child than to anyone else in the family.
3. If your example is correct that YHWH is giving "extra support" to the materially poor and politically oppressed, then there are some questions that need to be answered.
A. Above you indicated that YHWH loves/favors/treats everyone equally because of His "perfect" love, yet now you argue that He treats some people with "extra support", which is it?
B. If one gives a specific child "extra support" doesn't one do this in order to help the child get through whatever is causing them to need extra help?
C. If the point of this "extra support" is to improve the plight of the materially poor or politically oppressed, then why doesn't the God you claim is "all powerful" eradicate poverty and oppression?
D. What about the people who are struggling with physical/mental/emotional problems, do they not get "extra support"? Are they not as important to YHWH?
I asked...
"God will always act in perfectly good, loving and just ways. God is not changing in that regards. Again, just reasonable, right?"
Craig responded...
Again the problem I have is with YOU and how you are imposing YOUR standards on YHWH.
I'm asking a question. A set of questions:
DO YOU BELIEVE GOD IS PERFECTLY LOVING AND PERFECTLY JUST? That THIS is God's nature?
DO YOU BELIEVE that a perfectly loving and just God will act in hateful, unjust ways?
DO YOU think, in your head, that God hates some people. Just randomly chooses, 'ya know? I really hate that Craig! No reason, I just hate him!' - do you think that's a possibility for a perfectly loving, perfectly just God?
And if you respond, "Well, maybe he hates some of us for our actions! I stole that cookie that one time, maybe THAT makes God hate me!" Do you think that it's rational for a perfectly loving and just God to hate one of God's children because they did something wrong? Because they were imperfect, even though they are, by nature, imperfect??
I had also asked...
After all, a god that is only good and loving to some but who chooses to abuse and terrorize and hate the majority or even a minority of humanity, well, that's not reasonably a PERFECTLY good, loving and just God.
This is simply reasonable, right?
And you responded...
Clearly it's Reasonable to YOU based on YOUR subjective, biased, standards for what's Reasonable.
I know it's reasonable to me. I'm asking YOU:
Do you think that a god that hates and terrorizes some portion of that god's creation, that god's children.. that such a god is not perfectly good or loving or just?
And yes, I'm aware that there are a handful of passages that refer to "God hating Esau" or someone else. But are such passages using imagery and hyperbole or otherwise context dependent or do you truly think that God just randomly chooses to hate and punish with torment for an eternity some subset of humans, of God's created children? Even a majority of humanity??
Saying, "Well there is that verse that I choose to take to mean that God literally hates some people and chooses to torment them for an eternity at God's whim..." is just telling me that, to you, rationally, YOU think that yes, it's reasonable that a perfectly loving and just god will choose to hate some people just because.
It's why I'm asking the questions, to get your answers.
"Would you call such a parent a loving parent?"
Given the lack of detail in your hypothetical, I have no way to answer in any specific way.
It's fascinating that you think that Jesus (the son of YHWH, the one who was completely equal to YHWH,) was "schooled". It's equally amusing that you ignore what He said was the most important factor. You are assuming that she was "poor" and/or "oppressed", while the text is silent on the matter. Yet, Jesus didn't alleviate her poverty or release her from oppression He healed her daughter. What's interesting is that Jesus was responding by quoting scripture, and that she responded by also quoting scripture. But even all of that ignores the fact that Jesus clearly knew more about this woman and faith, than what was on the surface.
Yet again, the problem isn't with the scriptures, it's with you reading your biases, presumptions, and assumptions into the scripture to use texts out of context in order to buttress your pretext.
"I'm asking a question. A set of questions"
In the case you pointed out, you made a simple declarative statement that was presented as a fact, then asked a question about that statement.
"DO YOU BELIEVE GOD IS PERFECTLY LOVING AND PERFECTLY JUST? That THIS is God's nature?"
Yes.
"DO YOU BELIEVE that a perfectly loving and just God will act in hateful, unjust ways?"
No.
"DO YOU think, in your head, that God hates some people."
No. Even though this isn't actually a question, I'll treat it as one.
"Just randomly chooses, 'ya know? I really hate that Craig! No reason, I just hate him!' - do you think that's a possibility for a perfectly loving, perfectly just God?"
No.
"Do you think that it's rational for a perfectly loving and just God to hate one of God's children because they did something wrong?"
By what objective standard of rationality are you proposing that YHWH's actions be measured? But no.
"Because they were imperfect, even though they are, by nature, imperfect??"
No.
"After all, a god that is only good and loving to some but who chooses to abuse and terrorize and hate the majority or even a minority of humanity, well, that's not reasonably a PERFECTLY good, loving and just God."
Again, this isn't a question, it's a statement presented as if it's proven to be factual. It's based on YOUR subjective standards regarding what's rations, good, loving, and just.
"This is simply reasonable, right?"
This is a question. It's a question about YOUR hunch expressed in the statement above. It's not a question about YHWH.
"And you responded...
Clearly it's Reasonable to YOU based on YOUR subjective, biased, standards for what's Reasonable."
Yes, I did answer your question that way. I did so because that's my answer.
"I know it's reasonable to me. I'm asking YOU:"
I know you were, that's why I answered.
"Do you think that a god that hates and terrorizes some portion of that god's creation, that god's children.. that such a god is not perfectly good or loving or just?"
But this isn't the question you asked before, this is you reformatting your statement as a question. My answer to this new question is, no.
"do you truly think that God just randomly chooses to hate and punish with torment for an eternity some subset of humans, of God's created children? Even a majority of humanity??"
I'll ignore your attempt to explain away the texts you mentioned, and answer your question.
No.
"It's why I'm asking the questions, to get your answers."
Which is why I answer your questions.
Craig...
"It's fascinating that you think that Jesus (the son of YHWH, the one who was completely equal to YHWH,) was "schooled""
It's literally what the text says. Now, I'm also open to the idea that Jesus was setting up this woman to teach his followers.
But It's fascinating that you think that Jesus (the son of YHWH, the one who was completely equal to YHWH AND who was also fully human) couldn't learn from others.
Dan
Dan's questions are really moronic. They begin with the falseness of a vague notion about which no one would disagree:
""God will always act in perfectly good, loving and just ways. God is not changing in that regards. Again, just reasonable, right?""
Dan begins with this grade school-level question in order to establish he's "reasonable". It devolves quickly after that, as he asks nonsensical questions which in no way suggest anything so much as mistakenly hinted at by either of us...or anyone else who isn't a moronic lefty seeking to rationalize bad behavior.
He continues with this crap about "oppression", and includes some of the most immoral people around among the "oppressed". His citations of Scripture refer to no one like those Dan defends. He references the poor as if there's anyone actually "oppressing" them outside of himself for having voted for a moron whose fiscal and tax policies, as well as other policies, have contributed to insanely higher costs with which the low income among us struggle so mightily.
No. As I said earlier, Dan's citations are his false attempt to pretend God would abhor what Dan and his ilk regard as "oppression", which is no more than a rebuke of the immorality he and his enabled demand the rest of us accept and tolerate as if it was no different than a Christian man and his Christian wife living a life devoted to each other as God intended. He did NOT intend that two of the same sex unite in a union they falsely label "marriage", nor did He intend that a man should dress as or surgically alter his body to appear as one of the opposite sex. He does not intend that the rest of us should abide such perversion lest some Louisville fake Christian accuse us of "oppression" for refusing to abide disorder and perversion.
I've touched on other ne'er-do-wells Dan pretends are "oppressed" and won't belabor the point. The main thing here is as usual, Dan's dishonesty and perversion of Scripture to perpetuate it.
It would be one thing if Dan was defending people who struggle and sometimes succumb to temptation. But the fact is Dan is defending people who openly, eagerly and proudly engage in clearly immoral or illegal behavior, and Dan pretends those like us are somehow "oppressing" them for refusing to put up with it. He'll have to come up with an actual intelligent argument on their behalf rather than this lame bullshit he puts forth as "reason". Shame on Dan for his eagerness to elevate sinfulness. He's truly a fake Christian.
Dan,
I just checked the text, and it does NOT say that she "literally" "schooled" Jesus. I appears that Jesus first comment was addressed to His disciples. As I noted, both Jesus' statement about giving food to dogs, as well as her statement about table scraps, refer back to scripture.
Finally, He was very clear that it was her FAITH, that was the most important factor in His answering of her request. Nowhere is there any reference to her economic status or whether or not she was "oppressed". She clearly was familiar with the Jewish scripture and approached Jesus is sincere need. The fact that Jesus might have used the interaction as a teaching tool for His disciples is certainly consistent with other instances where He engaged in a miraculous healing.
What I realized over the weekend was how interesting it is that Dan is insisting that YHWH must treat everyone equally and that He doesn't show favoritism towards anyone. Yet, Dan is simultaneously insisting that YHWH shows unequal favor towards the poor/oppressed over all others. It seems strange that anyone could argue both sides of a controversy simultaneously.
That's our Dan. This is a guy who speak of "rationality", "reason" and "justice" but doesn't seem to understand any of these concepts given his long history of proving otherwise. It's a pattern which he exposes on any number of topics and in speaking on any number of concepts. Yet, it's always us in need of humility, open-mindedness and understanding. Ah, to suffer and endure condescension from the intellectually and spiritually inferior! Dan "oppresses" us in this manner routinely!
I just checked the text, and it does NOT say that she "literally" "schooled" Jesus.
She literally corrected Jesus. He was saying, "I can't give bread to dogs." She said, "yes, you can (appealing to the Love of a perfectly loving God, by the by)!" And he relented, thereby acknowledging SHE was right, he COULD "give to the dogs..." and indeed, he'd be wrong NOT to. Period.
Now, again, I think it's entirely possible - likely maybe - that Jesus was setting her up to teach a lesson to his followers about the nature of WHO we are to love (everyone - even pagans and the enemies, which is consistent with Jesus' teachings). But why are you so confounded that Jesus who was also a human man (according to our traditions, and indeed, he called himself the Son of Man) might learn from another human?
What I realized over the weekend was how interesting it is that Dan is insisting that YHWH must treat everyone equally and that He doesn't show favoritism towards anyone. Yet, Dan is simultaneously insisting that YHWH shows unequal favor towards the poor/oppressed over all others.
First of all, I don't believe that I ever said God must treat everyone equally. That would be another instance of you reading words and finding meaning that literally wasn't there.
What I'm saying is that a perfectly loving and just God would reasonably whimsically condemn some portion because they weren't his "favorites" to eternity of torture, just because. The point being, playing favorites to give benefits to some while deliberately choosing others to inflict grievous harm (eternal torture!) is not consistent with a perfectly loving, just God.
On the other hand, noting that we should especially watch out for/side with the "least of these" is literally what we find throughout the pages of the Bible and WHY would that be? Perhaps because when the poor, marginalized and oppressed are looked out for, then EVERYONE is looked out for. IF we're setting up systems, policies, procedures and personal preferences so we are deliberately and specifically looking out for the needs of the least of these (again, as is clearly biblical, clearly literally Jesus' teaching), then that's setting a baseline that means ALL will be treated fairly/well.
We must NOT treat everyone "equally" (ie, literally the same). The blind student and the sighted student who are given a test on a written paper, they've been treated literally equally, but NOT fairly or reasonably.
Understand the difference. Again, I'm NOT saying that God says everyone must be treated equally. Your words, not mine.
Regardless, you're comparing apples and rotten horse manure.
I had said...
God is perfectly just. God is not a monster. This is how the Bible speaks of God and, aside from the Bible, if you have a belief in a perfectly good, loving and just God, then, well, it is logical that such a God would act in a perfectly good, loving and just manner.
And I just noticed you responded...
This is quite the hunch, too bad it doesn't align with what we find in scripture.
What? You don't think that Scripture speaks of God as perfectly loving and perfectly just?? You don't think that Scripture (and reason) suggests that a perfect God would act in a perfectly loving and just manner??
WHAT doesn't align with Scripture?
"She literally corrected Jesus. He was saying, "I can't give bread to dogs." She said, "yes, you can (appealing to the Love of a perfectly loving God, by the by)!""
Actually she was appealing to Jewish scripture, by the by. Again, the text doesn't indicate "corrected or schooled". It's like you think that this woman somehow got the better of Jesus as if He wasn't aware of either Jewish scripture or of this woman's history and attitude.
"And he relented, thereby acknowledging SHE was right, he COULD "give to the dogs..." and indeed, he'd be wrong NOT to. Period."
When you end a hunch with "period", it's like you're trying to pretend that your hunch is beyond disagreement. Yet, as we know about Jesus, Hr frequently responded to people in certain ways because He was trying to make a point. Frequently, that point was aimed at His disciples. Further, when you say that He "relented", you are assuming that His original intent was not to heal her child, and that she bested Him in a contest of wits and He was so impressed by her intellectual acumen that He simply gave up and did what she asked. It's like you think that someone who has the power to miraculously heal this woman's child was confounded by her logic. Bizarre. Unless, of course, you would suggest that He didn't miraculously heal the child but actually just brought the child medicinal herbs or something.
"Now, again, I think it's entirely possible - likely maybe - that Jesus was setting her up to teach a lesson to his followers about the nature of WHO we are to love (everyone - even pagans and the enemies, which is consistent with Jesus' teachings)."
Because He certainly wasn't trying to teach them anything by miraculously healing the child or anything. Where in the text does it specify that the Jesus acted from "love"? Where does the text say explicitly that she was a "pagan"? She certainly had some knowledge of Jewish scripture. Canaanite is an ethnicity/nationality not a religious identifier?
1. The title of the section is "The Faith of the Canaanite woman".
2. Nowhere in the passage does it give any indication that this woman was poor or oppressed.
3. She refers to Him as "Lord". The Greek word used is Kyrios, which is used 7000 times in the Hebrew scriptures and is the word used for YHWH, and 240 times in the NT usually referring to Jesus.
4. Jesus' response explains His reason for healing her child. “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”. How many pagans have "great faith"?
5. Why wouldn't He have indicated if His healing of her child was motivated by her poverty or oppression?
"But why are you so confounded that Jesus who was also a human man (according to our traditions, and indeed, he called himself the Son of Man) might learn from another human?"
I'm not. FYI "Son of Man" is a term that refers to Christ's deity, not His humanity. It's almost like you're choosing to set aside His deity.
"First of all, I don't believe that I ever said God must treat everyone equally. That would be another instance of you reading words and finding meaning that literally wasn't there."
No, you insisted that YHWH doesn't have favorites, or doesn't favor certain people/groups over others.
"What I'm saying is that a perfectly loving and just God would reasonably whimsically condemn some portion because they weren't his "favorites" to eternity of torture, just because. The point being, playing favorites to give benefits to some while deliberately choosing others to inflict grievous harm (eternal torture!) is not consistent with a perfectly loving, just God."
So, why do I care that you are saying that? It's not like it's demonstrably, objectively True or something.
"On the other hand, noting that we should especially watch out for/side with the "least of these" is literally what we find throughout the pages of the Bible and WHY would that be? Perhaps because when the poor, marginalized and oppressed are looked out for, then EVERYONE is looked out for. IF we're setting up systems, policies, procedures and personal preferences so we are deliberately and specifically looking out for the needs of the least of these (again, as is clearly biblical, clearly literally Jesus' teaching), then that's setting a baseline that means ALL will be treated fairly/well."
Yes, you've been quite clear that you believe that YHWH treats the poor and oppressed in a different way than everyone else, that Jesus came with a special gospel for the poor and oppressed. You literally used the term "extra help" as a way to describe how YHWH treats the poor and oppressed.
"We must NOT treat everyone "equally" (ie, literally the same). The blind student and the sighted student who are given a test on a written paper, they've been treated literally equally, but NOT fairly or reasonably."
We're mot YHWH. Again with something that didn't need to be said yet you felt compelled to say it.
"Understand the difference. Again, I'm NOT saying that God says everyone must be treated equally. Your words, not mine."
I'll quote your words later.
"Regardless, you're comparing apples and rotten horse manure."
Yes, your hunches on this do have a certain rotten horse manure scent about them.
"What? You don't think that Scripture speaks of God as perfectly loving and perfectly just??"
Among other things, yes it does. I'm just not sure that your hunches about how those things play out are in exact alignment with YHWH's
"You don't think that Scripture (and reason) suggests that a perfect God would act in a perfectly loving and just manner??""
As usual, my problem isn't with scripture, it's with how you eisegete scripture.
"WHAT doesn't align with Scripture?"
Your hunches about what YHWH's justice and love look like.
Your objection seems to be with me pointing out that YHWH has a special/unique/different relationship/covenant with Israel/The Church, than He does with those not referred to as His "chosen people/bride/heirs/sons/daughters". Even though this language permiates the entirety of scripture.
"Or do you recognize the reasonable conclusion that a perfectly good, perfectly loving, perfectly just God is concerned about any and all oppression of poor, oppressed and marginalized people?"
Are you not suggesting that YHWH is equally concerned about all of the "poor and oppressed"? That YHWH is more concerned about all of the "poor and oppressed" than HE is about Israel/The Church?
"Do you truly think that it is reasonable that for a perfectly loving and just God, that such a God would ONLY be concerned about oppressed Israelites?"
1. I'm arguing that YHWH is MORE concerned about those who have been adopted into His family (Israel/The Church), than about those who have not.
2. This question clearly implies that it's wrong to believe that YHWH is not equally concerned about ALL of the "poor/oppressed".
"There is ONE rational, biblical and obvious answer to that question:
IF there is a perfectly loving, perfectly just God
THEN of course that God is concerned about oppression of ALL oppressed people"
I didn't pull the whole quote here, but since this is in response to my comment that YHWH interacts differently with those He has a special/unique/covenant relationship with it seems reasonable that you might disagree with that Biblical premise.
"But I DO consider ANYONE who says they have a puny loveless godling wimp-shit that doesn't care about justice for all and who doesn't care about the oppressed, well, THAT godling isn't worth the effort to use it as toilet paper. THAT would be a useful, pathetic, hateful god-vomit."
I could continue to post quote after quote of your exact words to hammer home my point, but I see no reason to. It seems quite clear that you object to the notion that YHWH has as special/unique/covenant relationship with His "chosen" people. A theme that runs through scripture from Genesis to Revelation (alpha to omega), a theme echoed by Jesus Himself. You seem quite clear that YHWH must treat "all of the poor and oppressed" with equal concern, and that if He doesn't do so, then you're going to slander Him as above.
I'd be curious how you explain the language of YHWH entering into a covenant with Israel. I'd be curious as to how you'd explain the language where The Church is referred to as "The Bride of Christ", or where those who follow YHWH are referred to as "adopted children, heirs, sons/daughters of YHWH", and why would YHWH not treat those in His "family" differently than those who are not in His family.
I doubt I'll ever know the answers to those, but I can hope.
""Regardless, you're comparing apples and rotten horse manure.""
More rude and disrespectful language from Dan which would get us deleted if it came from our virtual mouths at his blog.
"I'm just not sure that your hunches about how those things play out are in exact alignment with YHWH's"
I've been saying this for years when Dan insists how "Christian" he is.
""But I DO consider ANYONE who says they have a puny loveless godling wimp-shit that doesn't care about justice for all and who doesn't care about the oppressed, well, THAT godling isn't worth the effort to use it as toilet paper. THAT would be a useful, pathetic, hateful god-vomit.""
More rude and disrespectful language from Dan which would get us deleted if it came from our virtual mouths at his blog.
I'd like to see how Dan supports the implication that God would accept into eternal reward the poor and oppressed who never accepted Him/Jesus. If he can't do that, then it's clear God doesn't treat everyone the same based upon their material wealth and suffering as oppressed people.
"Your objection seems to be with me pointing out that YHWH has a special/unique/different relationship/covenant with Israel/The Church, than He does with those not referred to as His "chosen people/bride/heirs/sons/daughters"
God refers to the poor, marginalized and least of these as his beloved children or even as God's own Self. (What you do for the least of these, you do for me.)
I don't know that there's any huge point in theorizing about the exact nature of the church, Israel or the least of these. They are all beloved by God and mentioned specifically throughout the Bible, except for the church.
If a loving Creator God loves all of Creation, then what do we get from theorizing about an "extra-special relationship with you, girl..."
I'd say the point of God's "choosing" the small, oft-oppressed nation of Israel is to emphasize, once again, God's special concern for the poor and marginalized... whoever they are. As Jewish thinkers will often tell us, the point of the chosen people is to be a blessing to ALL the world.
"Are you not suggesting that YHWH is equally concerned about all of the "poor and oppressed"?"
It's not a race or contest. God, Jesus and the prophets make it clear throughout the Bible that God has a special concern for the poor and marginalized. Do you disagree?
"That YHWH is more concerned about all of the "poor and oppressed" than HE is about Israel/The Church?"
It's not a race or contest. God, Jesus and the prophets make it clear throughout the Bible that God has a special concern for the poor and marginalized. Do you disagree?
Dan
"I'd be curious how you explain the language of YHWH entering into a covenant with Israel"
I believe I already have. God chose Israel NOT because Israel was the biggest, best and most beautiful. Scriptures regularly point out that Israel was small and weak and oft-oppressed. This is a continuation of the theme of God siding with the poor and oppressed, to be a blessing to ALL nations.
Dan
I'd be curious how you explain the language of YHWH entering into a covenant with Israel.
I believe God entered into a covenant with Israel?
I'd be curious as to how you'd explain the language where The Church is referred to as "The Bride of Christ",
I believe the writers used the imagery of a bride and groom to figuratively describe the church and Jesus relationship? I don't think they're actually married, if that's what you're asking.
or where those who follow YHWH are referred to as "adopted children, heirs, sons/daughters of YHWH",
I believe the writers used the imagery of a adoption to figuratively describe the church and Jesus relationship? I don't think they're actually God's literal children, created with Godsperm, if that's what you're asking.
and why would YHWH not treat those in His "family" differently than those who are not in His family.
Well, those are all figurative terms to describe how God loves all of humanity and is reaching out to save all of humanity, like a shepherd gathering sheep so that not even one is lost (but I don't think that Jesus is actually a shepherd or that we're actually sheep, that would be more imagery).
I don't know what you're asking. Those are ALL ideas/images that the Bible speaks of to figuratively refer to God's relationship with some in humanity. And I think they're perfectly fine images. The point, however, is always to be a blessing to the whole world, not a group of elites and a much larger group of people created to be tortured.
On the other hand, the repeated calls from God to side with and support/be an ally to the poor and marginalized are LITERAL descriptions of what God expects from humanity, to become a literal beloved community.
In other words, I don't deny ANY of those descriptions as being part of biblical text. Do you deny the literal teachings of aiding/siding with the literal poor and marginalized as a central, common biblical teaching?
Do I think that God has favorites? No. I don't think that's rational, and I don't think that is biblical.
and why would YHWH not treat those in His "family" differently than those who are not in His family.
Are you saying it is your belief that God treats those in God's figurative family differently than other schmucks? How so?
Do you think God loves Christians and Jews more than God loves atheists and Muslims? Where is your data to prove that?
Craig...
You seem quite clear that YHWH must treat "all of the poor and oppressed" with equal concern, and that if He doesn't do so, then you're going to slander Him as above.
What I had said...
"But I DO consider ANYONE who says they have a puny loveless godling wimp-shit that doesn't care about justice for all and who doesn't care about the oppressed, well, THAT godling isn't worth the effort to use it as toilet paper. THAT would be a useful, pathetic, hateful god-vomit."
Yes, I DO believe that a PERFECTLY LOVING, PERFECT JUST God who doesn't care about justice for all, or for the oppressed and marginalized to be a useless demigod. Do you actually disagree? HOW does a perfectly just God NOT care about Justice for all? Doesn't that become a god that ISN'T perfectly just, by definition?
"I believe I already have. God chose Israel NOT because Israel was the biggest, best and most beautiful. Scriptures regularly point out that Israel was small and weak and oft-oppressed. This is a continuation of the theme of God siding with the poor and oppressed, to be a blessing to ALL nations."
Excellent job of twisting the narrative to support your hunch. But your response ignores the actual question. IF YHWH did enter into a covenant with Israel, then (by definition) He was treating Israel differently/better than any other people group.
You can make up reasons why you think this is the case, but it still doesn't get you past the fact that your literally arguing that YHWH doesn't have anyone EH especially favors, while arguing that HE especially favors the poor/oppressed.
"God refers to the poor, marginalized and least of these as his beloved children or even as God's own Self. (What you do for the least of these, you do for me.)"
That's incredibly creative eisegesis, even by your standards of eisegesis.
"I don't know that there's any huge point in theorizing about the exact nature of the church, Israel or the least of these. They are all beloved by God and mentioned specifically throughout the Bible, except for the church."
Of course you don't. Because it might lead to your cherished hunches being undermined. The problem is that scripture is pretty clear on the fact that YHWH's special/covenant relationship with Israel became His relationship with The Church. There's no need to theorize, it's pretty clear.
"If a loving Creator God loves all of Creation, then what do we get from theorizing about an "extra-special relationship with you, girl...""
Again, it's not theorizing. But this is a creative way to dodge the question and the implications of YHWH having a unique/covenant relationship with Israel/The Church.
"I'd say the point of God's "choosing" the small, oft-oppressed nation of Israel is to emphasize, once again, God's special concern for the poor and marginalized... whoever they are. As Jewish thinkers will often tell us, the point of the chosen people is to be a blessing to ALL the world."
Well, since you won't demonstrate this hunch with any direct, unequivocal scriptural support, I can honestly say that I don't care what your hunches might be. Your hunches literally have zero value to anyone other than yourself.
"It's not a race or contest. God, Jesus and the prophets make it clear throughout the Bible that God has a special concern for the poor and marginalized. Do you disagree?"
Excellent job. Don't answer the question asked, while taking on your meaningless "Do you disagree?" idiocy. Yes, I disagree with your hunch as you haven't proven that it's anything more than a creation of your own mind.
It's not a race or contest. God, Jesus and the prophets make it clear throughout the Bible that God has a special concern for the poor and marginalized. Do you disagree?
Excellent job. Don't answer the question asked, while taking on your meaningless "Do you disagree?" idiocy. Yes, I disagree with your hunch as you haven't proven that it's anything more than a creation of your own mind.
"I believe God entered into a covenant with Israel?"
More evidence that Dan has problems with some basic English language concepts. Like how to property format a question.
"I believe the writers used the imagery of a bride and groom to figuratively describe the church and Jesus relationship? I don't think they're actually married, if that's what you're asking."
Excellent job of combining a non answer, with a snarky comment, well done. Not particularly informative of helpful, but impressive in the execution of the non answer.
Although the fact that you chose this evasive and obfucatroy way to respond, reinforces my conclusion that the very notion of YHWH having a unique/special/covenant relationship with anyone is a notion that doesn't fit with your narrative.
"I believe the writers used the imagery of a adoption to figuratively describe the church and Jesus relationship? I don't think they're actually God's literal children, created with Godsperm, if that's what you're asking."
Again, excellent job of appearing to answer a question, yet doing so in a way that artfully combines snark, obfuscation, petulance, and stupidity.
"Well, those are all figurative terms to describe how God loves all of humanity and is reaching out to save all of humanity, like a shepherd gathering sheep so that not even one is lost (but I don't think that Jesus is actually a shepherd or that we're actually sheep, that would be more imagery)."
What an interesting, bizarre, hunch that isn't supported by scripture. But more evidence that you are at least a functional universalist, if not an admitted universalist. The problem with you hiding behind this vague "figurative" bullshit, is that you seem to think that as long as you label something "figurative" that you don't have to provide an explanation of what the figurative language means. Of course, in this case, you would have to start by demonstrating with 100% certainty that the language of "heirs/adopted/sons/daughters etc actually is figurative. Which you wouldn't do even if you could.
"I don't know what you're asking. Those are ALL ideas/images that the Bible speaks of to figuratively refer to God's relationship with some in humanity. And I think they're perfectly fine images. The point, however, is always to be a blessing to the whole world, not a group of elites and a much larger group of people created to be tortured."
Of course you don't. Because if you did, then you wouldn't be able to turn everything into a repetition of your hunches.
You've already answered my question (although not explicitly or intentionally). You are quite clear that YHWH does have a special/unique relationship with a subgroup of humanity where He shows more favor to them than others. You just insist that that favored status comes from ones economic/political position.
"In other words, I don't deny ANY of those descriptions as being part of biblical text. Do you deny the literal teachings of aiding/siding with the literal poor and marginalized as a central, common biblical teaching?"
Yes, I deny your hunch that the poor/oppressed have their own special "gospel" or "savior". I deny that the non poor/oppressed are not saved by how they treat the poor/oppressed. My problem isn't with what scripture says, its' with what you claim it says.
"Do I think that God has favorites? No. I don't think that's rational, and I don't think that is biblical."
The fact that you can say this with a straight face after repeatedly saying that the poor/oppressed have their own "gospel", that YHWH gives them "special help", and the like would be hilarious if if wasn't so pathetic.
"Are you saying it is your belief that God treats those in God's figurative family differently than other schmucks? How so?"
Yes. In the same types of ways that you treat your family differently than you treat those not in your family.
"Do you think God loves Christians and Jews more than God loves atheists and Muslims? Where is your data to prove that?"
No. Different isn't the same as more.
"Yes, I DO believe that a PERFECTLY LOVING, PERFECT JUST God who doesn't care about justice for all, or for the oppressed and marginalized to be a useless demigod."
I always love how you cherry pick one thing that you've said as if it's representative of everything that you've said or as if that one comment negates all previous and subsequent comments.
"Do you actually disagree?"
Yes, I have the temerity to disagree with your hunches about YHWH.
"HOW does a perfectly just God NOT care about Justice for all?"
There would seem to be three options for YHWH.
1. Justice for everyone.
2. Mercy for everyone.
3. Justice for some, mercy for some.
If you beileve that # 1 is the right answer, then YHWH's justice depends on our actions.
If you believe #2, then YHWH gives mercy to everyone, which would indicate that there is no justice.
If you believe #3, then that seems like the closest to what we see in scripture.
I suspect that the problem arises around what justice means and what YHWH's justice looks like.
"Doesn't that become a god that ISN'T perfectly just, by definition?"
No.
Is it your hunch that justice is the opposite of mercy? Maybe if you provided your opinion about what justice means, because you appear to be using a non-standard definition.
Here are some standard definitions of justice...
Justice is the ethical, philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably by the law and by arbiters of the law, that laws are to ensure that no harm befalls another, and that, where harm is alleged, a remedial action is taken - both the accuser and the accused receive a morally right consequence merited by their actions...
the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments...
Biblical references to the word “justice” mean “to make right.” Justice is, first and foremost, a relational term — people living in right relationship with God, one another, and the natural creation. From a scriptural point of view, justice means loving our neighbor as we love ourselves and is rooted in the character and nature of God. As God is just and loving, so we are called to do justice and live in love.
There would seem to be three options for YHWH.
1. Justice for everyone.
2. Mercy for everyone.
3. Justice for some, mercy for some.
Why does it seem that way to you? Why not justice and mercy for all? Because you think finding that balance is tricky?
If you believe #3, then that seems like the closest to what we see in scripture.
It may be what you see, but not everyone would agree with your opinion. It IS just your opinion, right?
Dan
In the same types of ways that you treat your family differently than you treat those not in your family.
Well, that's a relief! I mean, I'm a mere mortal and imperfect man, but even I wouldn't torture those not in my family for an eternity, so I guess you're thinking God also won't torture those in the wrong family for an eternity?
Dan
"Is it your hunch that justice is the opposite of mercy? Maybe if you provided your opinion about what justice means, because you appear to be using a non-standard definition."
What I find in scripture is that Justice is predicated on the actions of the person being judged. That one is given the reward or punishment in direct proportion to the actions committed. Mercy is given without regard to the actions one does. Justice is getting what we deserve, mercy is getting what is not deserved.
I guess it's good to know that you have the ability to copy/paste, now if you'd just use it more often instead of claiming that I said things that I didn't.
Was your listing of definitions of justice an attempt to imply that YHWH is bound to dispense justice exactly according to those definitions?
"Why does it seem that way to you?"
Because I've read scripture.
"Why not justice and mercy for all?"
Because that's impossible. How does showing mercy to Hitler, demonstrate justice?
Are you really suggesting that YHWH will ultimately have "mercy" on everyone to the extent that they will spend eternity in His presence?
"Because you think finding that balance is tricky?"
No.
"It may be what you see, but not everyone would agree with your opinion. It IS just your opinion, right?"
It's my conclusion. I'm saying that as I read scripture, that is what I've found. I'm saying that as I've gone beyond scripture, to what others find in scripture, I find a significant amount of agreement with my conclusions. Buf it makes you feel superior to call it an opinion, I wouldn't want to harm your self esteem.
I'll note that you haven't offered a rational fourth option.
"Well, that's a relief! I mean, I'm a mere mortal and imperfect man, but even I wouldn't torture those not in my family for an eternity, so I guess you're thinking God also won't torture those in the wrong family for an eternity?"
If making false assumptions about my views helps you feel better, then I guess I can't stop you. It's amusing that you'll immediately go to these lengths to ignore the fact that any other answer doesn't help your hunch that YHWH gives "extra" help and has a special "gospel" for the poor/oppressed that the rest of us don't know about.
It's always amusing when folx like you who are in the top 5% of global wealth, who live in and take advantages of a country that you claim was totally built on oppression, try to put on this act.
WHat's amazing to me is that literally all it would take for you to demonstrate the superiority of your hunches would be to offer direct, unequivocal, specific, examples of Biblical support for your position (you'd need to be nore specific in defining your position as well). That's it. If you could only clear that small hurdle, these discussions would be over, because you'd be right.
Dan,
Just to disabuse you of your false conclusions. I find that scripture does support the conclusion that there are degrees of reward in "Heaven", and degrees of punishment in "Hell".
I'm using "" around Heaven and Hell because I personally find them to be terms with too much baggage, and that the baggage makes it difficult to discuss at times.
Craig...
"Was your listing of definitions of justice an attempt to imply that YHWH is bound to dispense justice exactly according to those definitions?"
You appear to think God has a different definition of justice. I'm trying to get you to define justice as you're imaging God thinks about it.
It helps if other people understand words if you're using them in atypical ways.
Dan
"WHat's amazing to me is that literally all it would take for you to demonstrate the superiority of your hunches would be to offer direct, unequivocal, specific, examples of Biblical support for your position (you'd need to be nore specific in defining your position as well). That's it."
No. You're just factually wrong. IF I gave you a million Bible verses and showed why I think they say God doesn't punish the vast majority of humanity to eternal torture, ALL I WOULD HAVE DONE is given you my opinion about ancient texts and you would cling to YOUR opinions about the verses. People playing "the Bible says..." , "no! The Bible says..." Are just playing badminton with opinions.
On the other hand, I'm demonstrating a rationally sound premise in the face of your rationally UNsound premise. If you're saying a PERFECTLY JUST God can oftentimes be unjust, it's a logical failure. IF you're saying a perfectly just God can punish in a manner that is fundamentally unjust, it's a logical failure.
If you're saying that, in your head, you have this hunch that this God has an alternative understanding of justice, the onus is on you to prove it.
Dan
Craig...
Because that's impossible. How does showing mercy to Hitler, demonstrate justice?
Well, that's an interesting theory of yours which you're basing on an extreme outlier. But what about the rest of us schmucks, us poor imperfect people who have failed to be perfect and yet, have never killed anyone, raped anyone, stolen from anyone, seriously harmed anyone... do you think it's impossible to both show mercy and have justice? WHY NOT just punish someone PROPORTIONATE to the misdeeds?
Is it the case that - SETTING ASIDE the extreme outliers of mass murderers for just a minute - that you think the typical sins of most of us can ONLY be reasonably punished by an eternity of torture?
If you do, do you see how that's not rational?
Do you see how it besmirches God Almighty to think that God is not able to recognize the huge difference between mass murderer and common imperfect person? Do you not see how it diminishes the notion of evil to suggest that common "sinners" are just as bad and should be punished eternally just as a mass murderer is?
It's always amusing when folx like you who are in the top 5% of global wealth, who live in and take advantages of a country that you claim was totally built on oppression, try to put on this act.
The "act" that we should work to help elevate the poor and marginalized? Really? What do you suggest? Ignoring them? Playing down the dire harm being done to them?
WHAT in the name of all that is holy and good is WRONG with being concerned for the poor and marginalized? Isn't it, you know, just what Jesus taught?
t's amusing that you'll immediately go to these lengths to ignore the fact that any other answer doesn't help your hunch that YHWH gives "extra" help and has a special "gospel" for the poor/oppressed that the rest of us don't know about.
1. I'M not the one who said there is a "special Gospel" for the poor and oppressed. It's literally what Jesus said.
2. Understanding it correctly, I don't think Jesus was saying there's a "special gospel for the poor and marginalized," (apart from anyone else.) He's saying there is ONE Gospel and it IS good news for the poor and marginalized... and it is ALSO good news for the rich and powerful AS we align with and care for and join with the poor and marginalized. As we abandon that wealth and privilege that weighs us down.
What did Jesus tell the rich man when he asked specifically what he needed to do to be saved? Sell your junk, give it to the poor and follow me. JOIN the Beloved Community is what he said. That is ALSO good news for the rich, but it must be understood within the lives of the poor and marginalized, within the beloved community of Grace.
"ou appear to think God has a different definition of justice."
You appear to have a problem with answering simple direct questions.
I've defined justice for you before, yet you keep acting as if I haven't.
Simply, justice is getting a reward or punishment based on one's actions.
"No. You're just factually wrong."
The sheer amount of self deluding hubris it must take to tell me that I don't know what it would take to be convinced that your hunch is correct is breathtaking. That you delude yourself into thinking that you know me better than I know myself seems to indicate some level of mental health problem.
"IF I gave you a million Bible verses and showed why I think they say God doesn't punish the vast majority of humanity to eternal torture, ALL I WOULD HAVE DONE is given you my opinion about ancient texts and you would cling to YOUR opinions about the verses. People playing "the Bible says..." , "no! The Bible says..." Are just playing badminton with opinions."
Impressive job of projecting here. The problem is that you can't do so, because the Biblical support for your hunches doesn't exist in a direct, unequivocal form. Therefore you have to resort to this lame attempt to push the responsibility to prove your hunches onto me.
"On the other hand, I'm demonstrating a rationally sound premise in the face of your rationally UNsound premise. If you're saying a PERFECTLY JUST God can oftentimes be unjust, it's a logical failure. IF you're saying a perfectly just God can punish in a manner that is fundamentally unjust, it's a logical failure."
You keep acting as if your hunches about what is Rational are some sort of objective standard for Rationality. The reality is that they might seem Rational to you, but that's about as far as that goes. The fact that you think it's rational to pretend like I', saying something I'm not severely undermines your claims of being Rational. Your attempt to foist your hunches about what's rational and just onto others seems to be one more indication of your desire to control things.
"If you're saying that, in your head, you have this hunch that this God has an alternative understanding of justice, the onus is on you to prove it."
This notion that I must prove things I haven't said, while you refuse to prove things you have said is ridiculous.
Are you really suggesting that you have a perfect understanding of how YHWH views, and dispenses justice?
Are you really saying that your hunches about how YHWH views and dispenses justice are objectively more correct that anyone else's?
Are you saying that YHWH is bound to view and dispense justice in a way that you can fully comprehend?
"Well, that's an interesting theory of yours which you're basing on an extreme outlier. But what about the rest of us schmucks, us poor imperfect people who have failed to be perfect and yet, have never killed anyone, raped anyone, stolen from anyone, seriously harmed anyone... do you think it's impossible to both show mercy and have justice? WHY NOT just punish someone PROPORTIONATE to the misdeeds?"
1. A question isn't a "theory", it's a question.
2. Are you aware that you are not supposed to answer a question with a question?
3. Are you aware that answering a question with a question is not actually answering the question?
4. Why would you expect me to answer your question, when you won't answer mine?
5. Because I do answer your questions, I'll ignore your rudeness and answer you by saying yes.
6. Sure.
The problem with your questions, is that you presume that you have enough information to draw accurate conclusions about what is a "proportionate" punishment, and about the seriousness of the sin. If you do have such information, why not share it?
"Is it the case that - SETTING ASIDE the extreme outliers of mass murderers for just a minute - that you think the typical sins of most of us can ONLY be reasonably punished by an eternity of torture?"
No.
"If you do, do you see how that's not rational?"
No. Although, I also don't see how you could possibly be the arbiter of what's rational.
As an aside. One of the distinctive things about Jesus' earthly ministry was His insistence on turning things upside down from what people considered "normal". Fist/last, slave free, lustful looks/adultery, meek/inherit the earth, etc. Virtually nobody would consider those teachings "rational", yet Jesus taught them. Why would anyone assume that YHWH is bound by the limits of what the human mind subjectively considers "rational".
"Do you see how it besmirches God Almighty to think that God is not able to recognize the huge difference between mass murderer and common imperfect person?"
No. Do you see that when you make shit up and pretend like it's my position how irrational it makes you seem?
"Do you not see how it diminishes the notion of evil to suggest that common "sinners" are just as bad and should be punished eternally just as a mass murderer is?"
No. Do you not see how irrational it is to make shit up and pretend like what you've concocted out of this air is irrational?
I've asked you this before, and don't think I got an answer. Although, you clearly have no problem with asking the same questions multiple times, so I''ll ask again.
You seem very certain about what YHWH will not do, how can you have such certainty about what He will not do without having any idea of what He will do?
Please elaborate on how YHWH punishes sin in a way that you find to be proportional and just?
"The "act" that we should work to help elevate the poor and marginalized?"
No.
"Really"
"What do you suggest?"
Focusing on people who are not middle class or upper middle class by global standards.
"Ignoring them?"
No.
"Playing down the dire harm being done to them."
"WHAT in the name of all that is holy and good is WRONG with being concerned for the poor and marginalized? Isn't it, you know, just what Jesus taught?"
Nothing. Yes it is one thing that Jesus taught.
"1. I'M not the one who said there is a "special Gospel" for the poor and oppressed. It's literally what Jesus said."
Then why do you keep suggesting that there is?
"2. Understanding it correctly, I don't think Jesus was saying there's a "special gospel for the poor and marginalized," (apart from anyone else.) He's saying there is ONE Gospel and it IS good news for the poor and marginalized... and it is ALSO good news for the rich and powerful AS we align with and care for and join with the poor and marginalized. As we abandon that wealth and privilege that weighs us down."
Thank you for clarifying. It seems as though you are saying that the "gospel" for the rich requires them/us/you to "abandon" their/our/your "wealth and privilege". Are you really suggesting that the "ONE" gospel requires the abandonment of all "wealth" and "privilege"?
"What did Jesus tell the rich man when he asked specifically what he needed to do to be saved? Sell your junk, give it to the poor and follow me. JOIN the Beloved Community is what he said."
Once again, are you really suggesting that because Jesus told this to one specific individual in one specific instance that everyone else must perform the act of selling everything and giving it to the poor? Why was this "requirement" not laid on anyone else?
"That is ALSO good news for the rich, but it must be understood within the lives of the poor and marginalized, within the beloved community of Grace."
Really, how exactly does that work, and why haven't you sold everything, given the proceeds to the poor, and "joined" them in their poverty?
Somewhere, you used the example of the Jerusalem church found in Acts in an attempt to demonstrate that all Christians in all circumstances should hold all of their possessions in common and give to the poor etc.
I've pointed out the obvious flaw in your hunch, which is that the Jerusalem church wasn't caring for the poor/oppressed outside of those in that community.
However, in conjunction with your last claim that "the rich" need to sell everything to jon some mythical "Beloved Community", this raises another question that Acts answers.
As we look at the events in the early chapters of Acts, we see the followers of Jesus praying in the synagogue daily, spending time daily being taught by the Apostles etc.
Peter, someone who surely knew Jesus as well as anyone and must have been aware of Jesus' teachings and what the Gospel was responded thus when asked what people must do to be saved.
" Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
It's strange that Peter missed such an important component of Jesus' message and never mentioned the poor/oppressed?
If you are suggesting that the "holding possessions in common" section of Acts 2 is to be considered normative for all believes in all times, places, and circumstances, then why exclude all of the other things that the Jerusalem church was doing?
"Understanding it correctly, I don't think Jesus was saying..."
Are you really saying that you "understand correctly" exactly what Jesus taught about the Gospel?
Are you really saying that you have 100% "correct" understanding of the Gospel Jesus taught?
Craig...
You seem very certain about what YHWH will not do, how can you have such certainty about what He will not do without having any idea of what He will do?
We're talking about rational premises and rational conclusions. IF we presume that there is a perfectly just God, THEN given that premise, that God would not act in an unjust manner or they would not be just, by definition.
How is that mistaken?
Please elaborate on how YHWH punishes sin in a way that you find to be proportional and just?
I don't know. God has never told me how God plans to "punish sin" when it comes to any specific details. God has not told YOU how God plans to "punish sin" with regards to specific details.
Agreed?
We simply have no authoritative data on what any presumed afterlife will be like for any one given person in any authoritative detail.
Agreed?
If we can agree that neither of us authoritatively knows, I'd be glad to talk about unproven and unprovable hunches, if you want. Just let me know.
Are you really saying that you "understand correctly" exactly what Jesus taught about the Gospel?
Nope, not perfectly. I DO know what he is quoted as having said I can say objectively factually that Jesus said at the beginning of his ministry that he'd come to preach good news specifically to the poor and marginalized. Can I say authoritatively and objectively that I know 100% factually what Jesus meant? No, no one can.
I'm surprised you missed that the first 10,000 times I pointed that out to you, but there it is again.
Do I think I (and people whose opinion and wisdom I value, moreso than me) have a better understanding of Jesus' teachings than many people? Sure. But I'm humble enough to admit that we can't prove authoritatively that we objectively know what Jesus meant.
Are you really saying that you have 100% "correct" understanding of the Gospel Jesus taught?
Nope. I'm just being quite clear that I don't think that others do either and that I find my conclusions much more logically and biblically compelling than their conclusions.
But then again, I've answered this all before.
"That is ALSO good news for the rich, but it must be understood within the lives of the poor and marginalized, within the beloved community of Grace."
Really, how exactly does that work, and why haven't you sold everything, given the proceeds to the poor, and "joined" them in their poverty?
That is a good and reasonable question, given the reality of the teachings of Jesus' words. The cold hard reality is that none of us know perfectly well how to live out the Christian life.
What we know as a point of fact is that
* the prophets and poets of the Old Testament repeated throughout the OT about God's great concern for the poor and marginalized,
* that Jesus began his ministry of his Gospel message saying he'd come specifically to preach this literal good news to the literal poor and marginalized,
* that Jesus said that to the degree that we do to and for the least of these, we do to God, as if God was right there with the poor, one of the poor. "You do it to me."
* that when the rich man asked Jesus what he must do to be saved, Jesus told him to sell his stuff, give it to the poor and join the beloved community/realm of God
etc, etc.
What we also know as a fact is that God, nor Jesus nor anyone else has ever spelled out specifically what this clear concern for the poor and marginalized would look like in any one person or peoples' lives... I can't give to ALL the poor and remove their poverty with my finite resources; that each person has family and personal responsibilities, as well... Which is why I TEND to think that the Good News of the Beloved Community is in longer-lasting policy changes and work towards human rights improvements and so, to the best of my ability and understanding, I do that, imperfectly as my work may be.
But then, we have never been told of specific literal answers and we know that we're imperfect in imperfect situations, so I think ultimately the point is to remember God's preferential option for the poor (as some have called it throughout history) and strive to live simply and work for justice.
And what SPECIFICALLY does living simply look like? We have no authoritative measure for that. Is buying a guitar to share music in a beloved community setting an extravagance or reasonable path of simplicity? How about having a mandolin and a guitar? How about that second cup of coffee?
We have no authoritative definition for how to do all this so we do it the best we can. What else would you propose?
It's strange that Peter missed such an important component of Jesus' message and never mentioned the poor/oppressed?
Peter was doing his preaching in the context of that early church sharing things in common, a church that was soon to be oppressed. I don't believe Peter specifies if the oppressed he's preaching and later writing to were poor or rich, but I think we can safely presume they weren't rich.
I'm not saying we can't talk about other things besides the trappings of wealth and power and the problems of poverty and oppression. I'm just saying that we need to interpret all of the Bible through the words and teachings of Jesus, as I believe Jesus my Lord and his words are the clearest expression of God and living the Right Way that we have. So, we note that Jesus preached regularly of good news for the poor and marginalized TO the poor and marginalized and preached a gospel of repentance TO this Realm of God that was the point of the Gospel he preached and then we understand Peter and Paul and James', etc, writings through the lens of what we heard from Jesus, not the other way around. (as in, "Peter didn't mention poverty or oppression as much as Jesus, nor did Paul, therefore, Jesus' concerns about the poor and marginalized are not as central or important as any messages we may hear from Peter or Paul.")
If you are suggesting that the "holding possessions in common" section of Acts 2 is to be considered normative for all believes in all times, places, and circumstances, then why exclude all of the other things that the Jerusalem church was doing?
I don't think that "holding possessions in common" is normative. I'm not suggesting that. As already noted: We HAVE no specific, spelled out system for what being a beloved community that is inclusive of specifically the poor and marginalized looks like. Different people in different times have done different things. Consider the Amish, the Hutterites, the Desert Fathers, the monastics, the Catholic Worker Movement, the simple living advocates throughout church history and the various works for and with the poor. We're just figuring out things the best we can.
What other things the Jerusalem church was doing? Regularly meeting together? I'm not excluding that. Preaching and singing? Not excluding. Eating together? Not excluding. Healing? Not excluding.
"1. I'M not the one who said there is a "special Gospel" for the poor and oppressed. It's literally what Jesus said."
Then why do you keep suggesting that there is?
Because Jesus preached the Good news to the poor and marginalized and I'm a follower of Jesus. And I'm not calling it a "special gospel for the poor" and more than Jesus did. It's just The Gospel of Jesus.
"Is it the case that - SETTING ASIDE the extreme outliers of mass murderers for just a minute - that you think the typical sins of most of us can ONLY be reasonably punished by an eternity of torture?
If you do, do you see how that's not rational?
Do you see how it besmirches God Almighty to think that God is not able to recognize the huge difference between mass murderer and common imperfect person? Do you not see how it diminishes the notion of evil to suggest that common "sinners" are just as bad and should be punished eternally just as a mass murderer is?"
You see, Craig...and you must get this through your head lest ye be lost...God's just a regular dude, man. God acts the way we act, not like some Supreme Being Who created all things and might actually be nothing like us. Thus, God MUST respond to "acts" with the same degree of joy or revulsion as Dan...I mean...as the all of mankind does. God, being a regular dude, is no more offended by sin than Dan...I mean...all of mankind is. Only Hitler goes to hell.
""Is it the case that - SETTING ASIDE the extreme outliers of mass murderers for just a minute - that you think the typical sins of most of us can ONLY be reasonably punished by an eternity of torture?"
No.
"If you do, do you see how that's not rational?""
Because, Craig...and you must get this through your head lest ye be lost...it's irrational to think that God...who's just a regular dude...would ever not think in terms of our acts rather than our sin nature.
The reality is that each of us IS sin. We are approximately 8 billion manifestations of sin. I just can't for the life of me think of what we can do about it. Since Scripture teaches multiple times how God abhors sins and sinners, we're totally screwed without any way to deflect from us God's righteous and just wrath. Oh wait...God's a regular dude and doesn't get pissed. Sorry. I forgot.
Marshal...
Because, Craig...and you must get this through your head lest ye be lost...it's irrational to think that God...who's just a regular dude...would ever not think in terms of our acts rather than our sin nature.
By all means, if you have OBJECTIVE PROOF that God thinks of justice in ways that are drastically different than us and not understandable by us, present the proof.
But just because you have problems with your theology making sense, dropping back to "Well, we KNOW it's right because it makes absolutely no sense to us and we are wholly unable to understand it... says ME, Marshal..." is sort of a losing ploy. After all, if YOU are wholly unable to understand "God's justice," then why would we care what YOU think?
Marshal...
The reality is that each of us IS sin.
Sigh. Prove it. Geez, boys, merely stating nonsense claims is not evidence or a reason why ANYONE should listen to your ramblings.
Since Scripture teaches multiple times how God abhors sins and sinners
Prove it.
we're totally screwed without any way to deflect from us God's righteous and just wrath.
Prove it.
And of course, the reality is that I have never said that God is just a regular dude. It's a stupid claim on the face of it and a lie. And you know what the Bible says about tongues that lie? GOD HATES IT when you do that, Marshal. It's one of the Big Ones, if Proverbs can be taken seriously.
"We're talking about rational premises and rational conclusions. IF we presume that there is a perfectly just God, THEN given that premise, that God would not act in an unjust manner or they would not be just, by definition."
So you actually have no objective basis for your certainty, you just think that your presumptions, premises, and hunches, are enough for you to be certain. When you say, "by definition", can you point me to the definition YHWH is bound by?
"How is that mistaken?"
The problem is that you haven't shown that these unproven premises, presumptions, and hunches accurately represent any sort of reality, nor have you shown that YHWH is bound by the definitions you cherry pick from an English language dictionary. I can't say with certainty that you are mistaken, because there is not substance for me to evaluate. There's literally nothing that you've offered that is specific enough, supported enough, or substantive enough to examine. You should be proving that you are correct, which requires proof outside of your self, instead of asking my to prove that your nothing is actually something. Jesus could offer Himself as proof of the things of YHWH, but you don't have the same standing to do so.
"I don't know. God has never told me how God plans to "punish sin" when it comes to any specific details."
So, after acknowledging that you have absolutely zero idea of how YHWH does or does not punish sin, do you really still think that you can say with certainty what He does not do?
"Agreed?"
No, Jesus dropped enough information that I think we can draw some reasonable conclusions about how YHWH punishes sin. For the sake of argument, I wouldn't object to saying that the consequences of sin are complete and utter separation from YHWH. Or that the consequences of sin are that YHWH removes Himself from the picture and allows those who've chosen not to follow him, but to follow their own counsel, continue to do so and allow the natural repercussions to take place. But, I got the whole "fire" thing from Jesus, along with "darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth". I think scripture is clear enough that "Hell" will be unpleasant, and a significantly long period of time.
"We simply have no authoritative data on what any presumed afterlife will be like for any one given person in any authoritative detail."
Yet despite having zero "authoritative data" on how YHWH punishes sin, you continue to insist that you know to a high degree of certainty what YHWH will NOT do. That's quite a conclusion to draw with a high degree of certainty with admittely zero "authoritative data".
"Agreed?"
No.
"If we can agree that neither of us authoritatively knows, I'd be glad to talk about unproven and unprovable hunches, if you want. Just let me know."
If you can't prove the things you repeatedly assert with such certainty, then why would you expect me to do what you don't.
"Nope, not perfectly. I DO know what he is quoted as having said I can say objectively factually that Jesus said at the beginning of his ministry that he'd come to preach good news specifically to the poor and marginalized. Can I say authoritatively and objectively that I know 100% factually what Jesus meant? No, no one can."
Yet you continue to repeat your assertions that YHWH will absolutely NOT do certain things, if you don't know anything about the subject, how can you make those assertions? Are you asserting that you have a perfect understanding of "justice" as it applies to YHWH and that you absolutely know how YHWH will dispense justice?
"Do I think I (and people whose opinion and wisdom I value, moreso than me) have a better understanding of Jesus' teachings than many people? Sure. But I'm humble enough to admit that we can't prove authoritatively that we objectively know what Jesus meant."
Humble isn't a word I'd use for someone who insists repeatedly that they know what YHWH absolutely will not do, and that YHWH must abide by his definitions of justice.
"Nope. I'm just being quite clear that I don't think that others do either and that I find my conclusions much more logically and biblically compelling than their conclusions."
Yet you continue to repeat your assertions that YHWH will not do certain things, despite admitting that you nave zero "authoritative data" on which to base your claims.
"That is a good and reasonable question, given the reality of the teachings of Jesus' words. The cold hard reality is that none of us know perfectly well how to live out the Christian life."
Which means that you are unlikely to answer the "good and reasonable question".
"What we know as a point of fact is that"
When you say "fact" do you mean that you can prove these claims to a 100% certainty?
"* the prophets and poets of the Old Testament repeated throughout the OT about God's great concern for the poor and marginalized,"
Yes, that is ONE of many topics the prophets and poets of the OT covered. Although it's mostly myth, and "revenge fantasies" and there's no way to objectively know if any of it actually represents reality.
"* that Jesus began his ministry of his Gospel message saying he'd come specifically to preach this literal good news to the literal poor and marginalized,"
Actually He claimed that He was fulfilling OT prophecy, and He never claimed any exclusivity or specific priority for the "literal poor and marginalized". Obviously Jesus limited Himself to a specific geographical region and time in history, where the majority of His audience was living under an oppressive Roman empire. Yet Jesus specifically did NOT lead a political uprising to overthrow the oppressors, it's a significant reason why some sects of Jews rejected Him.
"* that Jesus said that to the degree that we do to and for the least of these, we do to God, as if God was right there with the poor, one of the poor. "You do it to me.""
Well, if you are going to take that parable literally, then it's possible to make this argument, yet, if you take this parable literally then you have to accept the whole "torture" thing for those who don't engage in specific actions. The question you'd then have to answer is whether not Jesus is speaking of engaging in certain specific acts as being necessary for salvation, or whether or not He was making the point that those who are saved will do certain things because they are saved. Taking one small section of these parables literally, also means that you have to acknowledge that Jesus does teach that there will not be universal salvation, and that some people will be "left out". Otherwise you'd have to explain why your one "cherry picked" part of those parables is to be taken absolutely woodenly literally, but that the entirety of the rest of the parables should be taken otherwise.
"* that when the rich man asked Jesus what he must do to be saved, Jesus told him to sell his stuff, give it to the poor and join the beloved community/realm of God"
Actually Jesus said Kingdom of YHWH. As I've pointed out, you keep using this as an example, yet you haven't done the following.
A) Demonstrated that Jesus intended this action to be universally followed by any and all of those who seek salvation, in all times and places.
B) Why others who Jesus mentions as receiving salvation were NOT commanded to do so.
C) Why you have chosen to disregard this imperative.
D) How making a specific series of actions as a necessary component of salvation is not endorsing a system of works righteousness.
E) The Jerusalem church led by Peter and other Apostles, was very clear with Ananias and Sapphira that they were NOT compelled to sell their property and give 100% of the proceeds to the church.
"What we also know as a fact is that God, nor Jesus nor anyone else has ever spelled out specifically what this clear concern for the poor and marginalized would look like in any one person or peoples' lives... I can't give to ALL the poor and remove their poverty with my finite resources;"
Interesting. You insist that this "gospel" to the "poor and oppressed" was the primary focal point of the entirety of scripture and Jesus primary purpose to be accomplished during His earthly ministry, yet any and all specifics of this grand plan remain shrouded in mystery. Yet you haven't sold all of your possessions and given the money to the poor, have you? What percentage of your possessions have you sold to give to the poor? Do you not realize how acknowledging that you know of absolutely ZERO specifics of the things you repeat claim are True, doesn't make you look credible, rational, or reasonable.
Hey Jesus insists that our salvation depends on how we integrate the poor and oppressed into our lives, and how much of our wealth and privileged we give up to the poor and oppressed. We further must view everything Jesus said through the lens of the poor and oppressed. Yet Dan has absoluetly zero idea of how this works, and is basically saying just make stuff up.
"that each person has family and personal responsibilities, as well... Which is why I TEND to think that the Good News of the Beloved Community is in longer-lasting policy changes and work towards human rights improvements and so, to the best of my ability and understanding, I do that, imperfectly as my work may be."
Excellent, your "response" is to "tend" toward trying to make government, and other secular systems do the work you claim Jesus wants His followers to do. Hell, you can't even do more than "tend" towards doing what you insist is an imperative of salvation.
"But then, we have never been told of specific literal answers and we know that we're imperfect in imperfect situations, so I think ultimately the point is to remember God's preferential option for the poor (as some have called it throughout history) and strive to live simply and work for justice."
More excuses for not being able to provide even one tiny specific detail about how this all actually plays out in our lives of trying to bring YHWH's Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven. Not one freaking clue, beyond the "live simply" and "work for justice" pablum. Especially from someone who doesn't live simply.
"And what SPECIFICALLY does living simply look like? We have no authoritative measure for that. Is buying a guitar to share music in a beloved community setting an extravagance or reasonable path of simplicity? How about having a mandolin and a guitar? How about that second cup of coffee?"
Since you're the one insisting that it is imperative that the followers of Jesus "live simply", it seems like you'd be the one to answer those questions. I suspect that you own at least one guitar and mandolin, and drink plenty of coffee though. More stuff for others, that Dan doesn't live up to.
"We have no authoritative definition for how to do all this so we do it the best we can. What else would you propose?"
This is hilarious. You admit that you have NOTHING, NOTHING authoritative to back up your hunches. You can't produce specific, direct, unequivocal scriptural support for your fantasies. You can't even live up to the things you claim we all must do. You admit that we essentially are left to our own devices and just have to muddle through doing "the best we can", and hoping that you've done enough good actions that YHWH will approve of you.
Sad and pathetic.
"Peter was doing his preaching in the context of that early church sharing things in common, a church that was soon to be oppressed. I don't believe Peter specifies if the oppressed he's preaching and later writing to were poor or rich, but I think we can safely presume they weren't rich."
Actually, this is not accurate. In Acts, it sounds like the Jerusalem church was sharing "everything" among themselves, although not outside of the church. In 1&2 Peter, he does not say anything about that topic. Yet none of this addresses my point. Peter specifically, and repeatedly failed to mention this "primary" part of Jesus' teachings when he was preaching to unbelievers. Why would he lie to, or omit such a vital part of Jesus' teachings when He preached?
"I'm not saying we can't talk about other things besides the trappings of wealth and power and the problems of poverty and oppression. I'm just saying that we need to interpret all of the Bible through the words and teachings of Jesus, as I believe Jesus my Lord and his words are the clearest expression of God and living the Right Way that we have. So, we note that Jesus preached regularly of good news for the poor and marginalized TO the poor and marginalized and preached a gospel of repentance TO this Realm of God that was the point of the Gospel he preached and then we understand Peter and Paul and James', etc, writings through the lens of what we heard from Jesus, not the other way around. (as in, "Peter didn't mention poverty or oppression as much as Jesus, nor did Paul, therefore, Jesus' concerns about the poor and marginalized are not as central or important as any messages we may hear from Peter or Paul.")"
More repeating of the same old pablum. Nothing new, nothing proven, basically nothing of substance. I love how you manage to make this about you. That "we" (which really just means you) are the most important piece of the puzzle because it's all up to us to divine what things really mean by looking at the teachings of those closest to Jesus through our biased views of what Jesus said. The problem is not that Peter, Paul, and the rest didn't spend as much time as Jesus talking about the "gospel" to the poor/oppressed (or even mention that we needed to interpret their words through our biased hunches about what we think Jesus said), it's that they literally never mention it. It's like Jesus spent three years focusing on this one critical piece of the puzzle, then everyone else just dropped the ball. The primary oppression the NT talks about is the "oppression" of Christians, BECAUSE of their faith. Jesus was incredibly clear that persecution/oppression was not only to be expected as a believer, but that it was a "badge of honor". You probably missed this but scripture is full of examples of Christ followers who were killed in horrible ways simply for their beliefs. All of the Apostles except John and Judas were killed for their faith, as was Paul. Yet they didn't try to escape that oppression, they welcomed it. This notion that Christianity is all about ending "oppression" just doesn't align with most on the NT.
"
I don't think that "holding possessions in common" is normative. I'm not suggesting that. As already noted: We HAVE no specific, spelled out system for what being a beloved community that is inclusive of specifically the poor and marginalized looks like. Different people in different times have done different things. Consider the Amish, the Hutterites, the Desert Fathers, the monastics, the Catholic Worker Movement, the simple living advocates throughout church history and the various works for and with the poor. We're just figuring out things the best we can."
Then why bring it up as an example of your fantasies about how we are to live out our faith? But just keep hiding behind this curtain of "We have no answers" we just make it up as we go and hope that we do it right enough. By all means, cherry pick a tiny fraction of the sects of Christianity who chose to live in the way you claim we should, but that you don't practice.
"1. I'M not the one who said there is a "special Gospel" for the poor and oppressed. It's literally what Jesus said."
Then why do you keep suggesting that there is?
"Because Jesus preached the Good news to the poor and marginalized and I'm a follower of Jesus. And I'm not calling it a "special gospel for the poor" and more than Jesus did. It's just The Gospel of Jesus."
It's always amusing when you contradict yourself.
It kind of makes me happy when on the one hand Dan insists that "this is The Gospel of Jesus", and on the other hand says that he has absolutely zero idea of what that means and how it is to be lived out.
Art,
All points I've made repeatedly.
One the one hand, YHWH is a God who's ways are beyond our ways, and our knowledge is like looking in a cloudy mirror, while on the other hand YHWH is bound to act and think is ways to perfectly correspond to what we as His creation thisn on various subjects.
Craig...
So you actually have no objective basis for your certainty, you just think that your presumptions, premises, and hunches, are enough for you to be certain. When you say, "by definition", can you point me to the definition YHWH is bound by?
As always, NONE of us can objectively prove our opinions about God. YOU can't objectively prove your opinions about God. That's a nothingburger.
And so, the question is, do YOU have any objective proof that God has a "secret definition" of Justice that he is operating under that none of us can understand?
AND IF SO, HOW IS THAT JUST? If we LITERALLY can't guess at whatever it is you think it is that God has secretly meant by justice that you appear to think that God has withheld from us, THEN we can't be held accountable for what we have NO WAY of knowing.
Both of these are biblical and rational failures on the face of it.
I think Justice means just what we normally mean by it.
HOW IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY AND GOOD AND RATIONAL IN THIS WHOLE WIDE WORLD ARE YOU DEFINING IT? ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION or, in absence of ANY attempt to support your nonsense pablum, you will have shown you're just drooling and blabbering nonsense.
Craig...
The problem is that you haven't shown that these unproven premises, presumptions, and hunches accurately represent any sort of reality, nor have you shown that YHWH is bound by the definitions you cherry pick from an English language dictionary.
As always, NONE of us can objectively prove our opinions about God. YOU can't objectively prove your opinions about God. That's a nothingburger.
And so, the question is, do YOU have any objective proof that God has a "secret definition" of Justice that he is operating under that none of us can understand?
after acknowledging that you have absolutely zero idea of how YHWH does or does not punish sin, do you really still think that you can say with certainty what He does not do?
I have ZERO data to think that God has a secret definition of justice that God is operating under that no one can know because, well, if it's God's secret, HOW can I/you/anyone in all of God's good creation know it??
I'm operating under our best understanding of Justice as we have. What would you suggest we operate under? You're not giving us anything so, you're worthless on that front. Are you suggesting, "Well, I, Craig, don't know and no one can know because god is secretive and unknowable and so, we should just throw our hands in the air and rape all the puppies we can because we have NO REASON NOT TO BECAUSE, I, CRAIG, have declared any and all hope of understanding God's justice is futile. Rape those puppies, people!"...??
"I don't understand. I've been talking about my theories/opinions about justice as it relates to eternal torture a great deal in this post and over the years."
And yet, you still lack clarity.
"1. I believe that we should strive for justice for all. Period."
Ok. Excellent job of detailing what that looks like and how it applies to individual believers, and how it applies to non believers.
"2. I believe that we should BEGIN by seeking/supporting justice and fairness for the poor and marginalized, as they are often the ones to whom justice is most denied and so, to the degree that the poor and marginalized are treated fairly and with justice, the better a society would be."
Interesting, you claim to advocate for "justice for all", but then make it cleat that you're willing to put off justice for some, in favor of justice for those you favor. But again, this is just more bland sloganeering devoid of any details or specifics.
"3. I believe in an almighty, perfectly loving, perfectly Just God."
OK.
"4. I would say that the suggestion of a PERFECTLY just God who doesn't act in a PERFECTLY just manner is a rational contradiction and a fallacy."
Which lacks a perfect, objective, definition of justice that YHWH is obligated to follow. This is the point in the list of bullet points where Dan takes center stage and determines what YHWH must do/not do in order to meet his subjective standard of justice.
"5. I recognize the standard definitions of justice to be appropriate. I especially am fond of this one from some the Christian group, World Vision..."
Again, Dan takes center stage in the drama by announcing that it's his recognition of what definitions of justice are appropriate to impose on YHWH.
Dan offers definitions of justice cherry picked so that they allegedly support his definition of what's "appropriate" for YHWH.
"6. Thus, any attempt at justice (or a just punishment) that does not seek to provide the accused "a morally right consequence merited by their actions" is not just. And any attempt at justice and punishment that does not seek to make right for both the accused and the accuser is not just. In short, justice can not happen outside of a just, appropriately-sized punishment."
Here Dan is claiming that things that (in his personal, biased, fallible opinion) aren't to his standards of justice, are therefore objectively unjust. The preceding paragraph is full of assumptions, and guesses about things he has admittedly zero information about. It's literally him making blind assumptions.
"7. I think that any suggestion that the vast majority of humanity who have never caused outrageous harm by their actions (they haven't murdered, raped, slaughtered, oppression of the poor and marginalized, enslaving people etc... their sins/misdeeds are more of the lying, cheating, low grade stealing - ALL bad things, mind you - but not comparable in any way to murder or rape) are "deserving" of a punishment of eternal torture is not based on justice. At all. It's a rather ridiculous assumption to hold and theory to form."
More of Dan imposing his subjective, fallible, biased, on YHWH and on others. Strangely enough, while he confidentially makes these types of assertions, he also admits that he has absolutely zero data on how these things play out for individuals or communities. Further, he seems to have a tendency to put the onus on the State to fulfill many of these things which seems problematic.
"8. And I repeat, I believe in a perfectly loving and just God so, to presume that such God would condemn the vast majority of humanity to eternal torture, I would say is a mischaracterization of and assault upon God's great character."
Oh, well as long as you repeat something, then it must be True and beyond questioning.
"9. I believe that the Bible never spells out specifically or authoritatively what an afterlife might be like in any specific terms. I tend not to believe in "hell" as it is oft-represented as a place of eternal torment/torture."
Again the focus on Dan and on his assumption that what he believes somehow applies beyond himself.
"Do you agree?"
I agree that you most likely believe that you believe these things, I believe that you are unsuccessful in living them out to any great extent, I believe that you have zero data to support the contention that any of these things are objectively True, and I believe that you believe that others should adopt your unsupported hunches despite your inability to support them.
"Have you missed me explaining all of this?"
I think you mistake a list of bulleted talking points as an explanation.
"What details do you want me to give?"
Any details beyond a list of bulleted talking points would be great. Specific, unequivocal scriptural support. Which of these things are normative for all believers on all times and places throughout history. How do those things affect our daily life. Why anyone should believe you when you admit you have zero data to support your hunches. If YHWH is absolutely bound to follow the definitions of justice. Why anyone should accept your biased, fallible hunches as anything but your fantasies. Why you think that the secular state has a role in these "gospel" imperatives. Just a few for you to ignore.
"The size of the Judgment Throne?"
Ohhhhhhhh. snarky smart assery. That's a sure sign that you think you're "winning".
"The sentencing guidelines from God?"
We know those.
"How good a defense lawyer is Jesus?"
He's not so much a defense lawyer as He is the one who served our sentence in our place. But if He was, he'd be pretty much perfect, as He's God.
"We don't have any details. I can't give what no one has."
Excellent, thank you for admitting that you have nothing. that's it's all just you hoping that you can do enough of the right things to earn something from YHWH. Without proof, details, support, and the like all this is is just you making shit up and pretending like you have answers. In other words, it's less than nothing.
"Do you think you have access to some secret trove of details beyond what I've offered? "
Since you've offered no details, just a bulleted list of talking points and slogans, it wouldn't take much. I'm not the one making up terms, capitalizing them as if these made up terms actually mean something or represent some fully formed doctrinal statement. You just live with your detail less, list of bulleted slogans and pretend that these'll get you somewhere.
“10. Indeed, we have NO biblical detail about specifics of any eternal judgment and what that may or may not look like, so ANY "details" given on this topic by anyone are all speculation and best guesses. Do you agree?”
No, to suggest that the Bible says absolutely nothing about what happens after we die, is simply not aligned with reality. Please provide proof that the instances of Jesus referring to both “Heaven and Hell”, are referring to something other than what they appear to be referring to. Ditto for the rest of the NT references.
“When Jesus says, "let's bring good news to the poor" and we reduce poverty, provide access to education and shelter and otherwise improve their lives, is that NOT bringing Good news to the poor?”
It might be some “good news”, but it’s not the entirety of The Gospel. How is temporarily making a marginal improvement in someone’s economic condition what Jesus taught? Didn’t Jesus say something about gaining the whole world but losing one’s soul? How does your charity of government program care for the eternal soul of the poor and oppressed? Why didn’t Jesus spend His time on earth actually doing this?
“When Jesus or God say, "Welcome the foreigner as a neighbor" and we welcome people in to safety and access to provision from a place lacking in safety or provisions, is that NOT Good news for the oppressed?”
Again, it might be relatively “good” news, but it’s not the entirety of The Gospel. Again, why didn’t Jesus come to abolish borders, and overthrow political oppressors?
“I don't see how it isn't part of the Good news for the poor, marginalized, sick and oppressed, but you're welcome to your opinion. I think the data shows that people are significantly, measurably better off now in a great many ways than they were 2000 years ago and 200 years ago. I think that more freedom and less oppression and poverty is a moral good.
You have this compulsion to believe that what you can “see” has any meaning beyond your limited, fallible, human brain. You further think that saying “I (don’t) see” is somehow proof that raises your hunch beyond a mere opinion. In short, I don’t care.
“And I am not saying, of course, that every improvement and bit of progress and ALL that comes with that progress is a moral good. With great wealth has come great pollution and consumerism. So, what do we do? Abandon the relief for the poor that has come with great wealth to get rid of the pollution and consumerism? OR, continue to find relief for the poor while opposing potential negative aspects like pollution and consumerism.”
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Just more repetition of the same pablum. “Progress” is great and part of the “gospel” when I (Dan) “see” that it fits my personal, subjective, biased, parameters for “good”, but when something doesn’t fit my subjective, biased, personal, parameters, then it’s bad. But it’s all dependent on Dan’s subjective, personal, biased hunches about things.
“With the relief of being under the thumbs of men and not having options that many women faced pre-women's rights has come more divorce and families struggling with that reality. But do we go back to keeping women pregnant, married and in the kitchen and under the thumbs of men? God forbid! Rather, we hold on and further empower women and their rights while seeking ways to strengthening families.”
Absolutely. Divorce, abortion, easy access to porn, easy access to people looking to have affairs, raising taxes so high that both parents are forced to work, these things have all benefitted families.
“But even with the downside of divorce or income increases, the women and poor who are benefiting from the upside of liberty and resources are glad for it and of course, they are.”
Yes, we’ll accept the carnage that divorce brings to families and children, high tax rates so kids are raised by the government, husbands addicted to porn, and the like as just the price of progress. How callous and unloving.
“Would you go back to evil old days of women without their own income or ability to make their own decisions if you could? Or do you recognize the great moral good that has come with women's liberation and say let's not throw the baby out with the bathwash?”
What the hell is “bathwash”, are you an idiot or too lazy to proofread. Strangely enough, your insistence that a “simple”, “rural”, “agrarian” lifestyle is the best possible option, would literally turn back the clock to those “evil” old days when families worked primarily in or near the home. Or do you mean adopting the lifestyle of the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, and the like that you just lifted up as sterling examples of how we all should live. How do they measure on this scale?
"As always, NONE of us can objectively prove our opinions about God. YOU can't objectively prove your opinions about God. That's a nothingburger."
As always Dan comes up with a reason why he can't prove the claims and assertions he makes. Which means that his claims and assertions are a large sack of nothingburgers.
"And so, the question is, do YOU have any objective proof that God has a "secret definition" of Justice that he is operating under that none of us can understand?"
Again, I've never seen why I should prove a claim that I haven't made, especially since you refuse to prove any of the claims you make. The real question is... How do you know for certain that YHWH scrupulously adheres to your definition of justice, and limits Himself to only the information available to you? You keep making assertions about what YHWH will and won't do, prove those assertions.
"AND IF SO, HOW IS THAT JUST? If we LITERALLY can't guess at whatever it is you think it is that God has secretly meant by justice that you appear to think that God has withheld from us, THEN we can't be held accountable for what we have NO WAY of knowing."
How is it "just" that an all knowing, all powerful, God who created all that exists, might choose to keep His own counsel and use His knowledge as He dispenses justice is ways that we limited human beings don't 100% understand or agree with? It's not. It's totally unjust that YHWH doesn't choose to equip us with every single power and attribute He has, at the same level He has them. It's not fair at all. Why would you think that YHWH is obligated to reveal every single bit of information that He possess to you?
"Both of these are biblical and rational failures on the face of it."
Well, as long as you make that pronouncement, it must be True and beyond questioning.
"I think Justice means just what we normally mean by it."
Since when has what you think been the standard by which YHWH is judged? Or by which anything is judged?
"HOW IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY AND GOOD AND RATIONAL IN THIS WHOLE WIDE WORLD ARE YOU DEFINING IT? ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION or, in absence of ANY attempt to support your nonsense pablum, you will have shown you're just drooling and blabbering nonsense."
Well, I'll start by saying that I worship YHWH, not what you perceive as good and rational. Then I'll point out that I answered this yesterday afternoon.
"As always, NONE of us can objectively prove our opinions about God. YOU can't objectively prove your opinions about God. That's a nothingburger."
Excellent, repeating this meaningless pablum instead of answering the question.
"And so, the question is, do YOU have any objective proof that God has a "secret definition" of Justice that he is operating under that none of us can understand?"
Again, repeating meaningless pablum instead of proving your claims and assertions.
"I have ZERO data to think that God has a secret definition of justice that God is operating under that no one can know because, well, if it's God's secret, HOW can I/you/anyone in all of God's good creation know it??"
Again with this nonsense that what you think/see/etc is some sort of defining measure of Truth. Why do you keep making shit up and asking me to defend it? If YHWH is the sole being responsible for meeting out justice, why would you need to perfectly know His thoughts? Do you think that it all rests of you and what you do? That if only you do the right things to the right people, that you'll earn justice?
"I'm operating under our best understanding of Justice as we have."
Great, I'm glad that you think that your understanding of Justice is somehow the standard that all justice is measured by. Personally, given your inability to construct anything more coherent than "It's what my (limited, fallible, biased) reason tells me so it must apply to everyone including YHWH.", I see no reason to take your rambling gibberish seriously.
"What would you suggest we operate under?"
Trust in the God who loves us, and sent His son to save us.
"You're not giving us anything so, you're worthless on that front."
As if you've presented a coherent construct anchored outside of your biases, preconceptions, Reason, and Rationality that you freely admit you have zero data to support.
"Are you suggesting, "Well, I, Craig, don't know and no one can know because god is secretive and unknowable and so, we should just throw our hands in the air and rape all the puppies we can because we have NO REASON NOT TO BECAUSE, I, CRAIG, have declared any and all hope of understanding God's justice is futile. Rape those puppies, people!"...??"
No. I've been so busy trying to get you to provide details, and unequivocal direct biblical support of your non data based hunches that I haven't had time to begin to offer an alternative. But I don't need to because you seem satisfied to make shit up, pretend that I said it, and argue against your straw men.
How is it "just" that an all knowing, all powerful, God who created all that exists, might choose to keep His own counsel and use His knowledge as He dispenses justice is ways that we limited human beings don't 100% understand or agree with?
I'm not saying that I or any human can fully understand all of what God means by justice.
I'm questioning whether or not YOU ALL rightly understand what God means by justice.
If we can't understand what God means by justice, then on what basis would you think YOU know what God means?
On what basis would you guess that God is using some non-standard and unknowable notion of justice? Or are you?
HOW DO YOU THINK GOD is defining justice?
What makes you think God means something different than a typical understanding of justice?
IF we can't know, then YOU don't know what God means by justice, is that fair?
Does that mean that you're just guessing at what you personally think that maybe, perhaps, God means something unknowable?
How do you know for certain that YHWH scrupulously adheres to your definition of justice, and limits Himself to only the information available to you?
I don't. But likewise, I have ZERO reasons to guess that maybe God has a secret definition of Justice that is completely foreign to us.
Just like I have no reason to think that, by "love," God means God wants to rape puppies. WHY would I guess that God means something completely foreign to "love" OR "justice" when God thinks about justice or love?
Why should I give you or anyone else any credence if THEY make such suggestions.
Again, it would help if YOU would tell us what YOU think God thinks about justice. Define Justice as YOU imagine God uses it. Then tell us why we should take your guess seriously.
Yes, we’ll accept the carnage that divorce brings to families and children, high tax rates so kids are raised by the government, husbands addicted to porn, and the like as just the price of progress. How callous and unloving.
Again, EVEN WITH some potential downsides, do you want to take away the liberty and freedom that women have experienced to avoid those downsides? OR, why not keep the liberty and work on decreasing the downsides, which would be my position.
Do you want to remove women's liberties they enjoy now? If so, do you recognize why most of us would say to hell with your oppression?
Craig...
Simply, justice is getting a reward or punishment based on one's actions.
Okay, so WHAT actions are deserving of an eternity of torture in hell?
Please answer. Help me understand your hunches.
This "secret definition of justice" nonsense baffles me. How is that even an intelligent or relevant question? Who has suggested God has a different definition of justice? Dan simply demands that God must not and cannot be more offended by sin than Dan is. We humans decide on just punishment based on how offended we are by a given action. That is, if an action doesn't offend us, we do not punish. But what if it offends someone else? Is that someone else to subordinate his plea for justice to the decisions of the rest? If Dan says "yes", then he cannot insist that his pet special groups must be given consideration when the rest of us find no offense imposed.
Dan must think of the worst possible thing someone could do to offend him, and then try to explain why everyone else must agree with him as to the degree of offense he should take, or even if he should take any offense at all. If he gets to rule, as he does so despotically at his blog, clearly his claims of what is offensive must be accepted.
But Dan doesn't allow God, Who rules over His entire Creation, and Who is Sovereign, and Who is far, far greater in importance, wisdom and most notably HOLY than Dan could ever hope to be, might have a different view of the seriousness of sin than Dan. This is the factual case. Dan doesn't regard sin as seriously as does the God Dan pretends to worship.
"I'm not saying that I or any human can fully understand all of what God means by justice."
Yet you continue to assert what justice is not. It seems impossible to assert what something is not, without having complete knowledge of what that something is.
"I'm questioning whether or not YOU ALL rightly understand what God means by justice."
So. The issue/question seems to be whether of not your assertions about what justice is not, are the primary topic. If you can't tell us what something is with 100% accuracy, then you can't tell us what that something is not with 100% accuracy.
"If we can't understand what God means by justice, then on what basis would you think YOU know what God means?"
I've never claimed that I know what YHWH means about justice beyond a general sense.
"On what basis would you guess that God is using some non-standard and unknowable notion of justice?"
I'm not. I am claiming that YHWH is infinitely more knowledgeable, powerful, perception, and free from bias than we are, and that difference is significant when it comes to His actions.
"Or are you?"
I'm not making claims about what YHWH specifically does or does not do, and how He specifically metes out justice. I'm not doing so precisely because I understand and acknowledge my limitations compared to Him.
"HOW DO YOU THINK GOD is defining justice?"
I don't think it's an issue of definition as much as it is information. YHWH has infinitely more information than I do, and therefore is able to evaluate things better than I could ever hope to. I don't think that it's my role to pass judgement on YHWH or to decide to label things He does as moral/immoral or just/unjust.
"What makes you think God means something different than a typical understanding of justice?"
Because He's an all powerful, all knowing, Creator God, and I'm not. I'm reasonably confident that He has much more information than I do, and that He'll use that information to make much better decisions than I will.
"IF we can't know, then YOU don't know what God means by justice, is that fair?"
Since "fair" is what children talk about when they don;t get their way, I fail to see how "fair" enters into the discussion. Are you suggesting that you know with certainty what is objectively "fair"? Are you suggesting that any human has the capacity to know what is "fair" relative to YHWH?
I'm not saying that we can know exhaustively what YHWH "means by justice", I'm saying that we have sufficient, appropriate, knowledge that allows us to function. I'm saying that we know enough about YHWH to rest assured that He is just, and will treat us justly, without having to know every single specific about how that will manifest. I'm saying that we as humans don't have the capacity to fully understand everything about YHWH, and that we probably shouldn't be passing judgement on Him.
"Does that mean that you're just guessing at what you personally think that maybe, perhaps, God means something unknowable?"
No.
"Again, EVEN WITH some potential downsides, do you want to take away the liberty and freedom that women have experienced to avoid those downsides?"
No. I'm just pointing out that your pollyannish view of how wonderful these things are might not be particularly unbiased. Because really, those things are just a few minor "downsides" to giving women unfettered freedom.
"OR, why not keep the liberty and work on decreasing the downsides, which would be my position."
How does one do that without restricting the "liberty"?
"Do you want to remove women's liberties they enjoy now? If so, do you recognize why most of us would say to hell with your oppression?"
No. I don't care. Right and wrong is not decided by what you would say.
"Okay, so WHAT actions are deserving of an eternity of torture in hell?"
That such a question would emanate seriously from a self-identified "serious and prayerful student of Scripture" is astounding in the worst possible way! It's amazing that one can insist one has studied Scripture for as long and as deeply as Dan insists he has yet still come away with no understanding. It's an easy question to answer and Dan needs to find an actual Christian in his area to whom he can ask this question. He won't accept truth from us, as he never does. Of course, he won't accept truth from ANY actual Christian. He much prefers false priests.
Art,
I think the problem is that Dan's presumptions about how sin works, and that humans are born 100% free from any sin or sin nature, lead him toward a point where he has to posit a world in which people have minimal sin, and most of those sins are simply "mistakes". This allows him to posit a god that chooses to excuse or ignore that which Dan considers "mistakes" and allows Dan to posit that humans can manage their sin and only compile a few "minor" sins throughout the course of their lives. It's a worldview that puts the control in the hands of humans, and insists that YHWH must accommodate His judgement to human notions of fairness and justice.
Post a Comment