Dan posted something at his blog where he takes on his caricatures of how those he deems "conservatives" deal with our human sin nature. I'm not going to deal with specifics, because I've gotten involved in this conversation before with Dan. I'm merely going to point out that his entire argument seems to be that YHWH will not treat people in certain ways. Yet as I skimmed his post, I saw absolutely zero examples of scriptural support for his positions. As usual, his entire argument seems to be based on his individual, biased, unsupported, opinions about what he thinks YHWH should do. My experience with this discussion is that Dan might throw out some vague, cherry picked, out of context, proof texts about YHWH being "loving", but nothing that specifically addresses the scriptural basis for concluding that YHWH takes sin very seriously. He seems satisfied to pull out of context quotes from people like Sproul and ridicule him (ad hom?), than to actually make a biblically supported, positive case for his version of how things are.
Monday, March 27, 2023
I just skimmed...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
306 comments:
1 – 200 of 306 Newer› Newest»Craig...
I'm merely going to point out that his entire argument seems to be that YHWH will not treat people in certain ways.
1. Not everyone makes their arguments in the same way you do.
2. Not everyone insists on saying, "Here's a group of biblical passages, so we must believe X, Y and Z."
3. I was deliberately making a rational argument starting with our some fairly innocuous and biblical presumptions (without providing scriptural support for them, although I certainly can.)
4. For instance, I have long noted that Christians presume a perfect God. Do you want me to provide biblical support for that? I've noted that Christians presume a perfectly loving and perfectly just God. Are you willing to acknowledge, Yes, we DO believe in a perfectly loving and perfectly just God?
5. GIVEN those presumptions, then, what can we assume about a perfectly loving, perfectly just God? That such a God won't act in ways that aren't perfectly loving and just? Is that unreasonable? Do you suspect that it's unbiblical?
6. THEN, once we agree on these reasonable presumptions (reasonable for traditional Christians), we can start exploring questions about "hell" and "punishment for sin." Is that somehow unreasonable or unbiblical?
7. The reason we can reasonably have discussions and disagreements about hell and punishment is because, unlike a Perfectly Loving and Just God, the Bible is less direct and clear about these topics. For instance, as I'm sure you know, the OT is practically divorced from the notion of eternal punishment. Which is reasonable because it is not something ancient Hebrews (or many modern Jews) really much believed in, certainly not in the way that modern evangelicals believe in it.
You are familiar with that, I suppose?
8. So, given NO one single, distinct, authoritative depiction of hell or an afterlife or punishment, it is reasonable to use our reasoning to think these things through.
Do you disagree?
9. Thus, and to your assessment of my thoughts, it IS reasonable - and biblical - is it not, to think that God won't act in unjust ways?
What is irrational or unbiblical about that?
And of course, everyone he does quote or cite will be misrepresented. Don't know if my response was yet to be deleted when you visited there, or if you even looked at comments, but as I only skimmed it myself, I did seek out his response to my comments at Stan's since he mentioned my name. Totally in character, he totally missed my point. I believe he very well did so purposely to demonize me, because that's easier than addressing the actual point. I took pains to explain and clarify, and will now go to see if he "allowed" it and presented an adult, intelligent response. Any wagers?
(Ah! So far my comment remains! This means he hasn't checked his blog today.)
1. It is, of course, incredibly biblical to note that God is a God of love and of justice. That God is perfectly loving and perfectly just.
Do you seriously disagree?
2. It is reasonable to use our heads and God-given reasoning to think about what it means that God is perfectly loving and just.
Do you seriously disagree?
3. It IS reasonable (and of course, biblical) to note that a perfectly just and loving God will NOT act in a hateful or unjust manner.
Do you seriously disagree?
4. Do you seriously think I need to provide a biblical source to conclude: A perfectly loving and just God will not act in a hateful, evil or unjust manner?
This is about laying down some rational - and biblical - principles about understanding God and the Bible. I have a hard time believing that you would disagree that this is reasonable to do, and indeed, important to do IF we're going to hope to understand God or the Bible.
nothing that specifically addresses the scriptural basis for concluding that YHWH takes sin very seriously.
I, of course, of course, of course, think that God takes sin VERY seriously. Did you read my words and somehow conclude that I was suggesting otherwise? LOOK at the way that Jesus continually rebuked the Pharisees and those who oppressed the poor and marginalized! LOOK at the way that God used prophets to condemn in the strongest words possible the great evil of oppressing the poor and marginalized.
Almost certainly, well over half of my posts (or maybe very nearly all?) are dealing with the notion of the sober dangers of causing harm/sinning against others. Did you miss that in my words?
Well, NOW do you understand that I am not saying and have never said that God doesn't take sin seriously?
Indeed, BECAUSE I take sin seriously - and BECAUSE a punishment that is wildly out of proportion to the crime IS a great and grievously sinful evil - that I find conservative views about "hell" and "punishment" to be problematic. BECAUSE of the serious-ness of sin. Do you understand that?
He seems satisfied to pull out of context quotes from people like Sproul and ridicule him
What specifically have I done to take Sproul quotes out of context? I merely noted the reality that Sproul speaks of sin as "cosmic treason..." Did he NOT speak in great detail about that hunch of his?
Be specific. What did I get wrong or out of context on Sproul?
Or perhaps admit that I didn't do this.
"ridicule him..."
HOW is noting that he called sin "cosmic treason" ridiculing him? It's what he said? I DO ridicule the unbiblical notion of "sin=cosmic treason" because I disagree with that silly theory. But how is that an ad hom attack? How is it ridiculing HIM? Are people not welcome to offer counter opinions in your circles?
Sproul said, as I quoted...
What I meant by that statement was that even the slightest sin that a creature commits against his Creator does violence to the Creator’s holiness, His glory, and His righteousness. Every sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is an act of rebellion against the sovereign God who reigns and rules over us and as such is an act of treason against the cosmic King.
And I responded...
Fine. But says who? Where is the support for this nonsense?
The Bible in not one place uses the term cosmic treason. The Bible, in not one place, says that "even the slightest sin that a creature makes 'against his creator' does violence to the Creator's holiness, his glory, his righteousness..."
NOT ONE PLACE.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
Am I wrong for disagreeing with him? Why?
Look at it rationally: Say a ten year old secretly steals a cookie from his little brother while he isn't looking. In WHAT possible world or system of ethics is that "cosmic treason?" How is it "doing violence to God's holiness..."? That claim would be stupid and irrational, would it not?
Or let's look at an older person. Let's say the man who gets mad at his wife for laughing at him, which hurt his feelings and so, even though he said he'd pick up a coffee for her, he deliberately didn't, to express his anger at her and when asked about it, he said he forgot.
Stupidly childish way to act against someone you love? Sure. A small swipe at their love and marriage? Perhaps. Cosmic treason? A "doing of violence against God's holiness..."?
HOW?
The answer is, of course, it's not.
How am I mistaken?
1. This goes without saying, one wonders why you said it.
2. See my response to #1.
3. Rational based on your subjective hunches about what's rational to you. Of course you didn't provide scripture.
4. Again, see #1. But nice dodge.
5. This presumption (an unproven presumption, not a fact) rests on several other unproven presumptions. A) that you are capable of knowing with 100% accuracy what YHWH is thinking about the topics you mentioned. B) That you are capable of knowing with 100% accuracy that YWHW sees things like love and justice in the exact same way you do. C) That you as an imperfect created being are 100% capable of knowing the same things as the perfect Creator. Again, let's be clear that these are your unproven, unsupported, hunches, not facts.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, and no.
6. Interesting that you demand "agreement" on your unproven presumptions before discussing things like Hell etc. Yet this demand contradicts your #1, and assumes agreement with your hunches about the topics you mention.
7. Again, with your unproven hunch. Yet, somehow, Jesus clearly and directly references multiple times that concept of some sort of eternal consequences.
8. Again with placing your Reasoning as the arbiter of facts and reality.
9. See #8 above.
"You are familiar with that, I suppose?"
In your #1 you offered the notion that not everybody agrees on these issues as a positive thing, now you appear to be arguing that the fact that you believe that the OT disagrees is the basis to ignore what the NT says. Maybe not ignore, but marginalize or negate.
"What is irrational or unbiblical about that?"
Presuming that your standard of Reasonable or Rational is somehow the standard by which things are measured.
1. Again, with your obsession with saying things repeatedly that don't need to be said.
2. Yes, as long as our Reason agrees with YHWH's revelation.
3. See #1. Of course the problem is that you are the one defining the terms "loving and just".
4. Since your argument is based entirely on your suppositions that your Reason and Rationality are the basis for your to determine what YHWH should do or how He should act, I can see why you don't bother with citing all relevant scripture. But since you are making claims about YHWH, then it seems as though citing relevant scripture that buttresses your assumptions in a clear, direct, unequivocal manner would help to validate your presumptions would be beneficial.
"Almost certainly, well over half of my posts (or maybe very nearly all?) are dealing with the notion of the sober dangers of causing harm/sinning against others. Did you miss that in my words?"
This is quite the claim, again without actual proof it's incredibly self serving.
"Well, NOW do you understand that I am not saying and have never said that God doesn't take sin seriously?"
I understand that you've made this claim.
"Indeed, BECAUSE I take sin seriously - and BECAUSE a punishment that is wildly out of proportion to the crime IS a great and grievously sinful evil - that I find conservative views about "hell" and "punishment" to be problematic. BECAUSE of the serious-ness of sin. Do you understand that?"
Yes, I understand that you have chosen to base your conclusions on your Reason and Rationality that you have reached the conclusion that you are absolutely correct on these matters without regard to what the entirety of scripture says.
"What specifically have I done to take Sproul quotes out of context? I merely noted the reality that Sproul speaks of sin as "cosmic treason..." Did he NOT speak in great detail about that hunch of his?"
Yet, you chose to exclude the context that you acknowledge exists, thereby acknowledging that you've taken Sproul out of context.
"Be specific. What did I get wrong or out of context on Sproul?"
I was, see the above. I can't believe someone as intelligent, well educated, and prolific as Sproul would use a term like "cosmic treason" without defining the term. Yet you chose to pluck the term out of the larger context of Sproul's writings on the subject.
"HOW is noting that he called sin "cosmic treason" ridiculing him? It's what he said? I DO ridicule the unbiblical notion of "sin=cosmic treason" because I disagree with that silly theory. But how is that an ad hom attack? How is it ridiculing HIM? Are people not welcome to offer counter opinions in your circles?"
It's your tone. Your seeming assumption that you can get away without demonstrating that Sproul is wrong with evidence beyond your Reason, Rationality, hunches, and feelings. That you claim the notion is "unbiblical" without demonstrating factually that it is. You haven't offered a counter opinion, you've simply declared Sproul to be wrong and "unbiblical".
"What I meant by that statement was that even the slightest sin that a creature commits against his Creator does violence to the Creator’s holiness, His glory, and His righteousness. Every sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is an act of rebellion against the sovereign God who reigns and rules over us and as such is an act of treason against the cosmic King."
"Fine. But says who? Where is the support for this nonsense?"
Again, I can't believe that Sproul didn't offer biblical support for his claim. If you didn't take the time to do your research, you have no credibility to pronounce him wrong.
"The Bible in not one place uses the term cosmic treason. The Bible, in not one place, says that "even the slightest sin that a creature makes 'against his creator' does violence to the Creator's holiness, his glory, his righteousness...""
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, the "The Bible doesn't use these specific terms, therefore the concept is clearly nowhere in The Bible." argument. I'd apply this standard to your hunches and terms, but it wouldn't matter.
"Do you acknowledge that reality?"
Yes. I also acknowledge that The Bible isn't required to use specific terms to describe concepts found in scripture.
"Am I wrong for disagreeing with him? Why?"
You're not wrong to disagree with him, your problem is that you haven't proven that his position is factually wrong, or offered a counter position and proved that your position is factually right.
"Look at it rationally: Say a ten year old secretly steals a cookie from his little brother while he isn't looking. In WHAT possible world or system of ethics is that "cosmic treason?" How is it "doing violence to God's holiness..."? That claim would be stupid and irrational, would it not?"
IF anyone was making that claim, then this bullshit could be discussed. But NO ONE is making this specific claim or anything close to this claim. Is the fact that you've made up this position and argued against your made up position isn't particularly Rational.
I'm not wasting time with more of your made up bullshit hypothetical, they're not representative of any actual argument anyone is making and simply designed as ways to justify your hunches without actually proving your hunches True.
I had said.
"Fine. But says who? Where is the support for this nonsense?"
Craig responded...
Again, I can't believe that Sproul didn't offer biblical support for his claim. If you didn't take the time to do your research, you have no credibility to pronounce him wrong.
Fine. But says who?
Look, I don't spend much time researching nonsense claims... claims that are on the face of it irrational...Why would anyone do that?
But if you think there's support for it, go for it.
Dan
Look, I know enough about Sproul and Ligonier and his type of theology. It is just about the same as I was raised with and, to be honest, I've certainly read WAY more of Sproul and his ilk than I have of Barth or others who might be considered more progressive Christians. WAY more.
They REALLY believe and emphasize "the Holiness of God," as THEY understand it. It's kind of a big deal to them. It certainly was for me, growing up reading Jonathan Edwards, Leonard Ravenhill, MacArthur, Geisler, Swindoll, etc, etc, etc. That was my reading and listening diet back in the day, when I wasn't reading the Bible.
God is SOOOOOO holy, they'd say, SOOO set apart, that we best watch out. Just look at those priests (Nadab and Abihu) back in Leviticus who apparently simply lit the wrong type of fire - and they were struck dead! God is SO holy, you can't afford to mess up. BE AFRAID, our god is holy and whimsical, we were taught (not using the word whimsical though, that in itself would be considered inappropriate and thus, dangerous, disrespectful, perhaps deadly!!)
Or what of poor Uzzah, who merely tried to stop the altar from falling. Struck dead! ("When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled.") God is a deadly serious god, don't even try to help, because even a good faith attempt to help might be met by deadly, whimsical force!
They/we REALLY emphasized the holiness and God and reveled in those sorts of stories, just as Sproul did.
And Sproul, et al, REALLY emphasized the sinfulness of sin, the godliness of God and the rotten nature of humanity, tainted by the stench of sin and imperfection!
Am I mistaken? Am I misrepresenting?
What I eventually came to see as problematic was, IF we are so flawed, so imperfect, so prone to accidentally commit gravely evil atrocities and have gravely evil understandings, THEN how do we know that Sproul, Swindoll, Edwards, etc, were right in THEIR theories about how to understand the "holiness" of God?
The thing is, yes, there are stories in ancient Israel's writings that speak of a god that sounds more like the pagan, wrathful, vengeful, irrational gods of antiquity. It's sort of how people every often pictured God/gods and goddesses. Israel was not unique in that regard.
But we also have depictions of God in the prophets, in the poetry and the rest of the OT, as well as Jesus and his BEST, most CLEAR depiction of God.
Cont'd...
And in the rest of the Bible - OT and NT - we see a God who DID get very angry at sins. At SOME sins. God detested six, no seven! things, we find in Proverbs:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies
So, we see that God did not view EVERY sin as equal, some were met with special condemnation.
Or, consider Isaiah 59:2, where God says God hates their sin? But WHO is God speaking to there? If we read Isaiah 58, we see God speaking to the religious folks of Israel who are pointing to their religiosity and wondering why God does not "see" it...
"Yet they seek me daily
and delight to know my ways,
as if they were a nation that did righteousness
and did not forsake the judgment of their God;
they ask of me righteous judgments;
they delight to draw near to God.
‘Why have we fasted, and you see it not?
Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it?’
Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure,
and oppress all your workers.
Behold, you fast only to quarrel and to fight
and to hit with a wicked fist.
Fasting like yours this day
will not make your voice to be heard on high.
Is such the fast that I choose,
a day for a person to humble himself?
Is it to bow down his head like a reed,
and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him?
Will you call this a fast,
and a day acceptable to the Lord?
“Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?..."
In THAT context, then, in the next chapter we see...
"Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save,
or his ear dull, that it cannot hear;
but your iniquities have made a separation
between you and your God..."
What iniquities? Any and all iniquities and shortcomings? No. it's speaking specifically of oppression and failure to side with the poor and marginalized.
Which is, of course, reasonable and WHY it's so important to understand the centrality of God's opposition to specifically the oppression of the poor and marginalized to the biblical, Gospel story.
So we can see in earlier, more ancient texts (and not incidentally, ones that are written in more mythic and legendary styles than historical manner - WHICH DOES NOT NEGATE their importance, it just means that we need to understand the style that it's being written in), representations of God that could be taken to show an irrationally vengeful God who appears to strike out randomly at mere mistakes...
BUT we have the rest of the Bible that speaks of a more rational-sounding God who DOES get very angry at some sin - those which cause harm to innocents - but who is also more compassionate and welcoming, just like we would expect a perfectly loving parent to be.
The perfectly loving parent would not randomly strike out and punish a child who didn't even know what they'd done wrong! Where is the justice in that?!
IF humans who read the Bible choose to emphasize the earlier depictions of God as less rational, more randomly vengeful and attribute that to an unknown and unknowable "holiness" - a god whom we can't even understand or guess what the right thing to do is! - and then, read the rest of the Bible - including Jesus' own self - through the lens of this more whimsical vengeful understanding of god, then we might reach one set of understandings. Notions like, "We must be quiet and act respectful in the sanctuary of god, we must not anger our vengeful god, we must tread lightly and not question the humans who tell us about this vengeful god, we must wear our Sunday best because dirty clothes might offend this easily-offended god, the wrong music might offend this unaccepting god, etc."
But, if we start with the teachings of Jesus who reminded us that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not the other way around, that God wants the BEST for us, not to destroy us, that God SO loved ALL of humanity that God sent God's Self to be fully human amongst us, to know the very real struggles we go through and have, therefore, an understanding advocate on our side, THEN we might have a different understanding of Holiness, one that is more pure, and graceful, and rational and accepting. A God who came specifically FOR the sinners, the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed, the "unclean," and to REMOVE barriers and burdens, not create more.
So, when I read and listen to Sproul today, I'm reminded that he, too, is a poor, flawed human being, prone to being mistaken - just as he assures us we all are. And given how irrational and, on the whole, unbiblical and less than Jesus-y his theories are, I just see no reason to take them serious. They just don't seem credible, Godly, loving, gracious, rational or biblical.
That's how it seems from here. And I'm sure people like Sproul and you may disagree with my opinions, and you all might have other opinions. I just ask you to recognize that I have no more reason to take your opinions seriously than you do mine, and I ask you to consider your theories through the lens of Jesus, and not try to squeeze Jesus through the lens of the ancient texts. In my way of thinking, you'd be diminishing Jesus in that regard AND missing the point of those ancient texts, which I love. Rightly understood.
Craig...
You're not wrong to disagree with him, your problem is that you haven't proven that his position is factually wrong, or offered a counter position and proved that your position is factually right.
Well, I can't factually "prove" my position about what God thinks about grace and punishment are right any more than you all can prove your hunches about fear and punishment are right. As we all know by now.
I'm not asking you if I or you can "prove" our opinions. I'm asking if you agree that it's reasonable to disagree with Sproul if I think his opinions are nonsense? If neither of you can show ANY place ANYWHERE in the Bible that says ANYTHING like "sin=cosmic treason" or "an almighty perfect God has 'violence done to their holiness' by the mere imperfections and sins of mere, imperfect humans."
Do you recognize that this is the case? AND FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, I'm not saying those exact words must be found. I mean SOMETHING that represents that line of thinking is NOWHERE FOUND within the pages of the 66. Feel free to show otherwise if you have a different opinion.
I wonder, even if you ultimately disagree, how SOME of us who love God and the Bible might find the claim of a preacher that God's "holiness" has had "violence done to it" by our mere sins to be irrational and disrespectful of an almighty God? What would that even MEAN? How does the mistake and sin of a human - let's say something relatively serious like stealing a dog from a child! - does "violence to God's holiness..."? What does that look like/what does it mean? It seems nonsensical and irrational on the face of it.
"Look, I know enough about Sproul and Ligonier and his type of theology. It is just about the same as I was raised with and, to be honest, I've certainly read WAY more of Sproul and his ilk than I have of Barth or others who might be considered more progressive Christians. WAY more."
This is quite the excuse for your being too lazy to let Sproul speak for himself by quoting hsi own words, instead substituting your flawed/imperfect recollection of something you claim to have been familiar with decades ago. Why would we expect you to quote people accurately and in context, when you remember some random stuff from decades ago.
"Fine. But says who?"
Well, knowing Sproul and how he writes and presents things, I'd be shocked if he didn't go into great detail about the phrase "cosmic treason". SO, the easy answer would be that Sproul likely has provided plenty of support for his use of the term. Further, Sproul has a track record of providing Biblical support for what he says, so by extension one could answer "Scripture".
"Look, I don't spend much time researching nonsense claims... claims that are on the face of it irrational...Why would anyone do that?"
Because it's easier to misrepresent others, take their words out of context, and decide (without research) that something is "nonsense". If you haven't researched something then how could you possibly know if it's "nonsense".
It's amusing that this is all something that YOU introduced into the conversation, and when pressed about the accuracy of YOUR claims, you respond with this steaming pile of bullshit.
"They REALLY believe and emphasize "the Holiness of God,""
Yes they do. As did Jesus, David, Paul, Abraham, Peter, and most of the rest of the authors of scripture?
Are you suggesting that you have a better understanding of the "Holiness of God"? That God's "Holiness" is somehow less than the folks you mentioned? That they are over stating the "Holiness of God"?
Please, enlighten us with your enlightened, correct, views on the "Holiness of God".
"And Sproul, et al, REALLY emphasized the sinfulness of sin, the godliness of God and the rotten nature of humanity, tainted by the stench of sin and imperfection!"
Again, as does scripture. Are you suggesting that sin is not sinful? That sin isn't really as bad as "they" say it is? That you can point to specific, unequivocal scriptural support for your hunches?
"Am I mistaken? Am I misrepresenting?"
Excellent questions. Because you haven't actually offered any of "their" actual words/statements/claims/quotes, but instead offered your hunches about what you think they said and paraphrases of what you might vaguely remember, we'll never know. I would say that by offering paraphrases instead of quotes that you are misrepresenting "them". Especially since it would be so easy to find their exact words.
"What I eventually came to see as problematic was, IF we are so flawed, so imperfect, so prone to accidentally commit gravely evil atrocities and have gravely evil understandings, THEN how do we know that Sproul, Swindoll, Edwards, etc, were right in THEIR theories about how to understand the "holiness" of God?"
Do you know that you are right? Do you know if you are more right than they are? Do you know to any degree of certainty that "they" are wrong?
"The thing is, yes, there are stories in ancient Israel's writings that speak of a god that sounds more like the pagan, wrathful, vengeful, irrational gods of antiquity. It's sort of how people every often pictured God/gods and goddesses. Israel was not unique in that regard."
Myth, blah blah, blah. Legend, blah blah, blah. Just like everyone else, blah, blah, blah. Please demonstrate that you are objectively, factually, correct in your hunches?
"But we also have depictions of God in the prophets, in the poetry and the rest of the OT, as well as Jesus and his BEST, most CLEAR depiction of God."
But why would I trust someone like Sproul or MacArthur with all of their specialized education, decades of preaching/teaching and study, authors of dozens/hundreds of books, people who (if measured by qualifications) would be considered experts in their field, when I could listen to some schmoe from Dixie who's never been to seminary, never written a book, couldn't be considered an "expert" by any stretch of the imagination, when he tells me that his Reason told him...
"What iniquities? Any and all iniquities and shortcomings? No. it's speaking specifically of oppression and failure to side with the poor and marginalized."
Well if Dan the "expert" says so, then it must be beyond questioning. But hey, you keep cherry picking proof texts that you claim support your hunches, under the pretext of context.
" I'm reminded that he, too, is a poor, flawed human being, prone to being mistaken "
Says the "poor, flawed, human being" who's Reason tells him that everyone else is "mistaken" but he's not.
"That's how it seems from here. And I'm sure people like Sproul and you may disagree with my opinions, and you all might have other opinions. I just ask you to recognize that I have no more reason to take your opinions seriously than you do mine, and I ask you to consider your theories through the lens of Jesus, and not try to squeeze Jesus through the lens of the ancient texts. In my way of thinking, you'd be diminishing Jesus in that regard AND missing the point of those ancient texts, which I love. Rightly understood."
It's so amusing when you start out with this faux humility, but end with your instance that you are the one who's "rightly understood" things. The difference between you and someone like Sproul or MacArthur is that they could reasonably be considered experts in their field. Whether you measure by education, experience, influence, or any other criteria the term "experts is not inappropriate. But here's Dan who's prepared to tell everyone that the "experts" are wrong and that he's right. He doesn't quote them, or systematically offer proof of their failings, he just makes assertions based on his "Reason" and cherry picks proof texts occasionally. He's quick to play the "myth", "legend" or "figure of speech" cards while not actually being able to define which specific parts of scripture are specifically "myth" or explain what these "figures of speech" actually mean. But, he's convinced that the "experts" are wrong.
"Well, I can't factually "prove" my position about what God thinks about grace and punishment are right any more than you all can prove your hunches about fear and punishment are right."
The difference is that I'm not saying that "mine" are right, or that I represent "reality". You've made multiple claims that say, in effect, Sproul, MacArthur, and the rest are wrong without demonstrating the factuality of those claims. Nor have you demonstrated that your counterclaims are correct.
"I'm not asking you if I or you can "prove" our opinions."
I'm asking that you either prove your claims, or be specific when you are offering an opinion. If all of this bullshit is just your "opinion" then I have absolutely zero interest in trying to deal with something that you don't feel strongly enough about to not hide behind the fig leaf of "opinion". Your opinions are worthless as far as I'm concerned. Your tendency to state things as claims then duck behind "it's an opinion" seems to be nothing more than cowardice and a lack of confidence in your hunches.
"I'm asking if you agree that it's reasonable to disagree with Sproul if I think his opinions are nonsense?"
You can disagree with anything for any reason, I really don't care.
"If neither of you can show ANY place ANYWHERE in the Bible that says ANYTHING like "sin=cosmic treason" or "an almighty perfect God has 'violence done to their holiness' by the mere imperfections and sins of mere, imperfect humans.""
Are you stating categorically to a 100% certainty that Sproul has never even once shown "ANY place, ANYWHERE in the Bible that says ANYTHING" about any of the things you've claimed he's said? Because you simply asserting this claim as if it is unassailable fact, would seem to mean that you'd better be able to prove your claim. If you're just playing the "I've never seen anything when I "read" a couple of things Sproul wrote 40 years ago." bullshit, then just stop wasting my time.
"Do you recognize that this is the case? AND FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, I'm not saying those exact words must be found. I mean SOMETHING that represents that line of thinking is NOWHERE FOUND within the pages of the 66. Feel free to show otherwise if you have a different opinion."
But is it really "the case"? Can you prove to a 100% certainty that your claim is 100% objectively True? You are making two unique, distinct claims which can be empirically tested. Are you really saying that your two claims are absolutely True?
"I wonder, even if you ultimately disagree, how SOME of us who love God and the Bible might find the claim of a preacher that God's "holiness" has had "violence done to it" by our mere sins to be irrational and disrespectful of an almighty God?"
At one point I might have wondered how you've come to that conclusion based on the whole of scripture, but not any more. I hear people who've come up with all sorts of conclusions based on their hunches, and I just don't care to hear justification grounded in human Reason, Rationality, feelings, or hunches. It's an easy thing to make "claims" that can't be falsified.
" What would that even MEAN?"
Why do you even care?
"How does the mistake and sin of a human - let's say something relatively serious like stealing a dog from a child! - does "violence to God's holiness..."? What does that look like/what does it mean? It seems nonsensical and irrational on the face of it."
Where is the unequivocal, explicit, Biblical support for your claim that sins are "mistakes"? Where is the unequivocal, explicit support for your claim that some sins are "minor"? Where's your unequivocal, explicit support for you claim that humans can only commit a few sins throughout their lives? Where is your unequivocal, explicit support for your claim that YHWH's "Holiness" is less than is claimed by others?
One thing I find interesting is that when YHWH gave the inital law to Moses, what we call the 10 commandments, YHWH apparently left out this notion of caring for the poor and the oppressed. He saw fit to mention coveting your neighbors possessions or wife, but neglected to explicitly mention the "poor and oppressed".
Later when Jesus was asked what the "Greatest commandment was", He had a ready answer. He even stole it from Deuteronomy in the Hebrew scriptures/law. He said "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.". Then He added, "Love your neighbor as yourself.". Now it's reasonable to conclude that IF one follows the second greatest commandment, that it's unlikely that they will oppress others or not offer help to the poor. Yet, that's inferred, not stated explicitly. One wonders why Jesus would not have stated this doctrine explicitly if it was as important as some claim?
We're also left to wonder. IF YHWH really had a special "gospel" for the "poor and oppressed", why that special "gospel" didn't involve eliminating or ameliorating either poverty of oppression. We know for a fact that Jesus own disciples were brutally oppressed within 100 years of Jesus' ascension to be with YHWH. Yet these poor oppressed believers continues to preach a Gospel that called followers of The Way INTO oppression, poverty, and likely death. I really don't see a much more obvious act of oppression than to throw stones at someone merely for holding a different belief system, yet followers of The Way were frequently stoned or worse. Jesus Himself called His followers to "take up their cross and follow Him" in His oppression.
It seems strange to think that this special "gospel" to the poor and oppressed was just a call to more poverty and oppression. Or that this "gospel" didn't offer any way out of poverty and oppression. Apparently it didn't even offer the hope of an afterlife where there was freedom from poverty and oppression or an afterlife where those who oppressed them would face harsh consequences. I hear tell of this alleged special "gospel" just for certain groups of people, I just don't understand what coupld possibly have been attractive to the poor and oppressed in this vague invitation to some metaphorical "table" somewhere at some unknown point in the theoretical future.
I guess I'll have to stick with following YHWH as revealed in scripture and His only Son Jesus to the best of my ability, and ignoring those who think that they have the everything "rightly understood".
Craig...
Where is the unequivocal, explicit, Biblical support for your claim that sins are "mistakes"?
Again, everyone doesn't have the same reasoning process that you do. For us, we don't NEED a verse that tells us the world is round. We can look and SEE it's round.
For us, we don't NEED "explicit, Biblical support" to tell us that enslaving human beings is a great evil. We just recognize it as an affront to human liberty.
Does that much make sense, that many of us don't think "oh, where is a biblical verse to support this reasonable idea..."? We just recognize something as obvious, observable or reasonable. Do you think everyone has to heed your "but, where's a Bible verse to support the idea..." criteria that you appear to need for yourself?
For us, we don't NEED a Bible verse to recognize that not all sins and misdeeds are equal. We recognize the obvious idea that there are degrees of wrong-doing.
* The toddler who clumsily knocks over the candle and burns down the house technically committed arson, but did literally nothing wrong.
* The starving man with starving children who had no other options who steals a loaf of bread from a store to feed his children technically committed a crime, but the REAL crime was WHY was someone in that position to begin with. We recognize no serious wrong or that it's an understandable and maybe even appropriate crime.
* The person with a severe mental illness who experiences delusions and isn't always sure what's real and what's not who attacks someone thinking, in his confusion, that it's a monster, clearly committed a wrong, but it was from a place of delusion so probably not reasonably called a "sin." CERTAINLY not "cosmic treason!"
* The wealthy person who uses tax laws to avoid paying ANYTHING in taxes has committed no crime, but clearly, he's engaged in the sin of greed and has sinned and, given the reality of great need in that society, has robbed from the needy and I think biblical authors, God, Jesus, etc would probably consider that a great grievous evil, given the wealth of biblical testimony.
Sin is not some simple list to obey or not. There are details that make all kinds of difference and the Bible has simply NOT tried to delineate where all those lines exist so we must use our reason because, what else is there?
The Bible never makes a claim that it contains a definitive sin list. It just doesn't exist.
cont'd...
Craig...
Where is the unequivocal, explicit support for your claim that some sins are "minor"?
I don't need a list of verses to support the idea that some sins are minor for all the reasons I've already stated. I don't need a list. YOU don't need a list. WE don't HAVE a list.
On the other hand, the Bible does say that there are some sins that God especially hates. Reasonably then, that means there are lesser sins.
But EVEN IF the Bible didn't make that clear, it's clearly reasonable.
Do you think that there are no such things as great evils and minor sins? If so, where is your unequivocal, explicit support for that notion, because it's not in the Bible? And besides, open your eyes and brain: OF COURSE there are big misdeeds/sins/crimes/mistakes and minor ones. Observably so.
Where's your unequivocal, explicit support for you claim that humans can only commit a few sins throughout their lives?
I didn't make that claim. Period. Do you think your inability to read my words and reach correct conclusions should cause you to be a bit more circumspect in thinking you understand the bible?
Where is your unequivocal, explicit support for your claim that YHWH's "Holiness" is less than is claimed by others?
I didn't claim that God's "holiness" is less than claimed by others. Period.
I DID say that I don't think they're understanding holiness correctly, to the degree that holiness means that God is some tyrant who can not tolerate even the slightest misdeed.
Jesus, after all, came specifically for the sinners, the least of these, the poor and marginalized, according to Jesus. If he couldn't tolerate any sin, why did he hang out so much with the marginalized and those considered "sinners" and even GREAT sinners that the religious zealots of his day thought this was evidence that Jesus HIMSELF was associated with the devil!
I think the almighty God of the universe is entirely able to hang out with sinners and "tolerate" imperfect human beings.
Craig...
when YHWH gave the inital law to Moses, what we call the 10 commandments, YHWH apparently left out this notion of caring for the poor and the oppressed. He saw fit to mention coveting your neighbors possessions or wife, but neglected to explicitly mention the "poor and oppressed".
In the earliest days of the Hebrew people, God also didn't condemn slavery or selling your daughters into sexual slavery/forced marriage or polygamy or woman not having equal rights or killing children who were disrespectful or killing babies in war time... there are ALL MANNER of atrocities that God didn't address in the earliest ages of the OT. But even within the days of the Bible, we see a progression and improvement in moral reasoning. Since the first century, we've continued making more and more progress in moral issues.
The Bible nowhere makes a claim to be the final word on moral reasoning. It just doesn't. Thank God almighty that Jesus was right in saying that we would do even greater things that Jesus himself and our moral progress is one sign of that.
Craig...
It seems strange to think that this special "gospel" to the poor and oppressed was just a call to more poverty and oppression. Or that this "gospel" didn't offer any way out of poverty and oppression. Apparently it didn't even offer the hope of an afterlife where there was freedom from poverty and oppression or an afterlife where those who oppressed them would face harsh consequences. I hear tell of this alleged special "gospel" just for certain groups of people, I just don't understand what coupld possibly have been attractive to the poor and oppressed in this vague invitation to some metaphorical "table" somewhere at some unknown point in the theoretical future.
1. The thinking is that this Way of Welcome and Grace IS a way of improvement. The early church DID share all things in common and provided relief for those in need. The welcoming church of Grace throughout history HAS made things better for the oppressed. It did and does so imperfectly because in this imperfect world, there are no certain solutions. BUT, to the degree that people buy into looking out first and foremost for the least of these, the oppressed and marginalized, then to THAT degree, things do and are getting better.
The problem remains greed and oppression and indifference/unwillingness to work for this beloved community. We welcome you to join us, though, and we welcome you encouraging others to join us.
2. With the progress made in opposition to slavery, to oppression of women, to human liberty, to safe lives and welcome places for children, for the disabled, for human rights, for the poor and marginalized, for LGBTQ people... the world is significantly, measurably better today now than it was in Jesus' day. The progress may be slow, but it is progress and people appreciate the progress made.
3. "Apparently it didn't even offer the hope of an afterlife where there was freedom from poverty and oppression or an afterlife where those who oppressed them would face harsh consequences."
Says who? We certainly believe in a an afterlife that is an improvement on God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven. But a faith that ONLY says, "Well, we're not going to one damn thing to help you now, but Lordy, Lordy, by and by things will be better!" is a pretty worthless fair that the poor and marginalized don't have much use for. Also, "they'll get theirs!" is also a cold comfort. Is that all you're thinking the church can offer the oppressed here and now?
Again, I invite you to join us in the fight for human rights and against oppression.
4. Tell me, if you were the poor and oppressed, would you rather have a faith that says,
A. "We're not going to do anything about your oppression and poverty now, but by and by, things will be better..."
or one that says,
B. "We're standing with you, we'll fight for jobs for you, for housing solutions, for help with your medical and mental health care, to be welcomed to our nation if you're escaping oppression overseas, to be welcome in our homes and church if you're LGBTQ and tired of the hateful words and policy oppression against you... We'll welcome you to be a part of our beloved community, and the beloved community of God... Here. Now. Given our finite nature and the opposition and/or indifference of way too many, we won't be able to fix it all here and now, but we're committed to the fight alongside you."
Which do you find more satisfying? More "of God..."?
I really don't see a much more obvious act of oppression than to throw stones at someone merely for holding a different belief system, yet followers of The Way were frequently stoned or worse. Jesus Himself called His followers to "take up their cross and follow Him" in His oppression.
Sort of a different path, but are you saying you think that Jesus is calling us specifically TO oppression, to seek out oppression?
Or that the Way of God's grace, as taught by Jesus - the way of Good news to the literal poor and marginalized, the way of Welcome, the Way of a Beloved Community will sometimes be met by resistance and even violence by those who are benefiting from systems where they are enriched by other's oppression... that we may sometimes end up joining in with the already oppressed in their oppression because that's sometimes where Jesus' Way leads?
Would you join with King, Gandhi, Wink and countless others who read Jesus' teachings and note that by joining with/aligning with the poor, marginalized and oppressed, the point would be to lessen and even bring an END to hunger, poverty and oppression. To "Pour heaping burning coals" upon the heads of oppressors by this non-violent resistance and allyship with the poor and oppressed?
Indeed, as we see, the world has progressed. Women have rights, children have rights, people can't be treated openly as property in the free world... human rights are fairly universally accepted as a given, even if there are still pockets opposed to it and still much failure to live up to the notion of human rights and an end to oppression. The world is a much better place today than in Jesus' day thanks in large part to the fight for a Beloved Community, the Way of Christ as taught by Christ, as well as those who "accept" or agree with this Way.
Do you disagree?
Returning to your original post, now that I've offered all kinds of clarifications and answers a bunch of Craig's questions and misunderstandings...
nothing that specifically addresses the scriptural basis for concluding that YHWH takes sin very seriously.
So, by now surely you see that I'm not pointing to the Bible to address the notion that God takes sin seriously, as that's nothing I've said. As I noted, probably half if not more of my posts on my blogs are taking on the problems of sin in some way or the other. (And I note that you mocked that possibility so I went and counted over the last six months and it was well over half, fyi).
You understand now that I'm NOT saying that God doesn't take sin seriously?
That I disagree with you that we need to punish a cookie stealer for an eternity of torture in order to "take sin seriously" doesn't mean I don't think God takes it seriously. Indeed, DISAGREEING with the your apparent notion that there are degrees of sin and that, of course, some are quite serious and some are more nuanced... that IS ALSO taking sin seriously. If you try to say that stealing a cookie and lying about it should be treated in the same manner as killing a million people is a grotesque abuse of the notion of sin and punishment.
He seems satisfied to pull out of context quotes from people like Sproul and ridicule him (ad hom?)
As already noted, disagreeing with a man and making fun of one of his theories that seems nutty on the face of it is not ridiculing HIM nor is it an ad hom attack. You recognize that now, right?
Back to Sproul, again I cite HIS words, taken in context from HIS essay on cosmic sin (and in tandem with wasting an hour listening to HIS sermon on "cosmic treason" yesterday!). What am I misrepresenting? Is this or is this not a fair summation of his human theory:
Every sin,
no matter how seemingly insignificant,
is an act of rebellion against the sovereign God who reigns and rules over us and as such is an act of treason against the cosmic King.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/cosmic-treason
It is an entirely reasonable question to say, "SAYS WHO?" Where did God say EVEN SEEMINGLY INSIGNIFICANT SINS (good for Sproul for at least recognizing the notion of insignificant sins... while at the same time, pulling the rug out from under it!) are an act of rebellion against God? Sproul in his essay and the sermon I listened to do not say. He acts as if it's a foregone conclusion.
In the Bible, we see the notion of "sinning in ignorance," or from a place of I just didn't KNOW it was wrong! There are sometimes consequences for this, but they are lesser consequences. Consider:
And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few.
Jesus, in Luke 12
Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin. [does the opposite hold true, as James seems to imply? For those who know NOT 'to do good,' and don't do it, it is NOT sin? I mean, HOW IS THAT RATIONAL? HOW can someone be held accountable for something they didn't know?!]
James 4
But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, “Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife.” But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also? Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she, even she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this." And God said to him in a dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.
Genesis 20
‘And if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the LORD, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.
You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally,
for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and
for the stranger who dwells among them.
Numbers 15
Different degrees of law and consequences, depending on the action and motive. This is reasonable and, as we see, biblical.
Is it EVER, in the Bible, specifically delineated all the potential variations and responses of intentional, deliberate, lesser, great vs unintentional and less serious? No. God never specifically tells us: ANY sins are to be considered great and worthy of eternal torture. Right? God never tells us, EVEN ONE relatively inconsequential misdeed deserves eternal torture. Right?
So we have to use our reason to sort these things out that are not specifically authoritatively answered for us, do we not?
Where is the rational and biblical justification for the notion that God considers ALL sins, even unknown or insignificant, as an act of violence and rebellion against God?
It's not in the Bible, nor is it found in reason, so far as ANYTHING I've ever seen. Feel free to provide data to support the notion that there are not degrees of sin and responsibility. And it would help if maybe you DIDN'T limit it to your opinions about Bible verses that make you think the way you do. Maybe make an actual rational defense of these notions, if you believe them.
To play the Bible game with you for a minute:
God does not play favorites, is impartial, God is no respecter of persons.
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that
God is no respecter of persons:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
~Acts 10
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit,
impartial and sincere.
~James
For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God
who does not show partiality
nor take a bribe.
~Deut 10
And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and
there is no partiality with Him.
~Eph 6
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
For God does not show favoritism.
~Romans 2
Why God choose Israel? To bless ALL the earth:
The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers
~Deut 7
What was that oath?
I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.
~Gen 12
Excellent. You could have just said that you have no specific, explicit, Biblical support for you hunches about the seriousness of sins and your hunches about some sort of sin hierarchy. Instead you rambled for an entire comment filled with self serving bullshit that amounts to you deciding for yourself, based on your subjective, fallible, biased, imperfect Reason.
"Do you think that there are no such things as great evils and minor sins?"
This is quite a creative tactic. Instead of simply answering the question I asked, you decide to ask a question which has no relationship to anything I've actually said. Hoping that I'll do what you won't or can't.
"I didn't make that claim. Period."
Interesting. You keep throwing out "examples" of people who you claim have only committed a few "minor" sins. Are you admitting that your "examples are bullshit and that they don't represent a situation that would ever exist in the real world? Or are you admitting that you don't really believe that the examples you concoct are even possible, but designed to force people into answering the way you want them to?
"I DID say that I don't think they're understanding holiness correctly, to the degree that holiness means that God is some tyrant who can not tolerate even the slightest misdeed."
1. Are you suggesting that you DO understand YHWH's holiness correctly?
2. How is this not you saying that they hold a higher view of YHWH's holiness than you do?
"Jesus, after all, came specifically for the sinners, the least of these, the poor and marginalized, according to Jesus."
Really, you think all Jesus came to do is "hang out" with sinners? Nothing else?
"If he couldn't tolerate any sin, why did he hang out so much with the marginalized and those considered "sinners" and even GREAT sinners that the religious zealots of his day thought this was evidence that Jesus HIMSELF was associated with the devil!"
Well Jesus is recorded as spending time with the Satan, so maybe there is a difference between the earthly role of Jesus as opposed to YHWH The Father.
"I think the almighty God of the universe is entirely able to hang out with sinners and "tolerate" imperfect human beings."
Interesting hunch. But no proof that there are sinners in the presence of YHWH.
FYI, Jesus words on the cross as He "became sin" on our behalf were "My Father, why have you forsaken Me.". The text indicates that for a limited period of time, YHWH found it necessary to separate Himself from Jesus as Jesus fulfilled the reason for His earthly ministry.
"In the earliest days of the Hebrew people, God also didn't condemn slavery or selling your daughters into sexual slavery/forced marriage or polygamy or woman not having equal rights or killing children who were disrespectful or killing babies in war time... there are ALL MANNER of atrocities that God didn't address in the earliest ages of the OT."
So what, ,are you saying that YHWH goofed? That He didn't know that Dan was going to decide that some things were bad at first, but that folx like you educated Him? Which doesn't really answer my question. IF, as you claim, YHWH shows favoritism to the poor and oppressed, and felt it necessary to give them their own special "gospel", then why didn't He include this in His first recorded law?
"But even within the days of the Bible, we see a progression and improvement in moral reasoning. Since the first century, we've continued making more and more progress in moral issues."
That's quite a claim to make without actual proof.
"The Bible nowhere makes a claim to be the final word on moral reasoning. It just doesn't. Thank God almighty that Jesus was right in saying that we would do even greater things that Jesus himself and our moral progress is one sign of that."
Wow, Dan thinks he's doing better things than Jesus did. Thank goodness we have Dan to set everyone straight, and tell us all of his truths.
Craig...
Dan thinks he's doing better things than Jesus did. Thank goodness we have Dan to set everyone straight, and tell us all of his truths.
I literally never said that. Do you not worry about deliberately bearing false witness? A lying tongue, you know, is one of those sins that God especially hates. Does this blatant lie not bother you?
That's a serious question. I'm not harmed by your silly false claims, but I worry for you.
What I actually said was:
"Thank God almighty that Jesus was right in saying that we would do even greater things that Jesus himself and our moral progress is one sign of that."
So, first of all, I thanked GOD. And secondly, I thanked God that Jesus was right that we'd do even greater things that he himself did. In saying that, I am of course referring to these words from Jesus himself, found in John 14, from near the end of his life.
Jesus...
Very truly I tell you,
whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing,
and they will do even greater things than these,
because I am going to the Father.
Now, if one takes Jesus seriously and even literally, he LITERALLY said that we'd be doing even greater things than what he did. I took Jesus literally and seriously and YOU accuse ME of thinking I am doing better things that Jesus did?
Do you doubt Jesus? Are you calling Jesus a liar? (Again, I counsel you against those damned lies that God hates so much! If you take the Bible seriously, that is.)
I said nothing about "me," as in, I personally am doing greater things than Jesus. I noted that Jesus was right when he said we would do greater things than him. And why did I say that (besides it's what Jesus literally said)? Where is the support for that?
Because the data supports the claim.
Continued...
1. One of Jesus' (and humanity's) frequent concerns was for the sick and wounded. Today, we are living way longer, with better health. Prior to 1700, the average life expectancy was below 35 years old. Today, it's closer to 60 years old in the worst off places and well over 70 years old in most of the world. We have improved health care and live healthier lives. If one counts being concerned for the sick and disabled as a real moral concern, we are SIGNIFICANTLY in better shape.
2. Speaking of the disabled, in Jesus' day, if you were disabled and not from a wealthy family (MOST of the world), you were a beggar or dead. Even just 100 years ago, children with disabilities - especially disabilities with a significant impact upon your life - were an embarrassment and they were often kept hidden away in literal basements at homes or in institutions, left to be forgotten. It was a true moral horror. We're significantly better off morally on this point than just 100 years ago.
3. "For most of human existence, our species was dirt poor. But that has changed rapidly since the 19th century: The world's gross domestic product has spiked in a way that's simply unprecedented in human history." If you count moving more people out of poverty as a moral good, then we're significantly better off in days past.
4. Deaths from wars are at historical lows. No longer do we think "an eye for an eye" is just. No longer are we satisfied with going to war and killing off the enemy, man, woman and child. Those ideas - common prior to Jesus' day - are just no longer morally acceptable. If you count reducing the atrocities of war as a moral good, we're MUCH better off than in times past.
https://www.vox.com/2015/7/13/8908397/11-charts-best-time-in-history
4. Women in most nations around the world had few rights. Today, in all the free world, that is simply not the case. Women's rights are growing and that's a morally good thing. Do you disagree? Again, even just 100 years ago in our own nation, most women could not vote to have a voice in their own lives. If you count women's liberation and human rights as a moral good, we are significantly better off than in days past.
https://www.nlefc.org/pastors-blog/2019/1/23/historical-background-on-the-treatment-of-women-in-the-1st-century-eph-522-33
I could go on and on citing the vast moral improvements we've had, largely due to notions of civil and human rights that have won the day and for many of us, we recognize these human rights concerns and concerns for the least of these as central to Jesus' message. We ARE creating more morally sound societies in ways that are VASTLY superior than in Jesus' day and before (and getting ever better).
Now, having said that, it is of course true that with moral advancements and improvements, there are new opportunities for wrong-doing. We created nuclear bombs and used it to kill hundreds of thousands of people at once in a great moral catastrophe, for instance. With more freedom and human liberty comes the opportunity for humans to make bad choices. Still, the human liberty IS itself a vast improvement and I suspect that most people today - certainly women, slaves, children, LGBTQ people and people of good will across the board - would find living in the first century to be full of moral atrocities that we just don't have to deal with today.
Do you think that, all in all, we're actually LESS moral today and have made FEWER life-improving changes than in Jesus' day? I've given you just a taste of the data that I believe supports my view. Do you have any data to suggest otherwise?
Craig...
So what, ,are you saying that YHWH goofed?
I'm saying that I don't treat all parts of the Bible and all interpretations of the Bible as equally valid or equally moral. I'm saying that it's always a great evil to enslave people. Do you disagree?
And yet, in certain parts of the OT (and somewhat in the NT), slavery is accepted or even commanded. Now is that because of the notion of gradual revelation, where people at a certain time were not ready for moral improvements? That's above my pay grade. I'm just saying that today, we all - all moral and rational people - can agree that enslaving people is a great moral evil.
How do you explain slavery and polygamy, both commonly accepted or even commanded by God in the OT? Do you think God goofed? That moral requirements changed? OR, do you think that sometimes slavery and polygamy are acceptable moral options?
That He didn't know that Dan was going to decide that some things were bad at first, but that folx like you educated Him?
It of course has nothing to do with me. People like me throughout the centuries have listened and taken seriously the teachings of Jesus and God throughout the Bible and strove to live up to those ideals and, in many positive ways, are doing so.
Do you disagree human liberty/human rights improvements we've made since then are an objectively good thing?
Look, I don't judge moral behaviors of ancient peoples. I just recognize what we no longer accept. Myself, I tend to think any of the places that has God commanding people to commit what we recognize as atrocities today - slavery, sex slavery, genocide/mass slaughter of even children and babies - that these are not great representations of God and have more to do with the legendary/mythic styles they were written in than God's actual opinions.
But what say ye? Do you think God ACTUALLY commanded people to kill babies? Do you think that is a moral option sometimes? Do you understand why many/most modern moral people would disagree with that, if that's what you think?
Which doesn't really answer my question. IF, as you claim, YHWH shows favoritism to the poor and oppressed, and felt it necessary to give them their own special "gospel", then why didn't He include this in His first recorded law?
Again, I don't think I've said God shows favoritism to the poor. I think that's YOUR misinterpretation of my words. What I'm saying is that God BEGINS with looking out for the least of these, NOT in the sense of "I reallly like the poor and marginalized better than other people," but in the sense of THEY are the ones who need help. "I come to heal the sick, not the healthy."
You'd have to ask God or the biblical storytellers why the concern for the poor and marginalized isn't specifically spelled out in the Ten Commandments. I'd guess that God would say something like, "Well, I THOUGHT that would be obvious, but clearly it wasn't, so I spent the rest of the OT and NT making clear to you dolts that, OF COURSE, look out for the least of these. When you do that, you're doing that to ME. So do it. Jesus Christ!"
Jesus: "What dad?"
Craig...
You could have just said that you have no specific, explicit, Biblical support for you hunches about the seriousness of sins and your hunches about some sort of sin hierarchy.
? I've OFFERED Biblical passages that speak to the reality that there are greater and lesser sins. I've OFFERED rational explanations why, OF COURSE, we can recognize significant differences between misdeeds. I DO NOT NEED TO GIVE YOU ONE SINGLE BIBLE VERSE TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT RECOGNIZING WHAT IS OBVIOUS. I DON'T NEED TO PLAY YOUR SILLY BIBLE GAME THAT DIMINISHES THE BIBLE with your silly little traditions and hoops to jump through.
YOU HAVE OFFERED ZERO specific, explicit biblical support for YOUR hunches about your imaginations about what YOU think is the "seriousness of sin" or a lack of a sin "hierarchy" if you think there is no difference between sins.
Why not make yourself clear: DO you NOT think that there are vast differences between misdeeds? There ARE FACTUALLY misdeeds that are done in ignorance. Do you recognize that? There are factually misdeeds that have fewer/smaller repercussions/harms. There are factually sins that have deadly harmful consequences that might reasonably rise to the level of being called "evil."
Do you DENY those clearly distinctive levels of misdeeds?
If so, based upon what? And once again, I DO NOT CARE if YOU personally choose to interpret some ancient text to say that "all sins are equal and should be punished equally." IF that's what you think, let me assure you: It's a stupid theory on your part.
You had asked...
Where is the unequivocal, explicit support for your claim that some sins are "minor"?
I responded...
I don't need a list of [Bible] verses to support the idea that some sins are minor for all the reasons I've already stated. I don't need a list. YOU don't need a list. WE don't HAVE a list.
THAT IS THE ANSWER to your question. It is direct, clear and factual, demonstrably factual. What are you failing to understand about it.
I followed up with the reasonable question, given your confusion...
Do you think that there are no such things as great evils and minor sins? If so, where is your unequivocal, explicit support for that notion, because it's not in the Bible?
Instead of answering these reasonable questions, you dodged...
This is quite a creative tactic. Instead of simply answering the question I asked, you decide to ask a question which has no relationship to anything I've actually said. Hoping that I'll do what you won't or can't.
IF YOU are saying there ARE not distinctions between misdeeds, from the innocent sins done in ignorance, to the relatively minor lies to cover up an embarrassing moment to genocide, then that is delusional. OF COURSE, there is a range of misdeeds, from minor peccadilloes to great evil.
DO YOU DISAGREE?
I directly and clearly answered your questions. How about having the decency to do the same.
"1. The thinking is that this Way of Welcome and Grace IS a way of improvement."
I love it when you throw out these made up, undefined terms and capitalize them as if that makes them somehow official.
"The early church DID share all things in common and provided relief for those in need."
One part of the very earliest iteration of The Church did this to some degree, yet it wasn't seen as normative beyond the earliest gathering of believers in Jerusalem. Further, their "charity" was quite clearly limited to those who were part of the group of believers. They didn't feed the entirety of Jerusalem's poor, they released no one from political oppression. They also did other things that I don't see you advocating for as normative. Why only choose this one part of the life of the Jerusalem church to try to make normative for everyone else?
" The welcoming church of Grace throughout history HAS made things better for the oppressed. It did and does so imperfectly because in this imperfect world, there are no certain solutions. BUT, to the degree that people buy into looking out first and foremost for the least of these, the oppressed and marginalized, then to THAT degree, things do and are getting better."
Really? This "Way of Grace" made things better for the early believers who were crucified, fed to lions, stoned, and the like? I'm not sure it got better for Jesus up on the cross, did it? I guess that Jesus got it wrong when He taught the following Him was going to result in more oppression and suffering rather than less. But hey, as long as you set your goals low, and make sure they can't be measured you can always brag about how well you've done in achieving them
"The problem remains greed and oppression and indifference/unwillingness to work for this beloved community. We welcome you to join us, though, and we welcome you encouraging others to join us."
Are you really suggesting that this who mysterious "Way of Grace/Welcome" is completely reliant on the efforts of humans to make things "better"?
"2. With the progress made in opposition to slavery, to oppression of women, to human liberty, to safe lives and welcome places for children, for the disabled, for human rights, for the poor and marginalized, for LGBTQ people... the world is significantly, measurably better today now than it was in Jesus' day. The progress may be slow, but it is progress and people appreciate the progress made."
Again, is this "progress' totally dependent of people, and governments?
"3. "Apparently it didn't even offer the hope of an afterlife where there was freedom from poverty and oppression or an afterlife where those who oppressed them would face harsh consequences."
"Says who? We certainly believe in a an afterlife that is an improvement on God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven."
Who is this "we" you refer to? Are you really suggesting that this "afterlife" you mention is just going to me an incremental "improvement" over our current state of being?
"But a faith that ONLY says, "Well, we're not going to one damn thing to help you now, but Lordy, Lordy, by and by things will be better!" is a pretty worthless fair that the poor and marginalized don't have much use for. Also, "they'll get theirs!" is also a cold comfort. Is that all you're thinking the church can offer the oppressed here and now?"
Yet, I'm aware of no one who seriously proposes a faith that is a complete disconnect between "on earth, as it is in Heaven". Please shed some light on who is promoting this faith? (Other than those who follow Islam)
"Again, I invite you to join us in the fight for human rights and against oppression."
Why do I have to join you? Is joining you the only acceptable way to fight for those things? Are you suggesting that you have some special secret knowledge that makes joining you the only way? Are you suggesting that your way is the only way? Why would you assume that I am not fighting for those things?
"4. Tell me, if you were the poor and oppressed, would you rather have a faith that says,
A. "We're not going to do anything about your oppression and poverty now, but by and by, things will be better..."
or one that says,
B. "We're standing with you, we'll fight for jobs for you, for housing solutions, for help with your medical and mental health care, to be welcomed to our nation if you're escaping oppression overseas, to be welcome in our homes and church if you're LGBTQ and tired of the hateful words and policy oppression against you... We'll welcome you to be a part of our beloved community, and the beloved community of God... Here. Now. Given our finite nature and the opposition and/or indifference of way too many, we won't be able to fix it all here and now, but we're committed to the fight alongside you.""
I don't believe that this binary you've constructed accurately represents anything beyond your own hunches and I reject the notion that you define faith in such a way as to exclude any other options.
"Which do you find more satisfying? More "of God..."?"
What satisfies me, and what is "of God" aren't necessarily the same thing. I always strive for "of God" over satisfying myself. Surely you aren't suggesting that we measure YHWH's pleasure and will based on the satisfaction of our earthly desires, are you?
When Dan sets up these false dichotomies, it really makes me wonder if he really believes the crap he spews. Especially when he presents the side that he disagrees with in false and inaccurate ways.
"Sort of a different path, but are you saying you think that Jesus is calling us specifically TO oppression, to seek out oppression?"
I'm saying that Jesus made it clear that following Him would result in His followers being "oppressed", mistreated, and even killed. Jesus call for us to "Take up our cross daily" is a call to BE "oppressed". Jesus, Peter, Paul, John all make it very clear that the life of a follower of Jesus is one where His followers will be "oppressed" for His sake.
"Or that the Way of God's grace, as taught by Jesus - the way of Good news to the literal poor and marginalized, the way of Welcome, the Way of a Beloved Community will sometimes be met by resistance and even violence by those who are benefiting from systems where they are enriched by other's oppression... that we may sometimes end up joining in with the already oppressed in their oppression because that's sometimes where Jesus' Way leads?"
Again with thses nonsense, undefined terms that you capitalize as if trying to pretend that these are real things. Strange, Jesus taught that if we Follow Him, that we will be "oppressed" for following Him. I'm unaware of Him teaching clearly and unequivocally that we were to seek out those who are being politically oppressed and join them in wallowing in their oppression. The problem with this "Danology" (It's clearly not theology), is that it is dependent on our actions or works, and it doesn't follow Jesus' example as HE never rescued anyone from oppression or lifted anyone from poverty.
"Would you join with King, Gandhi, Wink and countless others who read Jesus' teachings and note that by joining with/aligning with the poor, marginalized and oppressed, the point would be to lessen and even bring an END to hunger, poverty and oppression. To "Pour heaping burning coals" upon the heads of oppressors by this non-violent resistance and allyship with the poor and oppressed?"
No, I'll join with Jesus and follow him, rather than following folx who are on Dan's approved humans list.
"Indeed, as we see, the world has progressed. Women have rights, children have rights, people can't be treated openly as property in the free world... human rights are fairly universally accepted as a given, even if there are still pockets opposed to it and still much failure to live up to the notion of human rights and an end to oppression. The world is a much better place today than in Jesus' day thanks in large part to the fight for a Beloved Community, the Way of Christ as taught by Christ, as well as those who "accept" or agree with this Way."
"Do you disagree?"
With what? That paragraph is so full of vague, meaningless, bullshit catchphrases and self serving garbage that there is literally nothing of substance to agree or disagree with. The problem isn't whether or not I disagree, it's whether or not you can prove that the steaming pile of bullshit actually represents The Truth and is worth agreeing with.
"It is an entirely reasonable question to say, "SAYS WHO?""
Of course, simply asking the question that Satan asked Eve (paraphrased, but essentially the same) begs the question "If you're right, and Sproul is wrong, then "SAYS WHO"?. Further, as I note, I would be winning to bet that Sproul actually answers your question, but that you just don't agree with his answer. The problem then becomes, does the facta that you disagree with Sproul automatically mean that you are right and he is wrong?
"Where did God say EVEN SEEMINGLY INSIGNIFICANT SINS (good for Sproul for at least recognizing the notion of insignificant sins... while at the same time, pulling the rug out from under it!)"
Actually you missed the word "seemingly" in the quote. You are basing your notion of "minor" sins on how things seem to you. You can't be basing it on anything else, because I've been asking your for that information for ages and you've insisted that there is no authoritative list anywhere. Therefore that leaves you and how things seem to you as your basis for making your claims.
"are an act of rebellion against God? Sproul in his essay and the sermon I listened to do not say. He acts as if it's a foregone conclusion."
Then maybe you should have dug deeper. How absurd is it to say, "Well, I read one article and listened top one sermon (out of hundreds) and since my questions weren't all perfectly answered I'll just assume that no answer could possibly exist.". You do realize that you're simply admitting that you are too lazy to look deeper in order to find answers, or too full of pride in the fact that you know more then enough about "conservatives" that you don't need to do research.
"In the Bible, we see the notion of "sinning in ignorance," or from a place of I just didn't KNOW it was wrong! There are sometimes consequences for this, but they are lesser consequences. Consider: And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few."
Excellent job. You've just argued that the servant who sinned in ignorance was still going to be punished. That's quite a construct. Sinners who sin in ignorance still get punished, just slightly less punishment.
"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin. [does the opposite hold true, as James seems to imply? For those who know NOT 'to do good,' and don't do it, it is NOT sin? I mean, HOW IS THAT RATIONAL? HOW can someone be held accountable for something they didn't know?!]"
Excellent, deciding that what you infer from one out of context verse is all you need to support your hunch, even when it contradicts the previous proof text.
"But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, “Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife.” But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also? Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she, even she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this." And God said to him in a dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her."
Offering a myth, where YHWH literally says "I knew that she lied to you and I protected you from committing that particular sin." seems to contradict both your point about "minor" sins, but also your point about YHWH giving some people special treatment.
"Different degrees of law and consequences, depending on the action and motive. This is reasonable and, as we see, biblical."
Again, referring to myth as if it can be taken literally, and trying to suggest that the atonement process for sin under the old covenant is exactly the same as the new covenant. Of course, this also points out that atonement is necessary for forgiveness of sins...
"Is it EVER, in the Bible, specifically delineated all the potential variations and responses of intentional, deliberate, lesser, great vs unintentional and less serious?"
Not in the sense that you seem to mean.
"No."
Why ask the question, if you are going to insist that you have the only possible correct answer?
"God never specifically tells us: ANY sins are to be considered great and worthy of eternal torture. Right? God never tells us, EVEN ONE relatively inconsequential misdeed deserves eternal torture. Right?"
Well, since you've again offers a false dichotomy and offered a binary choice which may or may not accurately represent what YHEH did tell us, I see no way to answer the questions you asked, because you haven't demonstrated that you have accurately communicated what YHWH has taught.
"So we have to use our reason to sort these things out that are not specifically authoritatively answered for us, do we not?"
Sure, you can put your faith in your Reason if you'd like.
"Where is the rational and biblical justification for the notion that God considers ALL sins, even unknown or insignificant, as an act of violence and rebellion against God?"
That's much too large of a topic to handle in a blog comment. I'd refer you to places where this is discussed, but the likelihood that you'd actually do the research is so small as to render my efforts to do so pointless.
"It's not in the Bible, nor is it found in reason, so far as ANYTHING I've ever seen."
you're making either two distinct claims or one compound claim here. The implication being that if you've "never seen it" then it is impossible that it is "in the Bible". Unfortunately, the contents of scripture exist without regard to your ability to "see" them.
"Feel free to provide data to support the notion that there are not degrees of sin and responsibility."
Why woul dI, you've already stated with certainty that your hunches on the matter are correct, so why would I bother to try to offer anything that might counter your mighty Reason.
I'd note that it seem reasonable to conclude that while all sins are an act of rebellion against YHWH, that not all sins represent an equal degree of harm or consequence.
Regardless of how one chooses to take the first part of Genesis, the message being communicated is that humans want to take YHWH's place in terms of being able to define right and wrong, or good and evil. That desire is at the foundation of every sin.
"And it would help if maybe you DIDN'T limit it to your opinions about Bible verses that make you think the way you do. Maybe make an actual rational defense of these notions, if you believe them."
It's always refreshing when you show up at my blog, waste a bunch of my time, then tell me how I must do the things that you demand that I do. So no, I don't think I will try to do in a blog comment what you could undoubtedly find by doing a little research of your own. Sproul, MacArthur, Piper, (among others0 and the like are much more well educated than I am, much more conversant on these topics than I am, and much better at expressing themselves in writing than I am. As I see you try to explain your nonsense constructs an personal hunches about these topics, I've concluded that if there was actually anyone who help your peculiar amalgam of beliefs and who could express them in a rational, coherent style it would be incredibly helpful. But since all you really have is recline of your Reason and Rationality (both of which are subjective and fallible), I'll offer this.
My study and God given reason leads me to certain conclusions, I believe that those conclusions are the only rational conclusions to draw from scripture and that the preponderance of the historic record of Christian theological scholarship affirms the conclusions that I have reached.
By your standards, the fact that I've declared my conclusions to be reasonable and rational should be all I need to say.
I'm not going to play the cherry picked, out of context, proof texts game with you. The fact that you consider pulling our of context proof texts to be a game, tells me all I need to know.
"I literally never said that. Do you not worry about deliberately bearing false witness? A lying tongue, you know, is one of those sins that God especially hates. Does this blatant lie not bother you?"
No, you didn't. You just implied it, and I decided that it was better to treat yoru comment as if it was absurd, instead of taking it seriously. My bad.
"Thank God almighty that Jesus was right in saying that we would do even greater things that Jesus himself and our moral progress is one sign of that."
"o, first of all, I thanked GOD. And secondly, I thanked God that Jesus was right that we'd do even greater things that he himself did. In saying that, I am of course referring to these words from Jesus himself, found in John 14, from near the end of his life."
Interesting, maybe I was right. If you include yourself in the "we" in that verse, then you seem to literally be claiming that you will do greater things than Jesus. Regardless of whether or not you give YHWH "credit" or not, you clearly seem to be including yourself in "we", are no not?
"Now, if one takes Jesus seriously and even literally, he LITERALLY said that we'd be doing even greater things than what he did. I took Jesus literally and seriously and YOU accuse ME of thinking I am doing better things that Jesus did?"
No, I'm saying that you are claiming that you are part of the "we" you refer to. It seems strange that you'd use th eterm "we" and not include yourself in that "we".
"Do you doubt Jesus? Are you calling Jesus a liar? (Again, I counsel you against those damned lies that God hates so much! If you take the Bible seriously, that is.)"
No, I only doubt you and point out the occasions when you lie.
"I said nothing about "me," as in, I personally am doing greater things than Jesus. I noted that Jesus was right when he said we would do greater things than him. And why did I say that (besides it's what Jesus literally said)? Where is the support for that?"
Again, unless you're exempting yourself from the "we" in your claim, you're literally making the claim about yourself.
"Because the data supports the claim."
What data?
"1. One of Jesus' (and humanity's) frequent concerns was for the sick and wounded. Today, we are living way longer, with better health. Prior to 1700, the average life expectancy was below 35 years old. Today, it's closer to 60 years old in the worst off places and well over 70 years old in most of the world. We have improved health care and live healthier lives. If one counts being concerned for the sick and disabled as a real moral concern, we are SIGNIFICANTLY in better shape."
Yet strangely enough when we look at Islam, Eastern religions, and many other cultures we don't see this. Certainly not to the degree we see it in christian culture. Of course, if you believe the claims of certain fields of Science, they tell us quite the opposite.
"2. Speaking of the disabled, in Jesus' day, if you were disabled and not from a wealthy family (MOST of the world), you were a beggar or dead. Even just 100 years ago, children with disabilities - especially disabilities with a significant impact upon your life - were an embarrassment and they were often kept hidden away in literal basements at homes or in institutions, left to be forgotten. It was a true moral horror. We're significantly better off morally on this point than just 100 years ago."
Do you mean that killing off children who might be disabled in the womb is a more moral choice?
"3. "For most of human existence, our species was dirt poor. But that has changed rapidly since the 19th century: The world's gross domestic product has spiked in a way that's simply unprecedented in human history." If you count moving more people out of poverty as a moral good, then we're significantly better off in days past."
WHy yes, yes it has. Now that explosive growth wouldn't have happened without capitalistic societies, fossil fuels, and the like. Your ideal of a "simple" "agrarian" ;lifestyle would be unable to produce the growth we've seen in the last 150 years. Communism couldn't do it, socialism couldn't do it, but let's not let those things get in the way of your narrative.
"4. Deaths from wars are at historical lows. No longer do we think "an eye for an eye" is just. No longer are we satisfied with going to war and killing off the enemy, man, woman and child. Those ideas - common prior to Jesus' day - are just no longer morally acceptable. If you count reducing the atrocities of war as a moral good, we're MUCH better off than in times past."
Yes, they are. Because those nations that are more technologically advanced have learned to apply force in more judicious and targeted ways that attempt to and mostly succeed in limiting the damage to combatants. Yet in the less technologically advanced nations, we still see indiscriminate killing of large numbers of civilians.
"4. Women in most nations around the world had few rights. Today, in all the free world, that is simply not the case. Women's rights are growing and that's a morally good thing. Do you disagree? Again, even just 100 years ago in our own nation, most women could not vote to have a voice in their own lives. If you count women's liberation and human rights as a moral good, we are significantly better off than in days past."
"I could go on and on citing the vast moral improvements we've had,"
It's interesting that you are assuming that every aspect (unless you're cherry picking again) of these things is automatically a "moral" good, yet you can't define an objective standard for what "moral" is.
"Do you think that, all in all, we're actually LESS moral today and have made FEWER life-improving changes than in Jesus' day?"
In the absence of proof that everything you mentioned is absolutely, objectively moral, I really couldn't begin to answer your question. I'd say that sinful, fallen, imperfect humans probably haven't changed much since Jesus. Lust, envy, greed, gluttony, sexual immorality, lying, cheating, stealing, murder, rape, bullying,and the like are all still with us. Many of those things are likely more pravelent today due to the technological advances you laud as a sign of morality. I'm going to stick with, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of YHWH". and "there's nothing new under the sun.".
"I've given you just a taste of the data that I believe supports my view. Do you have any data to suggest otherwise?"
Yes, you've cherry picked some "data" that you think makes your point (look how great we humans are), but you haven't proven that any of that data proves morality, nor have you looked at all possible datasets.
I'm not saying that your data is necessarily wrong, just that it doesn't prove morality and it's incomplete.
"I'm saying that I don't treat all parts of the Bible and all interpretations of the Bible as equally valid or equally moral. I'm saying that it's always a great evil to enslave people. Do you disagree?"
I disagree with any value system that finds it's foundation in you.
"And yet, in certain parts of the OT (and somewhat in the NT), slavery is accepted or even commanded. Now is that because of the notion of gradual revelation, where people at a certain time were not ready for moral improvements? That's above my pay grade. I'm just saying that today, we all - all moral and rational people - can agree that enslaving people is a great moral evil."
And yet, perhaps your interpretation is mistaken. Perhaps the word slavery is poorly translated. Perhaps your 21st century liberal biases are getting in the way of you accurately dealing with the texts. I don't know, I don't care. In the absence of proof that you are correct, I see no reason to argue against your unproven hunches.
"How do you explain slavery and polygamy, both commonly accepted or even commanded by God in the OT? Do you think God goofed? That moral requirements changed? OR, do you think that sometimes slavery and polygamy are acceptable moral options?"
I don't speak for YHWH. I do recognize that there are multiple things that YHWH allows, and possibly limits, but doesn't actively sanction. I'm willing to accept that YHW"s ways are much different than mine, and that my opinions on things attributed to Him are not relevant. I'm willing to live in the tension of not understanding all of the details, but trusting that YHWH is as He is represented.
"It of course has nothing to do with me. People like me throughout the centuries have listened and taken seriously the teachings of Jesus and God throughout the Bible and strove to live up to those ideals and, in many positive ways, are doing so."
Well played. The humble brag is executed flawlessly. The problem with this claim is that you keep referring back to your Reason as the what determines what you thisk is "of God" and what's not.
"Do you disagree human liberty/human rights improvements we've made since then are an objectively good thing?"
NO, not every single "improvement" is automatically "better", nor are all of those things "of God".
"Look, I don't judge moral behaviors of ancient peoples. I just recognize what we no longer accept. Myself, I tend to think any of the places that has God commanding people to commit what we recognize as atrocities today - slavery, sex slavery, genocide/mass slaughter of even children and babies - that these are not great representations of God and have more to do with the legendary/mythic styles they were written in than God's actual opinions."
Yes, I get it. You as a 21st century liberal/progressive are sooooooooo much more advanced and sooooooooooooo much more moral than those ancient people who just didn't know as much as "we" do.
"But what say ye? Do you think God ACTUALLY commanded people to kill babies? Do you think that is a moral option sometimes? Do you understand why many/most modern moral people would disagree with that, if that's what you think?"
I say nothing, I don't pass judgement on YHWH, ancient Israel, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Hitler, or Margaret Sanger. It's not my place to do so. Nor do I revel in my pride about how much more "moral" "we" are than those people. It's not a game I'm interested in playing. Unless you can offer an objective standard to make those judgements by, I'm not interested in joining you in self righteousness.
"Again, I don't think I've said God shows favoritism to the poor. I think that's YOUR misinterpretation of my words. What I'm saying is that God BEGINS with looking out for the least of these, NOT in the sense of "I reallly like the poor and marginalized better than other people," but in the sense of THEY are the ones who need help. "I come to heal the sick, not the healthy.""
Not in those exact words. You've said that the poor and oppressed get "extra" help from YHWH. You've said that the poor/oppressed have their own "gospel". So playing semantic games isn't really helpful.
"You'd have to ask God or the biblical storytellers why the concern for the poor and marginalized isn't specifically spelled out in the Ten Commandments. I'd guess that God would say something like, "Well, I THOUGHT that would be obvious, but clearly it wasn't, so I spent the rest of the OT and NT making clear to you dolts that, OF COURSE, look out for the least of these. When you do that, you're doing that to ME. So do it. Jesus Christ!""
Interesting, you claim that YHWH has this special concern for and focus on the poor/oppressed, that this focus flows through the entirs Bible as a "major" point, yet YHWH just forgot something that was one of the most important things in scripture.
"I've OFFERED Biblical passages that speak to the reality that there are greater and lesser sins. I've OFFERED rational explanations why, OF COURSE, we can recognize significant differences between misdeeds. I DO NOT NEED TO GIVE YOU ONE SINGLE BIBLE VERSE TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT RECOGNIZING WHAT IS OBVIOUS. I DON'T NEED TO PLAY YOUR SILLY BIBLE GAME THAT DIMINISHES THE BIBLE with your silly little traditions and hoops to jump through."
You've cherry picked some out of context proof texts that you believe hint and your hunch, but that whole direct/unequivocal/specific thing just seems to elude you.
"YOU HAVE OFFERED ZERO specific, explicit biblical support for YOUR hunches about your imaginations about what YOU think is the "seriousness of sin" or a lack of a sin "hierarchy" if you think there is no difference between sins."
I haven't offered any "hunches" about any of this. I've been too busy trying to pin you down and get you to prove your claims about your hunches to have time to do so myself. But feel free to tilt against the windmills of your imagination.
"Why not make yourself clear: DO you NOT think that there are vast differences between misdeeds?"
Scripture seem clear that at a very basic level all sin is sin. What you seem to be attempting to do is split hairs about degrees of sin based on your subjective hunches and biases. With the baseline understood, that all sin is based in the human desire to decide what is good and what is evil. There are obviously differences in the effects of certain sins on others or on ourselves. Yet that doesn't mean that those sins affect YHWH in the same way. Your problem is that you are arguing against what you assume my position to be, instead of what it is.
"Do you DENY those clearly distinctive levels of misdeeds?"
Asked and answered.
"If so, based upon what? And once again, I DO NOT CARE if YOU personally choose to interpret some ancient text to say that "all sins are equal and should be punished equally." IF that's what you think, let me assure you: It's a stupid theory on your part."
Well since it's something that you've made up and attributed to me, maybe the stupidity lies with you for making up some bullshit and pretending that it represents me.
"I responded... I don't need a list of [Bible] verses to support the idea that some sins are minor for all the reasons I've already stated. I don't need a list. YOU don't need a list. WE don't HAVE a list."
!. You are correct in saying that you "responded", not answered.
2. What you "need" is irrelevant and has no bearing on anything.
3. Your "needs" don't dictate reality.
4. I don't care about your "needs" in this instance.
"THAT IS THE ANSWER to your question. It is direct, clear and factual, demonstrably factual. What are you failing to understand about it."
No, you were right the first time, it's a response, not an answer. What you claim to "need", what you presume others "need", and you claims about unproven hunches, are irrelevant. Stay in the real world, and simply acknowledge that you can't provide direct, unequivocal, specific biblical support for your hunches. If you're going to make thesee sorts of claims, than everyone else needs proof if your hunches are to be considered.
" followed up with the reasonable question, given your confusion..."
Ohhhhh look, Dan is being self congratulatory and self serving.
Do you think that there are no such things as great evils and minor sins? If so, where is your unequivocal, explicit support for that notion, because it's not in the Bible?
"Instead of answering these reasonable questions, you dodged... This is quite a creative tactic. Instead of simply answering the question I asked, you decide to ask a question which has no relationship to anything I've actually said. Hoping that I'll do what you won't or can't."
Not in the least. I am simply pointing out that your "question" did not answer my question, it was merely a diversion from answering my question. Maybe that log in your eye is the problem.
IF YOU are saying there ARE not distinctions between misdeeds, from the innocent sins done in ignorance, to the relatively minor lies to cover up an embarrassing moment to genocide, then that is delusional. OF COURSE, there is a range of misdeeds, from minor peccadilloes to great evil.
"Do you think that there are no such things as great evils and minor sins? If so, where is your unequivocal, explicit support for that notion, because it's not in the Bible?"
Regardless of any perceived degrees of sin, the bottom line is that sin is sin. Everyone has/does/will sin, nitpicking over degrees is pointless. What difference does it make? Jesus said that looking at a woman lustfully was rape/adultery/sexual impurity. If His point wasn't that all sin has grave consequences, then what was it?
"DO YOU DISAGREE?"
Yes, I disagree with your unproven hunches because you haven't even attempted to offer specific, unequivocal proof of your hunches.
"I directly and clearly answered your questions. How about having the decency to do the same."
If you say so.
So, you do NOT agree that with our human rights, improved health and mental health care, higher educational levels, smaller wars, etc, we have made moral progress, as a people. What criteria would you propose for measuring moral health?
What difference does degree of sin make in regards to reasonable punishment?
Because, by definition, a just punishment depends upon assessing the severity of the crime/wrong. If a punishment is disproportionate to the misdeeds, then it is longer just.
Am I mistaken according to your personal theories?
I mean, if going 36 mph in a 35 mph zone is equivalent to the rape, torture and murder of a million babies then maybe an eternity of torture is appropriate. Is that what you think?
Dan
craig...
With the baseline understood, that all sin is based in the human desire to decide what is good and what is evil.
Sigh. Prove it. This is just an empty claim, I don't care what you may think in your head the "baseline" may be, according to you. PROVE that "all sin is based in the desired to decide what is good and evil."
It's an inane, banal theory on the face of it. WHY is it not possible that at least some people want to try to figure out what is good and evil because they want to DO GOOD? Says who?
Do you know many people who deliberately WANT to do evil? Because I don't. I just don't. I don't know a single person like that. Do you?
And why is it not possible that we human types are trying to decide what is good and evil so that we can avoid the evil and do the good?? Doesn't that sound more reasonable, on the face of it?
I had asked...
"But what say ye? Do you think God ACTUALLY commanded people to kill babies? Do you think that is a moral option sometimes? Do you understand why many/most modern moral people would disagree with that, if that's what you think?"
You responded by saying...
I say nothing, I don't pass judgement on YHWH,
Well say something. We're talking about KILLING BABIES. Good Lord in heaven, take a very basic stand. Will you say that it's ALWAYS wrong to kill babies? Will you say that it's always wrong to enslave people?
Take a stand. You can't seriously expect people to take your opinions about morality seriously if you can't condemn killing babies and enslaving people as always a great evil.
Will you do that small bit of heroism?
"So, you do NOT agree that with our human rights, improved health and mental health care, higher educational levels, smaller wars, etc, we have made moral progress, as a people. What criteria would you propose for measuring moral health?"
I think that for the most part, those things are good. I see no basis for you to make the claims that those are 100% moral issues. I see no basis for the suggestion that these things are brought about as a direct result of some gospel.
"What difference does degree of sin make in regards to reasonable punishment?"
Interesting, before I answer, I'll note that this is a question I've asked you that I don't believe has ever been answered, nor do I believe that you will answer it.
My answer to your question is that I have absolutely no way to know what the specific punishment for a specific sin. I have no way to know what the accumulation of unforgiven, unrepented for sin is.
"Because, by definition, a just punishment depends upon assessing the severity of the crime/wrong. If a punishment is disproportionate to the misdeeds, then it is longer just."
OK, if you say so then it must be True, and YHWH must abide by whatever you've said. Of course, you won't explain in detail what your hunches are on the matter.
"Am I mistaken according to your personal theories?"
Since you haven't offered any personal theory of your own, I have no idea. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think about your personal theories.
"I mean, if going 36 mph in a 35 mph zone is equivalent to the rape, torture and murder of a million babies then maybe an eternity of torture is appropriate. Is that what you think?"
No. But it's an excellent job of trying to take what I actually said and turn it into something that bears no relationship to what I said.
Since you won't elaborate on your personal theories in any detail, beyond repeating the same old catchphrases masquerading as doctrine, all you have left is to misrepresent what I've said and duel those strawmen.
Craig...
Since you won't elaborate on your personal theories in any detail,
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.
1. I believe that we should strive for justice for all. Period.
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.
3. I believe in an almighty, perfectly loving, perfectly Just God.
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.
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...
"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."
and this one from Cornell University is a good, more traditional definition:
"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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Have you missed me explaining all of this? What details do you want me to give? The size of the Judgment Throne? The sentencing guidelines from God? How good a defense lawyer is Jesus?
We don't have any details. I can't give what no one has.
Do you think you have access to some secret trove of details beyond what I've offered?
I think that for the most part, those things are good. I see no basis for you to make the claims that those are 100% moral issues. I see no basis for the suggestion that these things are brought about as a direct result of some gospel.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You had said...
Regardless of any perceived degrees of sin, the bottom line is that sin is sin. Everyone has/does/will sin, nitpicking over degrees is pointless. What difference does it make?
To which I responded...
What difference does degree of sin make in regards to reasonable punishment? Because,
by definition, a just punishment depends upon
assessing the severity of the crime/wrong.
If a punishment is disproportionate to the misdeeds, then it is longer just.
To which you said...
Interesting, before I answer, I'll note that this is a question I've asked you that I don't believe has ever been answered, nor do I believe that you will answer it.
How is my answer above, and again here:
by definition, a just punishment depends upon
assessing the severity of the crime/wrong.
If a punishment is disproportionate to the misdeeds, then it is longer just.
...NOT a clear and direct and reasonable answer to the question "what difference does the degree of sin make...?" Is it mistaken somehow? Based upon what?
Dan continues to belabor the point by focusing on specific acts, the latest being going one mile per hour above the posted speed limit. Would that be once in a lifetime of driving, or constantly throughout one's life behind the wheel? But more importantly, is the person intentionally exceeding the limit, or mistakenly...because the latter is not sinful at all...not in the sense of a sinful act. However, it could be argued...quite easily in fact...that it's the result of one's sin nature. I'm not about to suggest we initiate another tangential discussion, though no doubt Dan will jump on such a thing because he thinks it matters where sin is concerned. And throughout these many discussions on this topic, Dan hasn't once implied he grasps what does matter, because his purpose is to defend sinful behaviors he chooses to insist are somehow no longer...or never were despite clear Scriptural evidence...sinful.
What matters...that is, that which Dan doesn't seem to grasp or even know to reach out to grasp...is not in the least a "human theory". It's...again...Christianity 101.
From your initial post...
"Yet as I skimmed his post, I saw absolutely zero examples of scriptural support for his positions. "
My post in question is me looking at the position of some white evangelicals and I'm asking, Says who? Based upon what?
I'm noting there are not any verses in the Bible that speak of cosmic treason or that state even infants are deserving of eternal torture... and noting the complete absence of verses that say this, I'm asking Who says?
I can't point to the verses that deal with cosmic treason or eternal torture for babies because there are none. That's the point.
If I'm saying, um, this isn't in the Bible... it seems strange to respond to that with, Where is your biblical support for this?
My support is ALL the Bible where it never says that.
Dan
Art,
Keep in mind that the title of the blog post that started this is "The God of The Oppressed in the Bible". I don't know about you, but that seems to indicate that there are separate gods for the oppressed and the non oppressed.
There is ONE God, according to the Bible and according to God's testimony IN that Bible, that God IS the God of the poor and marginalized. AND he's God for ALL but it begins by joining the poor and marginalized as an ally and defender. The Gospel that Jesus taught was, according to Jesus, good news to the poor and marginalized. Which is NOT to say others are excluded. THEY/WE are welcome to join the beloved community in union/solidarity with God and the poor and marginalized, according to Jesus ("when you do it for the least of these, you do it for me.")
Do you think that Jesus should NOT be taken seriously when he begins his ministry by saying that he had come to preach specifically GOOD news specifically to the poor and marginalized? Was Jesus being foolish? Should you take THAT passage as somehow metaphorically??
Do you think that Jesus should NOT be taken seriously when he said you do it for the least of these, you were doing it for HIM? Should you take THAT passage as somehow metaphorical?
Do you see how it sometimes seems like you want to take the most clear and definitive teachings from Jesus metaphorically but you make literal clearly figurative teachings that are not central to Jesus' actual message?
Craig...
My answer to your question is that I have absolutely no way to know what the specific punishment for a specific sin. I have no way to know what the accumulation of unforgiven, unrepented for sin is.
Good for you. Humility. Reason. You and I agree that we have NO WAY OF KNOWING the specific punishment for a specific sin. AND, you have no way of knowing what the punishment for, say, 10,000 accumulated sins which may or may not have been repented of in the "right way..." (For instance, what if the person stole 5,000 cookies ten fountain pens from work and told lies about 3500 times... AND if they regretted and apologized for it or maybe did that half the time and half the time they didn't regret or apologize for it... or ANY combination of remorse... YOU HAVE NO WAY of knowing if there is some specific punishment for those accumulation of songs and YOU HAVE NO WAY of knowing that these sins MUST be paid for by an eternity of torture.
Is that what you're saying?
If so, good for you. You're correct. None of us have any objective, definitive, authoritative way of saying that 10,000 such instances are and can ONLY be punished by eternal torture in hell short of apologizing in the right way. As a point of objective reality.
Are we agreeing?
And what if Marshal and Sproul, Jr and Al Mohler all say that they DO have an objectively definitive, proven way of knowing that those 10,000 sins ARE and can ONLY be punished by eternal torture if they don't apologize in the right way... will you tell them that there is no evidence that they can prove that claim?
Just to be clear, where you say...
I don't know about you, but that seems to indicate that there are separate gods for the oppressed and the non oppressed.
That is LITERALLY not what I'm saying. It may SEEM that way to you, but as the person who wrote those words, I can authoritatively and objectively tell you that this is NOT my meaning (which you can tell by the way I never ever one time in all the history of reality in the real world through all of time and in this and all known universes).
Does your ability to find words in a text/essay that "seem" TO YOU to mean something that the author literally never said and did not mean AT ALL (quite the opposite) give you even a little pause or lack of confidence in your ability to understand the biblical authors' intent?
That is, when you find a text in the Bible that says, "God hates sin..." and it SEEMS, TO YOU, IN YOUR HEAD, that this means that God hates all sin and thinks any and all sin is deserving of eternal torture... do you think, "but, maybe I'm reading into it something that isn't there?"
How about this: In all the history of the world, do you think there are some people who NEVER intentionally sinned, never intentionally said, "This is wrong, but I'm going to do it, anyway..."? Say, in the case of a child who died before 2?
Before 8?
Do you think that it's at least possible that there are some who lived, say, to age 10 or 12 before they died, and in their case, there was ONE or TWO times where they deliberately chose to do something that was wrong?
Can you imagine some possibility where someone who died young or who had intellectual delays where there were only one or two instances of deliberate choosing to do something they thought was wrong?
In THOSE cases, do you think those people are reasonably "deserving" of an eternity of torture to punish them for their sins IF they don't properly repent?
I'm just trying to figure out what specifically it is that you all reasonably think reaches a level of "wrong" that the only rational (according to God, as you imagine God thinking) punishment is an eternity of torture?
Or is it the case that you all imagine that being born imperfect and given the opportunity to sin, they will... do you think that merely being BORN IMPERFECT is righteously punishable with an eternity of torture?
Or, if YOU no longer think that (good for you), do you think that's what the Sprouls and Mohlers and Marshals of the world imagine to be the case?
Help me understand.
Marshal...
"However, it could be argued...quite easily in fact...that it's the result of one's sin nature."
So, it's your theory that having this "sin nature," this being born as imperfect humans... that simply being born imperfect is reasonably punished? And not just punished, but punished with eternal torture?
Help me understand... is that your theory?
Dan
"There is ONE God, according to the Bible and according to God's testimony IN that Bible, that God IS the God of the poor and marginalized. AND he's God for ALL but it begins by joining the poor and marginalized as an ally and defender. The Gospel that Jesus taught was, according to Jesus, good news to the poor and marginalized. Which is NOT to say others are excluded. THEY/WE are welcome to join the beloved community in union/solidarity with God and the poor and marginalized, according to Jesus ("when you do it for the least of these, you do it for me.")"
I'm not the one claiming that there's a "God of the Oppressed" or that there is some special "gospel" for the poor/oppressed, or that everyone else can only access the "gospel" if they do it through a very specific lens that there is zero direct, unambiguous, unequivocal scriptural support for.
"Do you think that Jesus should NOT be taken seriously when he begins his ministry by saying that he had come to preach specifically GOOD news specifically to the poor and marginalized? Was Jesus being foolish? Should you take THAT passage as somehow metaphorically??"
I take that passage literally, as it was intended. I don't pull that passage out of the context of the entire remainder of the scripture and construct a theology one that one passage. Nor do I demand that everyone most view scripture through the lens of one passage.
"Do you think that Jesus should NOT be taken seriously when he said you do it for the least of these, you were doing it for HIM? Should you take THAT passage as somehow metaphorical?"
You literally have asked this question twice in the same comment. See the other answer.
"Do you see how it sometimes seems like you want to take the most clear and definitive teachings from Jesus metaphorically but you make literal clearly figurative teachings that are not central to Jesus' actual message?"
1. How something "seems" to you is not how that things is in the real world.
2. No.
3. I don't care how you choose to misinterpret what I say.
"Good for you. Humility. Reason. You and I agree that we have NO WAY OF KNOWING the specific punishment for a specific sin. AND, you have no way of knowing what the punishment for, say, 10,000 accumulated sins which may or may not have been repented of in the "right way..." (For instance, what if the person stole 5,000 cookies ten fountain pens from work and told lies about 3500 times... AND if they regretted and apologized for it or maybe did that half the time and half the time they didn't regret or apologize for it... or ANY combination of remorse... YOU HAVE NO WAY of knowing if there is some specific punishment for those accumulation of songs and YOU HAVE NO WAY of knowing that these sins MUST be paid for by an eternity of torture.
"Is that what you're saying?"
No. In the future, please don't make up some bullshit that bears no resemblance to anything I've actually said, and ask if that bullshit is what I'm saying.
"If so, good for you. You're correct. None of us have any objective, definitive, authoritative way of saying that 10,000 such instances are and can ONLY be punished by eternal torture in hell short of apologizing in the right way. As a point of objective reality."
It's not, it's some bullshit you made up and are pretending that I said.
"Are we agreeing?"
You might be agreeing with the bullshit you made up but I'd expect you to agree with the voices inside your head.
"And what if Marshal and Sproul, Jr and Al Mohler all say that they DO have an objectively definitive, proven way of knowing that those 10,000 sins ARE and can ONLY be punished by eternal torture if they don't apologize in the right way... will you tell them that there is no evidence that they can prove that claim?"
No. Because scholars like Sproul, MacArthur, Mohler, and the like tend to go into great detail, citing scripture and other scholars to buttress their points. You, on the other hand, don't do that. If you did, then it would be possible to assess your rambling, repetitive, pablum, but you don't.
Please show me one human being (with the exception of Jesus) who you know with absolute certainty has only committed 10,000 sins in a normal life span. Please tell me what the number of sins is that tips the scales of justice to the point of a more serious punishment.
"That is LITERALLY not what I'm saying. It may SEEM that way to you, but as the person who wrote those words, I can authoritatively and objectively tell you that this is NOT my meaning (which you can tell by the way I never ever one time in all the "
OK, whatever you say. If you insist that "The God of the Oppressed" actually means "The God for Everyone", who am I to argue with your claim.
"Does your ability to find words in a text/essay that "seem" TO YOU to mean something that the author literally never said and did not mean AT ALL (quite the opposite) give you even a little pause or lack of confidence in your ability to understand the biblical authors' intent?"
No, because I see no reasonable way to make the English phrase "The God of the Oppressed" mean "The God of Everyone". But you seem to make up your own rules, so...
"That is, when you find a text in the Bible that says, "God hates sin..." and it SEEMS, TO YOU, IN YOUR HEAD, that this means that God hates all sin and thinks any and all sin is deserving of eternal torture... do you think, "but, maybe I'm reading into it something that isn't there?""
No, your made up bullshit does not accurately reflect anything I've said or believe. It's strange you you bitch about me doing something, then you do the exact same thing. Now I would say that there doesn't seem to be a way to interpret "God hates sin" in a way that would communicate that God only "hates" some sins, or that God really tolerates quite a bit of sin, or God only hates certain specific sins that involve certain specific groups of people. To conclude those things would be to do violence to English grammar. Of course, I'd also never develop and hang my entire theology of anything on a single verse.
"How about this: In all the history of the world, do you think there are some people who NEVER intentionally sinned, never intentionally said, "This is wrong, but I'm going to do it, anyway..."? Say, in the case of a child who died before 2?"
I can't see any way that "ALL have sinned." can somehow be twisted to mean "Not all have sinned.", or "God only counts "intentional" sins. But if you can find someone who you'd like to offer as proof of your bizarre hunch, go ahead. It's hilarious that you pretend like the 2 year old presents some huge obstacle that hasn't been addressed ad nauseam by myself and others.
You act like it's some insurmountable obstacle that no one has ever thought of before. I got better questions from Jr High kids back when I did student ministry this this. But if misrepresenting my position when I've dealt with this multiple times with you helps your self esteem, then you go right ahead.
t the position of others, I can't help.
"Before 8?"
Show me an 8 year old who's never knowingly lied. I'll wait. Seriously, find one or stop making up these bullshit hypothetical over and over after they've been dealt with.
"Do you think that it's at least possible that there are some who lived, say, to age 10 or 12 before they died, and in their case, there was ONE or TWO times where they deliberately chose to do something that was wrong?"
Ahhhhhhhhh, the goalposts move. We've gone from never done anything wrong, to never done anything intentionally wrong, to only a few intentional wrongs. My answer to your question is, in the absence of proof, I'd have to say no. B How many free passes does YHWH give for intentional sins?
"Can you imagine some possibility where someone who died young or who had intellectual delays where there were only one or two instances of deliberate choosing to do something they thought was wrong?"
I can imagine all sorts of things that likely don't exist in reality, how about we live in the real world and spot with the bullshit made up crap.
"In THOSE cases, do you think those people are reasonably "deserving" of an eternity of torture to punish them for their sins IF they don't properly repent?"
What cases specifically? You just said that these were imaginary. I don't think YHWH spends a lot of time on imaginary people. Whether I think they're deserving isn't the issue, I don't make that decision. What these imaginary people "deserve" in your fantasy world isn't really the issue. The real question is whether or not YHWH will choose mercy over justice.
"I'm just trying to figure out what specifically it is that you all reasonably think reaches a level of "wrong" that the only rational (according to God, as you imagine God thinking) punishment is an eternity of torture?"
You won't give specifics, yet you demand them of others. You won't give any details, yet you demand them of others. I'm not YHWH, I don't know the answer. Thank Him, because I'm not qualified to make those decisions. I love how you use the loaded term "torture" instead of the othr options. If YHWH decided that X was the appropriate response to unrepentant sinners, what makes you think you have the authority to decide that it's "torture"? Why would I trust your hunches about any of these topics?
"Or is it the case that you all imagine that being born imperfect and given the opportunity to sin, they will... do you think that merely being BORN IMPERFECT is righteously punishable with an eternity of torture?"
No, that's something you made up.
"Or, if YOU no longer think that (good for you), do you think that's what the Sprouls and Mohlers and Marshals of the world imagine to be the case?"
Based on my readings of Sproul, and others, I don not believe that you are accurately reflecting the entirety of their position in an accurate manner. Essentially, you've chosen to lie about what others have said, or misrepresent, or cast in the most negative light possible.
"Help me understand."
I've had this conversation with you multiple times, I've pointed you to multiple resources that you can access, if you are still choosing to misrepresen
Take responsibility to educate yourself, don't demand that I spoon feed you what's readily available.
If I am misunderstanding you, then I apologize. Please, help me understand and answer my questions directly and clearly so that I have a better chance of understanding.
I understood you to say:
You and I agree that we have NO WAY OF KNOWING the specific punishment for a specific sin.
Is that NOT what you're saying? Or do we indeed agree that we have no way of knowing a specific punishment for a specific sin?
I can't understand you if you don't answer clarifying questions in a direct and clear manner.
I also understood you to say that:
you have no way of knowing what the punishment for, say, 10,000 accumulated sins which may or may not have been repented of in the "right way..."
Is that NOT what you're saying? DO you, indeed, think you have some way of knowing perfectly God's "correct" punishment for 10,000 accumulated sins of the typical variety (IF they don't repent in the correct manner)?
How can I understand your position if you don't tell me what you're thinking in a clear, direct manner?
I'll stop there with those two lines of question, to see if you can help me understand correctly your actual position. Again, with apologies if I have not understood it correctly thus far. Again, help me understand.
To answer YOUR question directly and clearly:
Please show me one human being (with the exception of Jesus) who you know with absolute certainty has only committed 10,000 sins in a normal life span.
A "normal life span..."? Well that varies, doesn't it. Some babies die. Some children die. Some teenagers die. Let's choose a 12 year old. I'm relatively certain that there is a good likelihood that some 12 year olds have only sinned 10,000 times. I'm certain that some two year olds have sinned WAY under 10,000 times.
Do you disagree? I mean, neither of us have a way of definitively knowing, but come one. There's only so much time in one short lifetime. What about the one day old child who dies. Surely you agree that they have not sinned 10,000 times?
Do you think they have sinned even ONE time?
If I'm not clear: Yes, some children have sinned less than 10,000 times. As a point of fact. There is absolutely 100% no way you can say otherwise from a factual point of view. Do you disagree?
Question: How many times a day do you think a typical person sins?
Seriously, find one or stop making up these bullshit hypothetical over and over after they've been dealt with.
I work with folks with disabilities, sometimes significant disabilities. I guarantee you that you have NO way of proving that some of them at 8 or even at 25 have chosen to lie. Hell, I know some who can't speak or communicate effectively. Are you telling me you know for a fact that they've lied?
If so, I call bullshit and will say that you are a damned liar, demonstrably so.
Apologize and admit you misspoke.
Craig...
My answer to your question is, in the absence of proof, I'd have to say no. B How many free passes does YHWH give for intentional sins?
I've said nothing about free passes. But how much grace does a Perfect Grace give to humanity? I'd say a lot. Do you disagree?
Is it your estimation of your little-g god that your godlet has NO ROOM for ANY grace or forebearance? If so, what a petty, pathetic little godling. And I don't say that as any kind of insult, just isn't that the reality of it all?
MY point is that there is a wide range of humanity. Some with great knowledge, some with limited knowledge, some with extreme barriers to understanding. To declare without data that ALL have sinned in some manner that is so despicable to the perfect almighty God of Grace that this God can't give SOME grace or patience to the relatively minor misdeeds of children and those with limited knowledge (which is all of us to one degree or another) is irrational. In the real world, there are some people who knowingly sin and some who may mess up but not knowingly and a wide range in between.
Again, help me understand your position: IS it your opinion that your god has NO patience for those who might make sins in error (the child who knocks over a candle and burns down a house) OR does that child/adult deserve an eternity of torture?
My answer to your question is, in the absence of proof, I'd have to say no.
But do you see that your answer to the question is bullshit and entirely unsupported? Can you acknowledge it's only your unproven and unprovable nonsense opinion?
Craig...
Take responsibility to educate yourself, don't demand that I spoon feed you what's readily available
The arrogance is breath-taking. WHO SAYS that I, who was raised for 30 years in conservative ideology, have NOT educated myself? I am telling you that I have NEVER SEEN any reasonable answers to these questions from the conservative/traditional side. But I am a finite man, and it's possible I've missed something in those 30 years of deep indoctrination and the 30 years of study since. But IF SO, I'm not aware of it.
So, instead of telling me, "READ EVERYTHING IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD AND LISTEN TO EVERY POSSIBLE TAPE AND VIDEO OUT THERE" to find answers that I have not seen thus far, IF you have answers, why not share them?
Because you don't have answers.
In the meantime, I'm calling your claims bullshit UNTIL you provide answers. IF you want to make these irrational, hellish claims, then the onus is on YOU to support them.
"Or is it the case that you all imagine that being born imperfect and given the opportunity to sin, they will... do you think that merely being BORN IMPERFECT is righteously punishable with an eternity of torture?"
No, that's something you made up.
Then help me understand. I am SO glad to hear that at least YOU don't think we should be tortured for an eternity for being imperfect. Marshal, do you agree?
So, you Craig do NOT think that we should be sent to hell for the mere "crime" of being born imperfect. Is that correct? That's what I'm hearing you say.
So, this imperfect baby has been born and at some point, that baby (say at age two or three?) CHOOSES to disrespect their parents.
Do you think at THAT point this two year old deserves to go to hell for an eternity?
And this baby/toddler stumbles along until at some point, maybe at five or six, they regularly sass their parents and say NO! when they should just listen to their parents.
Do you think THAT five year old has sinned sufficiently to be deserving of eternal hell?
At what point do you think, in your opinion, that God thinks that this child has committed sufficient sin to be deserving of eternal hell?
Help me understand. I ask because I do not know what your opinion is and asking is the only way I know to find out.
How about you, Marshal? Do you think that at age five where this child has deliberately chosen to "sin" and be disrespectful to their parents, that they deserve an eternity of hell for those "crimes..."?
Craig...
Essentially, you've chosen to lie about what others have said, or misrepresent, or cast in the most negative light possible.
It is, of course, a lie to say that I'm "lying" about what others have said. I'm quoting their actual words and asking the question, "Is THIS what they mean...?" That is not a lie. But you claiming that it is a lie, is, itself, a lie.
Do you recognize that?
And I'm NOT trying to cast it in the most negative light. I'm asking, "Are they saying that EVEN ONE misdeed is worthy of eternal hell, in their opinion?" It's a question, not an accusation.
What is their answer?
What is yours?
Stop making false claims and answer questions and we'll all be in a better place.
What I had said, in context...
In all the history of the world, do you think there are some people who NEVER intentionally sinned, never intentionally said, "This is wrong, but I'm going to do it, anyway..."? Say, in the case of a child who died before 2?
Before 8?
Do you think that it's at least possible that there are some who lived, say, to age 10 or 12 before they died, and in their case, there was ONE or TWO times where they deliberately chose to do something that was wrong?
Can you imagine some possibility where someone who died young or who had intellectual delays where there were only one or two instances of deliberate choosing to do something they thought was wrong?
In THOSE cases, do you think those people are reasonably "deserving" of an eternity of torture to punish them for their sins IF they don't properly repent?
I'm not saying that 8 year olds have done NO wrongs, but what about 2 year olds? Do you think they've knowingly decided to do something wrong? What about those with intellectual delays?
Here's how you responded to this line of questions:
Show me an 8 year old who's never knowingly lied. I'll wait. Seriously, find one or stop making up these bullshit hypothetical over and over after they've been dealt with...
And...
Ahhhhhhhhh, the goalposts move. We've gone from never done anything wrong, to never done anything intentionally wrong, to only a few intentional wrongs. My answer to your question is, in the absence of proof, I'd have to say no. How many free passes does YHWH give for intentional sins?
And...
I can imagine all sorts of things that likely don't exist in reality, how about we live in the real world and spot with the bullshit made up crap.
In other words, you're responding with over the top hostility to this line of questions. Why? The point is this:
There are significant numbers of evangelicals who believe EVEN ONE sin is worthy of eternal torture in hell. Or simply having a "sin nature" means you, as a human, deserve an eternity in hell.
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what you and Marshal believe and how you differ (if you do). WHAT specifically is worthy, in your opinions, of eternal torture in hell?
Do you think that EVEN ONE sin is reasonably punished with an eternity of hell?
Or do you think the number or type of sin is irrelevant, and having a "sin nature" is hell-worthy?
And by "sin nature," do you mean merely being imperfect and prone to making selfish, wrong decisions sometimes?
And do you think merely being imperfect is hell-worthy?
Help me understand this Christianity 101 in its details and specifics. And you don't even have to tell me specifically what you think. You can point to someone else who has already written the curricula for Christianity 101.
"You and I agree that we have NO WAY OF KNOWING the specific punishment for a specific sin."
That seems to be the case, but who cares.
"Is that NOT what you're saying? Or do we indeed agree that we have no way of knowing a specific punishment for a specific sin?"
I guess it is, but I fail to see the relevance. Unless you are suggesting that YHWH keeps a detailed record of all of our individual sins, categorizes them on some unknown scale, and bases our future on some mystery scoring system.
"I can't understand you if you don't answer clarifying questions in a direct and clear manner."
I can't understand why you think I don't answer, when I do. I can't understand how you can ignore so many questions, yet demand that I jump through your hoops.
"you have no way of knowing what the punishment for, say, 10,000 accumulated sins which may or may not have been repented of in the "right way...""
No, I have not said that, you misunderstand.
"Is that NOT what you're saying? DO you, indeed, think you have some way of knowing perfectly God's "correct" punishment for 10,000 accumulated sins of the typical variety (IF they don't repent in the correct manner)?"
No.
"How can I understand your position if you don't tell me what you're thinking in a clear, direct manner?"
I haven't expressed a "position" in this thread. I've been trying to understand and get you to explain yours in detail.
"I'll stop there with those two lines of question, to see if you can help me understand correctly your actual position. Again, with apologies if I have not understood it correctly thus far. Again, help me understand."
No, you won't, you'll keep asking the same questions multiple times regardless of my answers it's what you do.
"A "normal life span..."? Well that varies, doesn't it. Some babies die. Some children die. Some teenagers die. Let's choose a 12 year old. I'm relatively certain that there is a good likelihood that some 12 year olds have only sinned 10,000 times. I'm certain that some two year olds have sinned WAY under 10,000 times."
This isn't an answer, it's an attempt to evade. Show me an example of a specific person and the specific number of sins they've committed.
Do you disagree? I mean, neither of us have a way of definitively knowing, but come one. There's "only so much time in one short lifetime. What about the one day old child who dies. Surely you agree that they have not sinned 10,000 times?"
If you think answering a question with a question is simple and direct, you clearly don't understand simple and direct. It's kind of impressive how you keep hammering this irrelevant topic even though I've dealt with it numerous times. I realize it's an excuse but come on. You keep insisting that person X has "only" committed Y sins, while simultaneously insisting that you really know nothing.
"Do you think they have sinned even ONE time?"
1. I don't think it's relevane.
2. It's highly likely.
3. If you believe that they haven't please prove it.
"If I'm not clear: Yes, some children have sinned less than 10,000 times. As a point of fact. There is absolutely 100% no way you can say otherwise from a factual point of view. Do you disagree?"
If you admit that you can't prove something, how can you insist that the think you can't prove is a "point of fact"? Are you suggesting that 10,000 is some sort of magic number? That less than 10K is OK, but more than 10K is a problem? In the absence of proof, I disagree. In general, I'll disagree with claims you make, but can't prove.
"Question: How many times a day do you think a typical person sins?"
1. I don't care.
2. Define "typical person".
3. I suspect it's more than you'd think.
4. Sins of commission or sins of omission?
5. How do you quantify sins of omission?
6. Are you suggesting that if you stay below a certain number of sins per day that YHWH gives you a pass?
7. Did I mention that I don't care.
8. Jesus came, lived a perfect life, died, rose, and ascended into heaven so that His followers would have access to forgiveness for all of their sins. No matter how many there are.
" I guarantee you that you have NO way of proving that some of them at 8 or even at 25 have chosen to lie. Hell, I know some who can't speak or communicate effectively. Are you telling me you know for a fact that they've lied?"
Then you should be able to prove this claim that you "guarantee" very easily. But you won't. I'm not telling you anything about these alleged, specific, anonymous, people.
"I've said nothing about free passes. But how much grace does a Perfect Grace give to humanity? I'd say a lot. Do you disagree?"
You're correct, you haven't said anything specific about much of anything. Maybe you can explain what you think happens to these people who only commit what you consider to be a few "minor" sins.
Enough to propitiate sin. No.
"Is it your estimation of your little-g god that your godlet has NO ROOM for ANY grace or forebearance? If so, what a petty, pathetic little godling. And I don't say that as any kind of insult, just isn't that the reality of it all?"
No. No.
"MY point is that there is a wide range of humanity. Some with great knowledge, some with limited knowledge, some with extreme barriers to understanding. To declare without data that ALL have sinned in some manner that is so despicable to the perfect almighty God of Grace that this God can't give SOME grace or patience to the relatively minor misdeeds of children and those with limited knowledge (which is all of us to one degree or another) is irrational. In the real world, there are some people who knowingly sin and some who may mess up but not knowingly and a wide range in between."
So. Are you suggesting that you can prove that there are people who have never knowingly sinned because they are ignorant of what constitutes all sinful behavior?
"Again, help me understand your position: IS it your opinion that your god has NO patience for those who might make sins in error (the child who knocks over a candle and burns down a house) OR does that child/adult deserve an eternity of torture?"
No.
"But do you see that your answer to the question is bullshit and entirely unsupported?"
My answer was "In the absence of proof, I'd have to say no.". That's a completely rational answer. Since you can't prove your claims, I see no reason to blindly accept your unproven assertions.
"Can you acknowledge it's only your unproven and unprovable nonsense opinion?"
No, your inability to prove your assertions, is quite clear.
"The arrogance is breath-taking. WHO SAYS that I, who was raised for 30 years in conservative ideology, have NOT educated myself? I am telling you that I have NEVER SEEN any reasonable answers to these questions from the conservative/traditional side. But I am a finite man, and it's possible I've missed something in those 30 years of deep indoctrination and the 30 years of study since. But IF SO, I'm not aware of it."
Oh, the "I was a conservative, and I read enough decades ago to know for certain everything I need to know about all conservatives." straw man makes an appearance. If you won't do your own research, why would I do it for you.
"So, instead of telling me, "READ EVERYTHING IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD AND LISTEN TO EVERY POSSIBLE TAPE AND VIDEO OUT THERE" to find answers that I have not seen thus far, IF you have answers, why not share them?"
I haven't. and I have.
"Because you don't have answers."
I've never said that I personally have all of the answers. What I have said is that there are answers available, and it makes more sense for you to find them yourself, than to demand that I spoon feed them to you in this format.
"In the meantime, I'm calling your claims bullshit UNTIL you provide answers. IF you want to make these irrational, hellish claims, then the onus is on YOU to support them."
Since I haven't actually made any claims, I have no idea what this even refers to. But if calling me out for claims I haven't made helps your self esteem, and allows you to pretend that your unproven claims, and unsupported assertions aren't all over the place, then you do what's best for you.
"So, you Craig do NOT think that we should be sent to hell for the mere "crime" of being born imperfect. Is that correct? That's what I'm hearing you say."
No.
"Do you think at THAT point this two year old deserves to go to hell for an eternity?"
No.
"Do you think THAT five year old has sinned sufficiently to be deserving of eternal hell?"
Yes, no. (That is two questions.)
"At what point do you think, in your opinion, that God thinks that this child has committed sufficient sin to be deserving of eternal hell?"
It's interesting that you won't answer this question, but you demand that I do.
I don't think that there is some magic number where the scale tips against them. But by all means, tell me what the number of sins is that will prevent all punishment for sin?
"Do you recognize that?"
No.
"And I'm NOT trying to cast it in the most negative light. I'm asking, "Are they saying that EVEN ONE misdeed is worthy of eternal hell, in their opinion?" It's a question, not an accusation."
It's a question that I've answered.
"What is their answer?"
I don't speak for others.
"What is yours?"
Mine is that I don't see any indication that your hunch accurately represents reality.
Stop making false claims and answer questions and we'll all be in a better place.
"I'm not saying that 8 year olds have done NO wrongs, but what about 2 year olds? Do you think they've knowingly decided to do something wrong? What about those with intellectual delays?"
The mere fact that you "say" something, has absolutely zero value in determining the Truth about anything. The fact that you seem to think that your "saying" something makes it worthy of belief is simply ridiculous.
"In other words, you're responding with over the top hostility to this line of questions, why?"
No I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that you're questions are absurd, pointless, and repetitive. That they seem to be based on premises that you can't prove to be True. I get that you don't like my answers, yet they are my answers.
"There are significant numbers of evangelicals who believe EVEN ONE sin is worthy of eternal torture in hell. Or simply having a "sin nature" means you, as a human, deserve an eternity in hell."
If you say so.
"I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what you and Marshal believe and how you differ (if you do). WHAT specifically is worthy, in your opinions, of eternal torture in hell?"
According to scripture "The wages of sin is death.". So, I'd say that scripture tell us the answer is, sin.
"Do you think that EVEN ONE sin is reasonably punished with an eternity of hell?"
No. I think that the question is absurd. I think that you cannot provide me with one specific adult human who has only committed one sins, rendering the premise moot.
"Or do you think the number or type of sin is irrelevant, and having a "sin nature" is hell-worthy?"
No.
"And by "sin nature," do you mean merely being imperfect and prone to making selfish, wrong decisions sometimes?"
No.
"And do you think merely being imperfect is hell-worthy?"
No.
"Help me understand this Christianity 101 in its details and specifics. And you don't even have to tell me specifically what you think. You can point to someone else who has already written the curricula for Christianity 101."
No, I don't think spoon feeding you "Christianity 101" is a good use of my limited time.
"it makes more sense for you to find them yourself, than to demand that I spoon feed them to you in this format..."
So... you have these theories, but you don't want to even TRY to support them, you want ME to try and find evidence to defend YOUR theories?
That's not how adult discussions work. I'll pass.
Dan
Dan...
"If I'm not clear: Yes, some children have sinned less than 10,000 times. As a point of fact. There is absolutely 100% no way you can say otherwise from a factual point of view. Do you disagree?"
Craig...
If you admit that you can't prove something, how can you insist that the think you can't prove is a "point of fact..."
Reason.
Sins are discrete, specific behaviors, actions, correct.
A baby is born and starts growing up and, at some point, they think, this is wrong, but I'm going to do it. That would be sin #1, wouldn't it?
Isn't there SOME SPECIFIC action which is their first sin?
Then from there, they'd commit a second and third, etc sin. Even if we humans have NO perfect, authoritative , objectively knowable system for identifying specific sins, but they are discrete specific actions and perhaps attitudes.
Is that how you are thinking of sins?
The 10,00 number is meaningless. I'm just talking about the nature of sin.
Help me understand your opinions on this.
Dan
"So... you have these theories, but you don't want to even TRY to support them, you want ME to try and find evidence to defend YOUR theories?"
Again, with the misrepresenting, based on you making up bullshit. The fact that you refuse to do your own research on these things because you know everything that every "conservative" has ever said base on some stuff you read decades ago, is your problem. The fact that I am engaged enough in trying to decipher your random hunches that you won't support, let alone prove, just means that I have limited time in my finite day and I choose to spend it not doing your research for you.
"That's not how adult discussions work. I'll pass."
If you mean you'll pass on answering questions, asking the same questions repeatedly even after they've been answered, not providing details, and misrepresenting others views, then I don't think you have any clue about how adult conversations work. The fact that you've never (to my knowledge) read or interacted with anything I've ever provided when you've played this game in the past, is reason enough not to play it now.
"If you admit that you can't prove something, how can you insist that the think you can't prove is a "point of fact..."
"Reason."
This makes absolutely zero sense. You can't prove an objective fact by appealing to your limited, fallible, subjective, biased, Reason. It's literally impossible.
"Sins are discrete, specific behaviors, actions, correct."
I don't know, it's your claim, prove it.
"A baby is born and starts growing up and, at some point, they think, this is wrong, but I'm going to do it. That would be sin #1, wouldn't it?"
This seems to be your theory, yet you haven't proven this theory to be True. In the absence of proof, I have no basis to agree or disagree with your unproven hunch.
"Isn't there SOME SPECIFIC action which is their first sin?"
You're the one espousing this unproven hunch, why don't you tell me. I have no idea how things work under this construct you seem to be hinting at. You've asserted that your hunch is a "point of fact", it's on you to prove your claim.
Then from there, they'd commit a second and third, etc sin. Even if we humans have NO perfect, authoritative , objectively knowable system for identifying specific sins, but they are discrete specific actions and perhaps attitudes.
"Is that how you are thinking of sins?"
No. I don't think of sins a some sort of cosmic scorecard, with some sort of tipping point when you accumulate too many sins. That seems to be how you see it, but I'm not sure because you won't provide details of your fantasies.
"The 10,00 number is meaningless. I'm just talking about the nature of sin."
Then why do you keep throwing it out like it's the magic threshold? I thought you didn't believe in a sin nature? Or are you suggesting that you have a perfect knowledge and understanding of the nature of sin?
"Help me understand your opinions on this."
My opinion is that the random bits and peices you throw out with no context, structure, or explanation don't make any sense at all, and you claiming that something is a "point of fact" when you can't prove it to be so is just one more example of your incoherent fantastical hunches. My opinion is that I see no reason to confuse things any further until you can lay out your hunches in detail, provide specific/unequivocal biblical support/and prove your "point of fact.
But, I will commend you on your efforts to obfuscate. Really top notch. This notion that I have to explain your hunches, or defend/explain things you've made up is quite impressive old chap. Well done.
And still Dan wants to pretend the clearly revealed teaching regarding God's hatred of sin isn't true, and that some sin will be disregarded as unworthy of punishment. I'm still waiting for Scriptural evidence supporting this premise.
There's sin which Christ compared to those of Sodom as being worse than Sodom. Dan is culpable.
Craig...
The fact that you refuse to do your own research on these things because you know everything that every "conservative" has ever said base on some stuff you read decades ago, is your problem.
The actual facts:
1. I HAVE researched these topics for all my adult 60 years. It's just stupidly ignorantly, ridiculously false to say otherwise. God hates lying tongues, liar.
2. I have NEVER said that "every conservative" has said ONE SINGLE BLESSED THING. That, too, is a stupidly false and unsupported claim and as the Bible says, God hates lying tongues, liar.
3. I've been reading these comments from conservatives for ALL my 60 years, not just back when I was a conservative. Another stupidly false claim and as the Bible says, God hates lying tongues, liar.
Does it not concern you in the least, given that God hates lying tongues, to keep repeating such stupidly false claims? I mean, ANYONE can look at my words and see I've never said any of that and, indeed, have made it abundantly clear that ALL that shit is just ruinously inane bullshit.
Dan...
"A baby is born and starts growing up and, at some point, they think, this is wrong, but I'm going to do it. That would be sin #1, wouldn't it?"
Craig...
This seems to be your theory, yet you haven't proven this theory to be True. In the absence of proof, I have no basis to agree or disagree with your unproven hunch.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR HUNCHES, YOUR POSITION.
Do you think that, there is NO point where a baby has never sinned, not committed one crime, misdeed or sin? Do you think that Babies are born and with that FIRST BREATH, somehow they sin?
How?
Or, do you think the crime is being born imperfect and prone to sin one day?
HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.
YES! Good God in the almighty heavens, YES! It is my opinion that this newborn baby of course has not committed one singled blessed wrong sin! NONE.
DO you disagree?!!!
YES, it is my opinion that each of us, as newborns, are imperfect humans. Do you understand that is my position? Do you disagree and think I'm wrong in that??
HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.
Can I PROVE that we're imperfect humans? Well, by the reality that none of us are perfect, yes.
Can I PROVE that newborn infants have NOT COMMITTED ONE SINGLE SIN? Well, given that an action and misdeed has to be DONE to sin, then yes, as "sin" is normally defined, of course, it's a stupid-as-shit claim to say that newborns have already sinned!!
DO YOU DISAGREE?
HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.
What am I missing?? What do I still need to prove? That a newborn infant has NOT sinned? They haven't had a chance to sin! HOW COULD THEY?!!! How are YOU defining sin?
You seem to be operating from a dictionary of unknown words that you're making up and then condemning people for not understanding your unknown word meanings.
"The actual facts:"
"1. I HAVE researched these topics for all my adult 60 years. It's just stupidly ignorantly, ridiculously false to say otherwise. God hates lying tongues, liar."
Really, when was the last time you seriously researched or read an entire work by a conservative scholar? Previously you've been quite clear that you haven't read anything by a "conservative" in several decades.
"2. I have NEVER said that "every conservative" has said ONE SINGLE BLESSED THING. That, too, is a stupidly false and unsupported claim and as the Bible says, God hates lying tongues, liar."
No, you have said that you've read enough conservative folks that you know enough about what conservatives believe that you have no need to do any further research, or words to that affect.
"3. I've been reading these comments from conservatives for ALL my 60 years, not just back when I was a conservative. Another stupidly false claim and as the Bible says, God hates lying tongues, liar."
Impressive. This might be a record for yuo repeating yourself and pretending like you've made a different point.
"Does it not concern you in the least, given that God hates lying tongues, to keep repeating such stupidly false claims? I mean, ANYONE can look at my words and see I've never said any of that and, indeed, have made it abundantly clear that ALL that shit is just ruinously inane bullshit."
No, I'm not concerned in the least. The fact that I've made a few minor mistakes or slightly exaggerated your previous claims for comic effect doesn't seem to be a particularly big deal. It's really just me reading the entirety of what you've said and making some generalizations because I really don't know the details. This really seems like a minor mistake and it seems strange to see you get so angry about a mere minor mistake.
"Do you think that, there is NO point where a baby has never sinned, not committed one crime, misdeed or sin?"
I think that you have repeatedly made this claim, yet have never proven this claim to be True. Hence, I choose not to accept your unproven claim over scripture. There are multiple instances in scripture where language is used like "conceived in sin" or "sinful from my mother's womb", which seem to contradict your claim.
"Do you think that Babies are born and with that FIRST BREATH, somehow they sin?"
I think that there are multiple instances in scripture where language is used like "conceived in sin" or "sinful from my mother's womb", which seem to contradict your claim.
"How?"
I can't speak of every infant that has ever been born. In general, if humans are born with a "nature", then logic would seem to indicate that they will have that nature from birth.
"Or, do you think the crime is being born imperfect and prone to sin one day?"
No.
"HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION."
I've answered all of your questions in a simple direct manner, I'm not sure what else I can do for you.
"YES! Good God in the almighty heavens, YES! It is my opinion that this newborn baby of course has not committed one singled blessed wrong sin! NONE."
So you are admitting that the notion you express above is NOT a fact, but is merely your opinion. An opinion for which you have neither offered direct, unequivocal, specific, Biblical support, nor offered anything that would indicate that the scripture that contradicts your mere opinion is wrong.
"DO you disagree?!!!"
Yes!!!!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!!,,,,,,,,,,,,........!!!!!!!!!! In the absence of proof of your claim, I disagree with your hunch.
"YES, it is my opinion that each of us, as newborns, are imperfect humans. Do you understand that is my position?"
No. Your opinion seems to be that human newborns are imperfect, yet completely free from even the merest hint of sin. correct?
"Do you disagree and think I'm wrong in that??"
Yes!!!!?????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!,,,,,,,,,,,..........!!!!!!!!!???????
"HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION."
See above.
"Can I PROVE that we're imperfect humans? Well, by the reality that none of us are perfect, yes."
If this is accurate, then please elaborate. When does this "imperfection" start? 4 years old, 8 years old, 12 years old, 21 years old? What is the difference between "imperfect" and sinful?
"Can I PROVE that newborn infants have NOT COMMITTED ONE SINGLE SIN?"
No, the simple direct answer is no.
" Well, given that an action and misdeed has to be DONE to sin, then yes, as "sin" is normally defined, of course, it's a stupid-as-shit claim to say that newborns have already sinned!!"
Please prove this claim. Jesus seemed pretty clear when His taught that actions are not necessary for sin to happen. Are you denying that there are sins of omission? So much for simple, direct answers.
"DO YOU DISAGREE?"
Yes. I disagree with your unproven hunch.
"HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION."
See above. How about if your start by fully and completely explaining your position, along with providing the direct/unequivocal scriptural support for your hunches first. Then I can explain my position again. Focus on one thing at a time.
"What am I missing??"
Detailed, specific explanations, direct/unequivocal scriptural support, simple/clear/direct answers, and not contradicting yourself.
"What do I still need to prove?"
Since you haven't proven anything, maybe you could start by simply proving one of your claims.
"That a newborn infant has NOT sinned?"
This is something you could prove.
"They haven't had a chance to sin!"
Again, this is a claim you could prove.
"HOW COULD THEY?!!!"
No clue.
"How are YOU defining sin?"
In a very simple and broad sense, any act of commission or omission motivated by the human desire to put ourselves in the place of YHWH and to decide for ourselves what's right and what's wrong.
"You seem to be operating from a dictionary of unknown words that you're making up and then condemning people for not understanding your unknown word meanings."
That's what happens when you think that how things "seem" to your imperfect, fallible, biased, prejudiced. limited, human mind are actually reality.
What I'm finding interesting about this thread is the obsessive focus that Dan puts on sin, and his obsessive insistence that humans are born sinless. This obsession with keeping score of sins in the hope that somehow if we only limit ourselves to a "few" "minor" sins that everything will be just fine and YHWH won't punish us for a "few" "minor" sins, or that He'll only give us a slap on the wrist. It's hard to know, because Dan has never explained what happens to these people he claims have only committed a "few" "minor" sins, or who've sinned entirely by making "mistakes" or not being able to "know" exactly what is sinful.
New International Version
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
New Living Translation
For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.
English Standard Version
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Berean Standard Bible
Surely I was brought forth in iniquity; I was sinful when my mother conceived me.
King James Bible
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
New King James Version
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
New American Standard Bible
Behold, I was brought forth in guilt, And in sin my mother conceived me.
New International Version
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.
New Living Translation
These wicked people are born sinners; even from birth they have lied and gone their own way.
English Standard Version
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
Berean Standard Bible
The wicked are estranged from the womb; the liars go astray from birth.
King James Bible
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
New King James Version
The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
New American Standard Bible
The wicked have turned away from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.
The problem that one would have in making the argument that humans are born sinless is that they would have do demonstrate that these verses actually don't mean what they say. Either that or to make a convincing argument that because the Psalms are poetry, that they don't contain The Truth, that we cannot get theological Truth from certain literary styles.
Anyway, the deeper this gets, the more I realize that the focus is on the wrong thing. This focus on splitting hairs about sin and how much is too much seems wildly misplaced. As we sit in Holy Week, it seems like we should be focusing on the reality that YHWH has given us the path to complete forgiveness through the work of Christ. This obsession with justice, and applying a subjective standard of justice to YHWH, instead of focusing on the forgiveness and freedom from sin available to us. Why obsess on our slavery to sin, or on trying to manage our sin, why not focus on the offer to become free in Christ.
Craig...
What I'm finding interesting about this thread is the obsessive focus that Dan puts on sin, and his obsessive insistence that humans are born sinless.
1. There are some people - many, in fact - who believe that because we are "sinners" - no matter the amount or seriousness of its repercussions - that we will be sent to hell to be tortured for an eternity for being sinners.
1a. And the only way out is, some say, for God to decide to "choose" or "call" you to salvation (because if God doesn't choose us, then we can't choose it for ourselves!) and we "accept" that salvation and repent in just the right way. That is, there are a manner of things we need to intellectually agree to or understand at least relatively correctly... the "atonement theory," that Jesus is the Son of God, that Jesus "paid" for our "sins" by "taking the punishment for our sins" by dying on the cross and shedding his blood... and if we don't "accept Jesus as our savior" (whatever that might specifically mean) and "confess with our mouths he is Lord," and without this just right "repentance" and "acceptance of God's salvation," then we WILL be punished in hell for an eternity.
2. Given that, then how is it not reasonable to try to understand your theories about sin and what you all think God thinks about sin and "justice..."? Why WOULDN'T anyone have an obsessive focus on sin (or what you all think about it and if you all are correct in your theory), given the HUGELY awful consequences of NOT understanding it correctly (according to you all)?
3. "his obsessive insistence that humans are born sinless."
Before we can think and take an action or adopt a "sinful" attitude, the reality is that we have no way of sinning, as the word is typically defined.
Sin: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
By definition, sin is an action (and of course, I recognize attitudes, as well) that transgresses a divine law.
3a. You'd have to explain in some RATIONAL sense (and truly, I can't tell you how little I care about how you personally choose to interpret some bible verses. Your opinions about interpretations are meaningless to me, because, WHY should I care what opinions you personally hold about your interpretations of biblical passages?) HOW an infant can sin.
Go ahead, explain. MAKE SENSE. Help me understand.
3b. Which returns us to the "sin nature" theory you bring up.
As a point of reality, we can see and objectively OBSERVE that humans are not perfect. It's just not debatable, we ALL mess up (we who have the wherewithal to do so - not infants, of course: See 3a). We ARE imperfect, we humans.
On the other hand, the THEORY of humans having a "sin nature" is a HUMAN THEORY, a religious theory. It's not proven. It's not objective. It's one way to think about our observable imperfections.
Correct? OR, if you think you CAN prove "sin nature" objectively, by all means, do so.
I'll wait there for either proof of sinning newborns or acnowledgement that this is a nonsense claim AND proof of a "sin nature."
The problem that one would have in making the argument that humans are born sinless is that they would have do demonstrate that these verses actually don't mean what they say.
Of course, we both agree that there are LOADS of figurative language and phrases and ideas used in the Bible. We simply can't presume that each line should be taken woodenly literal. The Bible NEVER tells us to do that. GOD has never told us to do that. And you almost certainly don't do that.
So, the onus would be on you to explain in some rational way WHY we should presume that lying infants are a rational possibility.
It's a goofy claim on the face of it.
Your turn.
As we sit in Holy Week, it seems like we should be focusing on the reality that YHWH has given us the path to complete forgiveness through the work of Christ.
I fully understand that this is your theory. It used to be mine. I eventually found it lacking in reason and biblical consistency. You are welcome to your theories. I'm just asking questions because, if you can't explain it in a satisfactory manner to yourself, then maybe it's not as good a theory as you think. Conversely, if you CAN make it make rational and biblical sense, well that's a victory for everyone. Especially if you can prove it objectively.
This obsession with justice, and applying a subjective standard of justice to YHWH, instead of focusing on the forgiveness and freedom from sin available to us.
I think if I'm a follower of the almighty perfectly loving and perfectly just God Creator and Lover of all creation, then being obsessed with understanding justice is a good thing. And as always, I'm not applying ANYTHING to God. I'm not asking God (right now). I'm asking you for YOUR opinions and I am in no way deluded to think that you are equivalent to God.
Do you think me asking questions of YOU about YOUR opinions on these matters is the same as "applying a subjective standard of justice to God..."?
"1. There are some people - many, in fact - who believe that because we are "sinners" - no matter the amount or seriousness of its repercussions - that we will be sent to hell to be tortured for an eternity for being sinners."
Really? These anonymous, people deny that everyone is destined for Hell with zero chance of salvation. I find that hard to believe absent proof of your claim.
"1a. And the only way out is, some say, for God to decide to "choose" or "call" you to salvation (because if God doesn't choose us, then we can't choose it for ourselves!) and we "accept" that salvation and repent in just the right way. That is, there are a manner of things we need to intellectually agree to or understand at least relatively correctly... the "atonement theory," that Jesus is the Son of God, that Jesus "paid" for our "sins" by "taking the punishment for our sins" by dying on the cross and shedding his blood... and if we don't "accept Jesus as our savior" (whatever that might specifically mean) and "confess with our mouths he is Lord," and without this just right "repentance" and "acceptance of God's salvation," then we WILL be punished in hell for an eternity."
Interesting, your #1 seems misleading, in light of #1a. Yet, you do acknowledge that these people do acknowledge that there is a path to salvation. Yet strangely you choose to focus/obsess over what they say about sin, and ignore the hope of salvation.
"2. Given that, then how is it not reasonable to try to understand your theories about sin and what you all think God thinks about sin and "justice..."? Why WOULDN'T anyone have an obsessive focus on sin (or what you all think about it and if you all are correct in your theory), given the HUGELY awful consequences of NOT understanding it correctly (according to you all)?"
The only point, it seems< in having a significant focus on sin is to point to our need for a savior. Clearly someone who believes that they're a good person with just a few minor sins might not think they they need a savior, but rather that they are capable of managing their sin to a point where they're good enough.
"Before we can think and take an action or adopt a "sinful" attitude, the reality is that we have no way of sinning, as the word is typically defined."
another unproven claim, although it's artfully worded to put the focus on sins of commission, and off of of sins of omission/human sin nature.
"By definition, sin is an action (and of course, I recognize attitudes, as well) that transgresses a divine law."
Yet Jesus Himself tells us that sin is NOT just an action.
"3a. You'd have to explain in some RATIONAL sense (and truly, I can't tell you how little I care about how you personally choose to interpret some bible verses. Your opinions about interpretations are meaningless to me, because, WHY should I care what opinions you personally hold about your interpretations of biblical passages?) HOW an infant can sin."
Fortunately, holding people to your subjective, imperfect, biased, prejudiced, and fallible hunches about what is objectively "RATIONAL" is (in and of itself) not Rational. Nor is your hunch about what's "RATIONAL" the standard by which anything is judged.
Go ahead, explain. MAKE SENSE. Help me understand.
"b. Which returns us to the "sin nature" theory you bring up."
If you say so.
"As a point of reality, we can see and objectively OBSERVE that humans are not perfect. It's just not debatable, we ALL mess up (we who have the wherewithal to do so - not infants, of course: See 3a). We ARE imperfect, we humans."
Thank you for restating something that goes without saying, yet you feel compelled to say it anyway.
"On the other hand, the THEORY of humans having a "sin nature" is a HUMAN THEORY, a religious theory. It's not proven. It's not objective. It's one way to think about our observable imperfections."
Is it really? Can you prove your claim? Why is your personal "imperfection" human theory any batter than the Biblically supported doctrine that humans have a sin nature?
"Correct? OR, if you think you CAN prove "sin nature" objectively, by all means, do so."
If you won't prove your claims, then stop demanding that I prove claims you make and attribute to me.
"I'll wait there for either proof of sinning newborns or acnowledgement that this is a nonsense claim AND proof of a "sin nature.""
As soon as you prove your various claims, I'll do as you demand. But I see no reason why I should be held to a standard you don't hold yourself to.
"Of course, we both agree that there are LOADS of figurative language and phrases and ideas used in the Bible. We simply can't presume that each line should be taken woodenly literal. The Bible NEVER tells us to do that. GOD has never told us to do that. And you almost certainly don't do that."
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the "It's figurative language, but I have no explanation for why it means something other than what it says." dodge. The question you'd to answer here is why these specific verses should be taken to mena something other than what they appear to say.
"So, the onus would be on you to explain in some rational way WHY we should presume that lying infants are a rational possibility."
Because the onus is never on you to prove your claims.
"It's a goofy claim on the face of it."
As long as you decide it's goofy, then it must be "goofy". Of course, your hunch that children are 100% free from any sin, that remains unproven and will likely never be proven.
"Your turn."
Dan, if you can't do your own research on the doctrine of original sin, that doesn't obligate me to do your research for you. FYI the doctrine of original sin goes back to the OT, and is a doctrine held by significant numbers of believers for thousands of years. For you to act as if this is some fringe theory that's been made up recently just points out your lack of knowledge.
If you won't prove your claims, do demand that I do what you won't.
"I fully understand that this is your theory. It used to be mine. "
If, as you claim, you "fully understand", why do you keep asking questions and bitching that you don't understand? If you really "fully understand", then you would "understand" that this isn't "my theory", but a doctrine that is held by significant numbers of Christians and Jews throughout history.
"I eventually found it lacking in reason and biblical consistency. You are welcome to your theories. I'm just asking questions because, if you can't explain it in a satisfactory manner to yourself, then maybe it's not as good a theory as you think. Conversely, if you CAN make it make rational and biblical sense, well that's a victory for everyone. Especially if you can prove it objectively."
It's not my job to spoon feed you information that is freely available for you to find on your own, about something you "fully understand". It seems like maybe you don't "fully understand" what your claim to "fully understand" something means.
"This obsession with justice, and applying a subjective standard of justice to YHWH, instead of focusing on the forgiveness and freedom from sin available to us."
yes, I'm aware that you have concocted this mashup of random buzzwords and attempted to cram into into a vaguely biblical sounding framework, without actually being able to prove that your hunches are correct.
"I think if I'm a follower of the almighty perfectly loving and perfectly just God Creator and Lover of all creation, then being obsessed with understanding justice is a good thing. And as always, I'm not applying ANYTHING to God. I'm not asking God (right now). I'm asking you for YOUR opinions and I am in no way deluded to think that you are equivalent to God."
Of course you do. As long as your Reason is the final deciding factor, and you can convince yourself, you conclude that you are correct. You just can't demonstrate that your hunch aligns with scripture.
"Do you think me asking questions of YOU about YOUR opinions on these matters is the same as "applying a subjective standard of justice to God..."?"
No. I do think that you asking me questions based on your misrepresentations of what I've said or based on things you've simply made up, is an indication of intellectual dishonesty at a minimum.
Why is your personal "imperfection" human theory any batter than the Biblically supported doctrine that humans have a sin nature?
If a notion is observable, testable, demonstrably and objectively obvious, then it is not a theory. It's just reality.
Right?
On the other hand, humans having a "sin nature" IS literally a theory, an untested, unproven and as far as I can tell, unprovable human theory. If you can objectively prove it, by all means, go ahead.
It may help if you define what you personally mean by "sin nature" if you mean something other than the obvious "imperfect."
I'll help. From the conservative Got Questions? website:
The sin nature is that aspect in man that makes him rebellious against God. When we speak of the sin nature, we refer to the fact that we have a natural inclination to sin; given the choice to do God’s will or our own, we will naturally choose to do our own thing.
Proof of the sin nature abounds. No one has to teach a child to lie or be selfish; rather, we go to great lengths to teach children to tell the truth and put others first. Sinful behavior comes naturally.
It's one thing to say, we're all imperfect, that is observable and clear. But it's taking it a step further into motivation, that we're choosing to deliberately be "rebellious against God."
And "sinful behavior comes naturally..."? Well, that would depend upon the behavior, wouldn't it? I mean, I know plenty of children who will tell a lie to save themselves trouble. And yet, I also know plenty of children who, having told a lie, will immediately feel guilty and wrong about it. On the other extreme end of things, raping someone, killing someone, beating a child or a disabled person... these things simply don't come naturally. You have to either have a certain set of some mental disorders or have been taught to do such harsh, cruel things.
Where is the proof for these theories that we're naturally "rebellious against God" or that sinful nature comes naturally and WHICH sinful nature?
"The problem that one would have in making the argument that humans are born sinless is that they would have do demonstrate that these verses actually don't mean what they say."
Just to be clear and repeat what I've been abundantly clear about.
1. I am saying that newborns have committed NO SINS, DONE NO WRONG, THOUGHT NO EVIL THOUGHTS OR REBELLED AGAINST GOD.
To say otherwise is just speculation.
2. That humans are observably imperfect.
3. That a Sin Nature is an unproven human theory.
Dan
"If a notion is observable, testable, demonstrably and objectively obvious, then it is not a theory. It's just reality. Right?"
Not exactly. The problem is that you are positing that people is merely "imperfect" and that most of what would be called sin is merely mistakes due to ignorance or imperfection. The counter position would be that humans are sinful by nature and that our tendency is to ask "Did YHWH really say...:, then to decide that He didn't or that He didn't really mean it. The problem is that when evaluating a person's actions, there is no way to differentiate between the two. If someone drives past you on the highway over the speed limit, you have no way to know if they are ignorant of the speed limit, or if they are intentionally speeding. As scripture makes clear, sin starts with the mind and the heart long before it is expressed in action. So your problem is that you have no way to determine why someone's behaving a certain way just by observation.
"On the other hand, humans having a "sin nature" IS literally a theory, an untested, unproven and as far as I can tell, unprovable human theory. If you can objectively prove it, by all means, go ahead."
It's always amazing when you make these sorts of category errors, an pretend like it's possible to test for things like motives, thoughts, ignorance, imperfection, or motivation. The problem is that what you dismiss as a "theory", is a theory that literally runs throughout the entirety of scripture, and a theory that aligns with what we see in real life. The problem is that you make excuses why you can't prove your theory, I can point to thousands of years of scholarship that aligns with the scriptural record.
"It may help if you define what you personally mean by "sin nature" if you mean something other than the obvious "imperfect.""
I'll make it really simple. Our sin nature is that part of us that wants to be able to decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil. It's the part of us that asks, "Did YHWH really say...". It's the part of us that makes excuses for why it's not sin when we do something. What's interesting, is that you are claiming that all humans are born "sinless", which seems pretty close to perfect. If we are born sinless, how does our imperfection always win out over our sinlessness. It's almost like you're playing a semantic game because you think that "imperfection" sounds better than sin nature, when the end result is indistinguishable to an observer.
"It's one thing to say, we're all imperfect, that is observable and clear. But it's taking it a step further into motivation, that we're choosing to deliberately be "rebellious against God.""
When it comes to observable actions, it's a distinction without a difference. If you tell a lie because your imperfect, or because you choose to ignore YHWH's commandment about lying, you've still told the same lie. Further, after you tell one lie out of ignorance/imperfection and are told that it's wrong to lie, then the next lie you tell is intentionally rebelling against something or someone.
"And "sinful behavior comes naturally..."? Well, that would depend upon the behavior, wouldn't it?"
No. What an absurd claim. Again, telling lies comes naturally to children. They tell lies before they can talk. Again, you can call it "imperfection", but a lie is still a lie.
"I mean, I know plenty of children who will tell a lie to save themselves trouble. And yet, I also know plenty of children who, having told a lie, will immediately feel guilty and wrong about it. On the other extreme end of things, raping someone, killing someone, beating a child or a disabled person... these things simply don't come naturally. You have to either have a certain set of some mental disorders or have been taught to do such harsh, cruel things."
So what. Just because you can make excuses for kids telling lies doesn't mean that the lie is less wrong. I suspect that you raised your kids to tell the Truth. I also bet that they lied to you.
"Where is the proof for these theories that we're naturally "rebellious against God" or that sinful nature comes naturally and WHICH sinful nature?"
What a stupid question. You can't prove that it's ignorance, or imperfection, but you demand that others do what you won't.
You've argued in defense of your subjective moral code that YHWH has essentially imprinted a sense that certain things are wrong that extends nearly universally across humanity. I believe you've claimed that YHWH has "written" certain things "on our hearts". If it is True that YHWH has "written" certain things "on our hearts", then how is it that you would claim that when people ignore what is "written on their hearts", that it's not going against what YHWH has "written on our hearts"? Are you really claiming that people are simultaneously aware of and live by these "heart writings", while also allowing their "imperfections" to lead them to disobey what's "written on our hearts"?
This is, as often happen with you, just semantic bullshit when the actions are indistinguishable.
You are literally arguing that "imperfection" comes naturally and results in people engaging in behaviors that are sinful because they are "imperfect". While simultaneously arguing that there is no such thing as a "sin nature" that would lead people to engage in many of the same actions as their "imperfection">
"Just to be clear and repeat what I've been abundantly clear about."
Just to be clear. The fact that you've written words, made comments, and used ALL CAPS to emphasize your claims, doesn't give any of those words of comments any validity. The fact the you've asserted something, no matter how emphatically or repeatedly doesn't equate to your assertions being True or accurate.
"1. I am saying that newborns have committed NO SINS, DONE NO WRONG, THOUGHT NO EVIL THOUGHTS OR REBELLED AGAINST GOD."
Yes, you are saying this, but you saying it doesn't make it True. You have made a positive claim (not your usual practice of framing the question as a negative), and you should be able to prove the claims you make. Or, you can just REPEAT YOURSELF WITH ALL CAPS AND PRETEND THAT YELLING IS A Substitute for proof.
"To say otherwise is just speculation."
Again with the unproven claim.
"2. That humans are observably imperfect."
Yet this alleged imperfection looks pretty much indistinguishable from sin when its observed. When someone tells you a lie, you have absolutely zero way to determine if the lie is intentional or from imperfection.
"3. That a Sin Nature is an unproven human theory."
Given that you haven't offered proof of your "mere imperfection" hunch, (you asserting that you have observed humans and concluded that your observation confirms that your theory is the only possible conclusion. Even when the observed behavior would be indistinguishable." isn't actually proof. It's putting yourself in the position of determining what is wrong (sin) or right/excusable (imperfection/ignorance). Unfortunately, as a biased, imperfect, fallible, prejudiced, limited, finite, human, I'm not sure that your imperfect hunch can be presumed to be True.
"1. I am saying that newborns have committed NO SINS, DONE NO WRONG, THOUGHT NO EVIL THOUGHTS OR REBELLED AGAINST GOD."
Craig...
"Yes, you are saying this, but you saying it doesn't make it True. You have made a positive claim (not your usual practice of framing the question as a negative), and you should be able to prove the claims you make."
No. Just no, Craig. YOU re the one making the insane-sounding claim that newborn babies sin. That's insane. YOU have to support the irrational, unproven claim.
If I say there are no purple unicorns on the moon and you disagree, YOU have to support that claim. It is always the onus of the one making an irrational, dubious claim to support it. Do you not know this?
Do you actually think it is even possible that a one minute old baby can sin?? That's crazy.
Dan
Craig...
Again, you can call it "imperfection", but a lie is still a lie.
And should it be punished with an eternity in hell?
Really?
To answer some of your questions or implied questions...
The problem is that you are positing that people is merely "imperfect" and that most of what would be called sin is merely mistakes due to ignorance or imperfection.
What's the problem? How many people do you know who deliberately think: I'm going to do this evil deed, KNOWING full well it's evil, because I want to do evil... because I want to rebel against God...?
Do you know ONE person who does this on a regular (daily?) basis? Because I simply don't. Maybe it's just the case that I know a better quality of people than you, but the teachers, mentally ill, disabled, nurses, chaplains, folks without homes, environmentalists, LGBTQ folks, mental health workers, etc... that I know just don't do that. I don't think I know of one person who does that (setting aside those whose mental illness such as sociopathy or narcissism sort of disables their moral thinking). Do you know someone like that? Are you like that?
Of course, I know people who, when pushed far enough, get angry or depressed or otherwise pushed to the point of where they think, "I'm going to do something deliberately wrong to cause pain to those who cause me pain..." but that's a pretty rare exception.
Craig...
The counter position would be that humans are sinful by nature and that our tendency is to ask "Did YHWH really say...:, then to decide that He didn't or that He didn't really mean it...
Our sin nature is that part of us that wants to be able to decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil. It's the part of us that asks, "Did YHWH really say...".
Prove it or admit you can't. It's a stupidly false suggestion and unsupported by ANY data. It's a flawed, failed human opinions FORMED by flawed, failed humans who want to try to bully their way into claiming they are the ones who speak for God. Stop it. Be a better human.
Understand this: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ASKING THE QUESTION, "DID GOD REALLY SAY?" IT IS A VITAL QUESTION TO ASK when some human presumes to tell you what God thinks.
When some human tells you, "YES! God sometimes commands his followers to enslave people, or to forcibly wed a captive woman..." then OF COURSE, it's reasonable to ask "WTF? Did God REALLY say that???! Of course! God did NOT tell you that!"
"Did God really say..." is a perfectly reasonable question to ask when someone is stating something irrational or even harmful or evil. Do you disagree?
When I say that I think God would, of course, bless the beautiful marriage of two gay guys, do YOU not respond with "Did God really say...?"
Stop that. Be a better human. It's an inane point to try to make and it fails rationally and biblically.
Craig...
an pretend like it's possible to test for things like motives, thoughts, ignorance, imperfection, or motivation.
When someone says, "That newborn infant, now one minute old, is thinking false claims and rebellion and hate for God," it's an irrational, EVIL and stupid claim to make, completely lacking ANY data. WE CAN KNOW such claims are stupid as sin on the face of them. You can't support it at all in the least anywhere anyway in the whole blessed creation of God.
Do you admit that and acknowledge that reality?
Dan...
"If a notion is observable, testable, demonstrably and objectively obvious, then it is not a theory. It's just reality. Right?"
Craig...
Not exactly. The problem is that you are positing that people is merely "imperfect" and that most of what would be called sin is merely mistakes due to ignorance or imperfection.
I'm not "positing that people is merely 'imperfect.'" I'm noting the reality that people ARE imperfect.
Do you disagree with that reality? Prove it.
Also, I never said one way or the other that "most of what would be called sin is merely mistakes due to ignorance or imperfect." I don't have the data to make that claim. But I DO suspect that is the case. How much of what you, personally, do are deliberate sins in an attempt to spit in the face of God? 90%? 50%? 1%?
Please clarify. Hell, I'm as imperfect as they come, but I rarely deliberately engage in actions that I know to be wrong, just as is true for nearly every person I know.
You see, I think perhaps you think that sin is black and white. I don't. I think most of us are daily faced with shades of gray.
"Oh! I told my mom I'd stop by and rake her leaves today, but I also told that homeless guy I'd run him to a job application... The leaves will wait for another day, but if I tell my mom that, it might hurt her feelings that I chose a stranger and homeless guy over her! Her dementia has made her very suspicious! I'll just tell her I'm not feeling up to it today..."
That would be a lie, but is it a sin? Is it a GREAT sin? Prove it one way or the other. You can't, you just can't. I suspect most of the wrong done is merely a reflection of our finite, imperfect nature... Perhaps you hold a different theory and that's okay, but I'm not morally or rationally beholden to place your theory over mine and God simply hasn't told me what the right thing to do is in that scenario. Nor has God told you.
Do you recognize that degree of uncertainty in many (most?) of our daily moral decisions?
Craig...
What an absurd claim. Again, telling lies comes naturally to children. They tell lies before they can talk.
Prove it.
https://raisingchildren.net.au/preschoolers/behaviour/common-concerns/lies
https://parentingscience.com/at-what-age-do-children-begin-to-tell-lies/
Craig...
As scripture makes clear, sin starts with the mind and the heart long before it is expressed in action. So your problem is that you have no way to determine why someone's behaving a certain way just by observation.
And as Scripture makes clear, sometimes sin is done "accidentally" and thus, perforce, does not BEGIN with the mind and heart. I don't know how to make you understand: Your opinions about what "the Bible" says are meaningless except to you. You have no way to determine why someone's behaving a certain way just by a bible verse that you interpret one way or another.
Do you recognize that reality?
Craig...
The problem is that what you dismiss as a "theory", is a theory that literally runs throughout the entirety of scripture, and a theory that aligns with what we see in real life.
Prove it. Again, this is LITERALLY your unsupported human opinion and not at all a given or proven. And I dismiss NOTHING because it's a theory. To do so would be to misunderstand what a theory is. A theory is a guess to explain a set of circumstances and there's NOTHING WRONG with holding theories.
The problem is when you hold a theory and you refuse to acknowledge that it's an unproven theory.
Do you acknowledge your "sin nature" idea is an unproven human theory, barely biblical? Along those lines...
"Where is the proof for these theories that we're naturally "rebellious against God" or that sinful nature comes naturally and WHICH sinful nature?"
What a stupid question.
Perhaps, IF the person holding the theory says, "But this is only my unproven theory..." but if they're acting or presenting as if it's a given and proven position, it is a VITAL question. Just like "Did God really say..."? When Craig or anyone else assures me that THEY THINK that God says that newborn infants are actively sinning somehow, it is VITAL to ask for proof because that's an important and dangerous claim they're making. What in the name of all that is holy is wrong with asking for you to prove your claims or, at the least, admit it's your unproven hunch?
Do you understand the distinction?
Craig...
You've argued in defense of your subjective moral code that YHWH has essentially imprinted a sense that certain things are wrong that extends nearly universally across humanity.
I've noted that this is what the Bible says in various ways in the bible. Do you disagree?
And I've noted the reality that moral prohibitions against causing harm to others (do unto others) IS observably, provably a common thread across most/all world religions and philosophies. It's demonstrable. Do you recognize that reality?
Craig...
You are literally arguing that "imperfection" comes naturally and results in people engaging in behaviors that are sinful because they are "imperfect". While simultaneously arguing that there is no such thing as a "sin nature" that would lead people to engage in many of the same actions as their "imperfection"
Noting the observable reality that all people are imperfect is merely noting observable reality. Do you have data to prove otherwise?
"Sin nature" is literally the language of religion, NOT a proven reality.
Perhaps if you define your hunches and definition about "sin nature..."?
Craig...
" Well, given that an action and misdeed has to be DONE to sin, then yes, as "sin" is normally defined, of course, it's a stupid-as-shit claim to say that newborns have already sinned!!"
Please prove this claim. Jesus seemed pretty clear when His taught that actions are not necessary for sin to happen. Are you denying that there are sins of omission?
Nope, I'm not denying sins of omission. At all. In anyway in the whole wide world. By actions, I was including the action of THINKING something harmful or "sinful." Thinking is, after all, an action.
Do you have any proof that a 1 minute old child is thinking something sinful? Is committing a sin of omission somehow (perhaps, failing to take that newborn's mothers' feelings or lack of rest into consideration when that newborn cries?)? PROVE IT PROVE IT PROVE IT.
It's an obtuse and goofier than believable suggestion but IF YOU CAN PROVE IT, then you can convince me. But merely pointing to some verse in the Bible that you decide in your failed human opinion that you think should be taken literally in your personal failed human opinion IS NOT PROOF.
Do you recognize that reality? Those realities?
Craig...
If it is True that YHWH has "written" certain things "on our hearts", then how is it that you would claim that when people ignore what is "written on their hearts", that it's not going against what YHWH has "written on our hearts"?
1. The "written on our hearts" is a figurative statement suggesting that humanity has at least some of That of God within us that we can intuitively know at least something about morality and moral behavior, of doing good.
2. BUT, we are flawed and imperfect human beings and so, of course, are understanding of moral notions are flawed and not perfect. In that reality, we regularly find ourselves in shades of "I GET that I shouldn't do any harm to others, but is continuing in this conversation with Craig doing harm to others? Is responding with harsh rebukes (as Jesus did at times) doing harm? What of the harm that Craig might be doing to others by saying that newborn infants are sinners, intentionally sinning? Where is the line..."
And we just don't know perfectly, so we make our best guess and sometimes, we get it wrong to varying degrees.
Do you disagree?
Or do you think that humans know all about right and wrong perfectly and regularly deliberately choose to do the wrong for the sake of rebellion against God? If the latter, prove it with something more than your opinion about a Bible verse.
Are you really claiming that people are simultaneously aware of and live by these "heart writings", while also allowing their "imperfections" to lead them to disobey what's "written on our hearts"?
Answered above. We are, by design, imperfect human beings. It's what we are. I see no evidence that we're able to be perfect, from day 1 to the final day. Do you disagree?
Likewise, I see very little evidence that we humans regularly deliberately choose to do wrong for wrong's sake or to spit on/rebel against God. Do you disagree? If so, provide proof - more than your personal opinions about biblical interpretations.
Craig...
What's interesting, is that you are claiming that all humans are born "sinless", which seems pretty close to perfect. If we are born sinless, how does our imperfection always win out over our sinlessness.(?)
I'm noting the reality that we have ZERO data - YOU have ZERO data - to prove that the newborn is actively choosing to sin. We have NO data to presume that a newborn is sinning from that first minute.
Do you acknowledge this reality?
We are born as INFANTS without the capacity to choose to sin, given the nature of human development. We are also born imperfect, as observable.
Why would anyone assume someone born imperfect would never make mistakes?
And sometimes, those mistakes might include deliberate "sins," deliberate choices to cause harm to others. If we DIDN'T sometime show our imperfection and choose NEVER to harm, then we wouldn't be imperfect, would we?
I'm just talking about what's observable objectively, and distinguishing that from the unproven human religious theories. EVEN THOSE THEORIES that certain religions have held for hundreds or maybe two thousand years. They are STILL unproven human theories created by humans who are imperfect.
Do we have any reason to presume these humans are not imperfect in their understandings and interpretations and opinions of biblical interpretations? Prove it.
"No. Just no, Craig. YOU re the one making the insane-sounding claim that newborn babies sin. That's insane. YOU have to support the irrational, unproven claim."
What a strange response. I have NOT made a claim that babies commit sin, I juts haven't. I further have not made a claim about what happens to babies who die as infants, at least not in this thread. You, on the other hand, have made a clear an emphatic claim, which you haven't proven.
"If I say there are no purple unicorns on the moon and you disagree, YOU have to support that claim. It is always the onus of the one making an irrational, dubious claim to support it. Do you not know this?"
Yes, this is why you would be obligated to support your claims. If I disagree with your claim, I am not necessarily making a counter claim. In this case, I have said that I can't agree or disagree with your claims because you haven't proven them. You clearly understand the concept of proving the claims you make, you just don't see to be able to actually prove your claims.
"Do you actually think it is even possible that a one minute old baby can sin?? That's crazy."
No.
"And should it be punished with an eternity in hell?"
No.
"Really?"
See above.
"Do you know ONE person who does this on a regular (daily?) basis?"
Do I know one person who chooses to do things they know are wrong, yes I do. How is it possible that you perfectly know the thought process and decision making process of other people?
" Because I simply don't. Maybe it's just the case that I know a better quality of people than you, but the teachers, mentally ill, disabled, nurses, chaplains, folks without homes, environmentalists, LGBTQ folks, mental health workers, etc... that I know just don't do that. I don't think I know of one person who does that (setting aside those whose mental illness such as sociopathy or narcissism sort of disables their moral thinking). Do you know someone like that? Are you like that?"
How can you possibly know what the motivations, thought processes and decision making processes are of others? Yes, I know people who regularly choose to do what's wrong instead of doing what's right.
"Prove it or admit you can't. It's a stupidly false suggestion and unsupported by ANY data. It's a flawed, failed human opinions FORMED by flawed, failed humans who want to try to bully their way into claiming they are the ones who speak for God. Stop it. Be a better human."
Again, why would I do what you won't do? Why would you demand that I be better than you?
"Understand this: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ASKING THE QUESTION, "DID GOD REALLY SAY?" IT IS A VITAL QUESTION TO ASK when some human presumes to tell you what God thinks."
Well, once again, Dan has spoken ex cathedra and has laid down the law for the rest of us mere mortals. Because Dan must not be questioned.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes I disagree with your hunch.
"When I say that I think God would, of course, bless the beautiful marriage of two gay guys, do YOU not respond with "Did God really say...?""
No I don't. I respond with a request that you demonstrate that your claim is True by showing me the clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal scriptural support for your claim.
"Stop that. Be a better human. It's an inane point to try to make and it fails rationally and biblically."
I'd ask that you prove the above claim, but it would be a waste of time because you won't.
"When someone says, "That newborn infant, now one minute old, is thinking false claims and rebellion and hate for God," it's an irrational, EVIL and stupid claim to make, completely lacking ANY data. WE CAN KNOW such claims are stupid as sin on the face of them. You can't support it at all in the least anywhere anyway in the whole blessed creation of God."
Please tell me exactly who has said this.
"Do you admit that and acknowledge that reality?"
No, I don't acknowledge that you making something up and pretending that someone else said it is "reality".
"If a notion is observable, testable, demonstrably and objectively obvious, then it is not a theory. It's just reality. Right?"
Sure, but if you are going to claim that something is all of those things, but can't point to any evidence of your claims, then you have a problem.
"I'm not "positing that people is merely 'imperfect.'" I'm noting the reality that people ARE imperfect."
No, you are making a claim that people are merely imperfect as opposed to intentionally sinful. You are excluding all other possibilities.
"Do you disagree with that reality? Prove it."
Why, you can't prove your claim, why would you demand that I do what you can't?
"Also, I never said one way or the other that "most of what would be called sin is merely mistakes due to ignorance or imperfect." I don't have the data to make that claim. But I DO suspect that is the case. How much of what you, personally, do are deliberate sins in an attempt to spit in the face of God? 90%? 50%? 1%?"
100% of the actions I take that I know are contrary to what YHWH commands are me choosing to do what I know is wrong. By the same token, 100% of the times I don't do what I should do, are me choosing to disobey YHWH. There might be a few cases where I Truly don't know, but it's probably a small number.
"Please clarify. Hell, I'm as imperfect as they come, but I rarely deliberately engage in actions that I know to be wrong, just as is true for nearly every person I know."
One more unproven claim.
"You see, I think perhaps you think that sin is black and white. I don't. I think most of us are daily faced with shades of gray."
What you think means nothing.
"That would be a lie, but is it a sin? Is it a GREAT sin?"
Well if YHWh tells us not to lie, and we choose to lie, I fail to see how that could be rationalized. Again with the categories. If you are going to insist on these categories of sin, then please define them.
"Do you recognize that degree of uncertainty in many (most?) of our daily moral decisions?"
No.
"Prove it."
Again, with demanding that I do something you won't.
"And as Scripture makes clear, sometimes sin is done "accidentally" and thus, perforce, does not BEGIN with the mind and heart. I don't know how to make you understand: Your opinions about what "the Bible" says are meaningless except to you. You have no way to determine why someone's behaving a certain way just by a bible verse that you interpret one way or another."
Where does scripture "make clear" that sin is done "accidentally"? This is quite the claim.. Are you really suggesting that we engage in actions that do not begin with thoughts? That our actions can be completely divorced from our thoughts, and feelings? That when someone like you thinks that sins are "accidental" or that "sin is really a grey area", that your actions don't reflect your thought process?
"Do you recognize that reality?"
In the absence of proof, no.
"rove it. Again, this is LITERALLY your unsupported human opinion and not at all a given or proven. And I dismiss NOTHING because it's a theory. To do so would be to misunderstand what a theory is. A theory is a guess to explain a set of circumstances and there's NOTHING WRONG with holding theories."
No it's not. It's a doctrine that has been the prevailing view in The Church for thousands of years. Of course, you aren't going to prove your personal theory, which you can't point to anyone of note who agrees with your hunch, but you'll demand that I do what you won't.
"The problem is when you hold a theory and you refuse to acknowledge that it's an unproven theory."
If this statement is True (although it's unproven), then you have exactly the same problem.
"Do you acknowledge your "sin nature" idea is an unproven human theory, barely biblical?"
No.
"Perhaps, IF the person holding the theory says, "But this is only my unproven theory..." but if they're acting or presenting as if it's a given and proven position, it is a VITAL question. Just like "Did God really say..."?"
Yet, you simply announce that your unproven theories are "Reality" without offering the slightest bit of proof.
"When Craig or anyone else assures me that THEY THINK that God says that newborn infants are actively sinning somehow, it is VITAL to ask for proof because that's an important and dangerous claim they're making."
If you can't provide a direct quote from me to back up this claim, then you can retract this bullshit claim. I'll be expecting an apology for your lie. What's amazing is that you probably have convinced yourself that by making up this bullshit claim, that you didn't do it intentionally.
"What in the name of all that is holy is wrong with asking for you to prove your claims or, at the least, admit it's your unproven hunch?"
Nothing, as long as you hold yourself to the same standard.
"Do you understand the distinction?"
No, the fact that you make a distinction between the standards you demand of others, and the lower standards you expect of yourself, makes absolutely zero sense.
"I've noted that this is what the Bible says in various ways in the bible. Do you disagree?"
No, I agree that YHWH has written His law on our hearts.
"And I've noted the reality that moral prohibitions against causing harm to others (do unto others) IS observably, provably a common thread across most/all world religions and philosophies. It's demonstrable. Do you recognize that reality?"
No I do understand that this commandment of YHWH does span across multiple cultures.
The problem you have is that you are arguing that, despite YHWH writing His law on our hearts, you continue to claim that people just "accidentally" fail to follow this law. If your claim is True, then what could possibly excuse people who act contrary to what YHWH has written on our hearts?
"Noting the observable reality that all people are imperfect is merely noting observable reality. Do you have data to prove otherwise?"
You don't have data to prove your claim. Unless you can somehow provide comprehensive, accurate, and reliable data that you are able to know people's motivations for their actions you can't simply announce your unproven hunch as "reality" and demand that everyone accept your unproven hunch.
""Sin nature" is literally the language of religion, NOT a proven reality."
"Imperfection" is simply the language of your unproven hunch, and a way to excuse people from responsibility for their actions. In the absence of proof of the motivations of every single human who has ever lived, you simply cannot prove your claim.
"Perhaps if you define your hunches and definition about "sin nature..."?"
Perhaps if you do what you demand of others.
"Do you have any proof that a 1 minute old child is thinking something sinful? Is committing a sin of omission somehow (perhaps, failing to take that newborn's mothers' feelings or lack of rest into consideration when that newborn cries?)? PROVE IT PROVE IT PROVE IT."
Since I have never claimed what you continue to say that I have, even after being corrected multiple times, why would I prove something that I have never claimed to be True. Are you seriously saying that you continuing to lie about this, is some sort of "accident", and not a choice on your part?
"Do you recognize that reality? Those realities?"
As long as you refuse to prove your claims, I se no reason to acknowledge your unproven hunches as "reality" simply because you claim it's so.
Dan's appeal to imperfection is just Dan asserting a loophole which he believes justifies pretending some are "mistaken" after being shown the error of their ways. But it's our imperfection which condemns us, and Dan wants to pretend it's an out. Doesn't work that way, but Dan will say anything to legitimize immorality and murder.
"Nope, I'm not denying sins of omission. At all. In anyway in the whole wide world. By actions, I was including the action of THINKING something harmful or "sinful." Thinking is, after all, an action."
That's an impressive display of twisting away from the implications of your claim. Please prove your claim that thoughts are actions. I'll wait.
"1. The "written on our hearts" is a figurative statement suggesting that humanity has at least some of That of God within us that we can intuitively know at least something about morality and moral behavior, of doing good."
Again saying something that goes without saying. At the same time ignoring the reality that IF we have this knowledge, yet choose to act in ways that are contrary to what YHWH has "written on our hearts", we are consciously deciding to act in that way and can't claim that our actions were an accident.
"2. BUT, we are flawed and imperfect human beings and so, of course, are understanding of moral notions are flawed and not perfect. In that reality, we regularly find ourselves in shades of "I GET that I shouldn't do any harm to others, but is continuing in this conversation with Craig doing harm to others? Is responding with harsh rebukes (as Jesus did at times) doing harm? What of the harm that Craig might be doing to others by saying that newborn infants are sinners, intentionally sinning? Where is the line...""
Make up your mind. Either we know what YHWH has "written on our hearts" or we don't. This equivocation and justification is simply absurd. You can't claim that YHWH has "written" the golden rule on our hearts and use that as a justification for your moral code, while simultaneously arguing that "we" don't understand it.
"And we just don't know perfectly, so we make our best guess and sometimes, we get it wrong to varying degrees. Do you disagree?"
You keep adding "perfectly" into the equation. I have never claimed that we are expected to do anything "perfectly", nor have I claimed that YHWH expects perfection from us. We are accountable for what we do know and what has been communicated to us.
"Or do you think that humans know all about right and wrong perfectly and regularly deliberately choose to do the wrong for the sake of rebellion against God? If the latter, prove it with something more than your opinion about a Bible verse."
No. But all humans know enough to function in the world we live in. Strangely enough, you are the one who uses the allegedly universal acceptance of the golden rule as the basis for your subjective moral code while simultaneously arguing that nobody really is accountable to their knowledge of said subjective moral code.
"Answered above. We are, by design, imperfect human beings. It's what we are. I see no evidence that we're able to be perfect, from day 1 to the final day. Do you disagree?"
No, I agree that the standard is not perfection.
1. Prove your claim that we are "designed".
2. Prove your claim that we are "designed imperfect".
3. Why do you continue to act as if anyone is arguing that humans are expected to be "perfect".
4. Do you not understand that we can be held to account for our actions, without perfection being the standard?
"Likewise, I see very little evidence that we humans regularly deliberately choose to do wrong for wrong's sake or to spit on/rebel against God. Do you disagree?"
I disagree that you don't see any evidence. I suspect that you see, and ignore or rationalize the evidence that is out there. I can't prove this because, unlike you< I don't think that I can glean perfect knowledge about someone's motivations based on observing their actions.
"I'm noting the reality that we have ZERO data - YOU have ZERO data - to prove that the newborn is actively choosing to sin. We have NO data to presume that a newborn is sinning from that first minute." Do you acknowledge this reality?"
No, in the absence of proof, I do not acknowledge that you determine what reality is or is not.
What's interesting is that you continue to harp on the fact that you see (which doesn't mean that something doesn't exist), "ZERO DATA", yet continue to provide "ZERO DATA" for your claims about what "reality" is.
"We are born as INFANTS without the capacity to choose to sin, given the nature of human development. We are also born imperfect, as observable."
Prove this claim. Simply noting that you "observe" something (considering your flaws, imperfection, biases, preconceptions, prejudices, etc) id not proof that your observation is correct. Let alone that your observation represents "reality".
"Why would anyone assume someone born imperfect would never make mistakes?"
No one has ever claimed that imperfect people don't make mistakes.
"And sometimes, those mistakes might include deliberate "sins," deliberate choices to cause harm to others. If we DIDN'T sometime show our imperfection and choose NEVER to harm, then we wouldn't be imperfect, would we?"
Excellent, example of circular reasoning.
"I'm just talking about what's observable objectively, and distinguishing that from the unproven human religious theories. EVEN THOSE THEORIES that certain religions have held for hundreds or maybe two thousand years. They are STILL unproven human theories created by humans who are imperfect."
The problem is that you think that your observations are objective, when they are not.
If you observe someone engaging in an action, how do you know by observing that action whether or not the person chose to engage in that action, or engaged in that action by mistake?
"Do we have any reason to presume these humans are not imperfect in their understandings and interpretations and opinions of biblical interpretations? Prove it."
No. But we clearly have reason to conclude that you are not hesitant to pull out a straw man whenever you feel it needed.
What has been artfully dodged in this entire recent group of comments is interesting.
Dan claims that he can observe certain things and chooses to conclude that by his observation of an action, he can draw conclusions about the motivation behind that action.
Example:
I observe someone driving 60 mph, in a 35 mph zone. This is clearly a violation of the law, but let's consider so reasons for the observable behavior.
1. The driver did not see that speed limit sign that dropped the speed from 60 to 35.
2. The driver's car was malfunctioning and they were unable to slow down.
3. The driver simply chose to ignore the speed limit change because they wanted to.
4. The driver was rushing someone to a hospital for urgently needed medical care.
5. The driver was distracted looking at their phone.
6 The drive had been carjacked and the car jacker was holding a gun on them and threatening their life.
What we have here is an example of how our observation of someone's action cannot automatically lead us to an accurate conclusion about their motivation.
Clearly, motivation is the key here. Motivation is the difference between doing something accidentally, and doing something intentionally.
As in the situation above, regardless of the motivation of the driver, the crime has been committed. There is no doubt that the driver broke the law. However, if the driver is pulled over, or ends up in court, they are allowed to use the mitigating circumstances as a reason to modify the punishment or perhaps justify the fact that they broke the law. But none of that changes the fact that they broke the specific law.
Again, I find this obsession with trying to provide self justifying reason for humans to sin fascinating. This notion that the default position is that sin is always accidental unless proven otherwise is not recent, but it does place the focus on the human observer. This notion gives the human observer (in this case Dan) the ability to look at an action, and to determine what the motivation for that action was.
Finally, IF we accept this hunch that all bad behavior is the result of humans making mistakes because they're imperfect, them how does one who holds to this subjective standard ever have grounds to criticize the actions of others. How does one label the mistaken action of an imperfect human as "immoral"? How does one perfectly draw objective conclusions about the actions of another, by observing those actions (or reports of those actions) FROM A DISTANCE?
If the news reports that human X did Y, and Z, and human A draws conclusions about the motivation of human X based on that report we have sever potential problems.
1. This presumes that the report is 100% accurate in all of it's details.
2. This presumes that the reporter is reporting in a 100% unbiased manner and has included 100% of the details.
3. This presumes that the person hearing or seeing the report; Listens, hears, processes, the entire report 100% accurately and without bringing their prejudices, biases, or feelings to bera on their conclusion.
4. This presumes that it is possible to know motivation with 100% accuracy based on a (potentially) second/third hand recounting of someone's actions.
I'm quite sure that the above list isn't exhaustive, but i think that it makes the point that drawing conclusions about someone's actions based solely on observation is fraught with problems.
Finally, the problem with this entire conversation is that it ignores the more significant aspect of the conversation. That YHWH loved humanity enough that even though all of humanity were sinners, He still sent Jesus to us so that there was a path to redemption. Personally I find all of these attempts to justify or make excuses for sin ridiculous. Why would anyone focus on splitting semantic hairs about "imperfect"/sin nature, (when either choice leads to the same behaviors) when we could be discussing the reality that YHWH offers humanity a chance to be redeemed and to be in His presence throughout eternity.
I really don't see much value in investing my time and energy in parsing Dan's comments and answering his questions, when he simply won't provide proof of his claims. If his claims are so obviously "reality" then you would think it would be laughably easy to prove them. It could be argued that his failure to do anything but make assertions about his claims, is evidence that his claims are not True.
I'm n ot saying that I won't pick some questions or comments from Dan and respond to them, but since he's simply recycling his greatest hits at this point, I see no reason to parse and respond to/answer every part of every comment.
Art,
I agree that it's a functional loophole. But I think it's more about wanting to run everything through his Reason and deciding things based on his subjective Reason instead of anything else. Note how he almost revels in adopting the question attributed to Satan, as his very own (almost) mantra. What it looks like to me is just someone wanting to set their own terms and reserve final judgement to themselves when it comes to things like sin. Really nothing new under the sun.
Dan claims that he can observe certain things and chooses to conclude that by his observation of an action, he can draw conclusions about the motivation behind that action.
I've not said that just based on casual observations I can draw precise conclusions about motivations. But, in instances where we're talking about more extensive observations and lacking ANY evidence to make me want to guess at some secret motivations that aren't obvious and that are evil in intent, then I/we/anyone have no reason to guess at evil intent.
Look, let's get specific and see if that helps you explain to me your theory. While I can't 100% speak to the intentions/motivations of others, I am pretty clear on my intentions, poor sinner that I am.
So, today, I got up out of bed. I showered, cleaned up and got dressed. I kissed my wife good bye as she was going off to work. As she was going out of the door, she asked me to reach out to a contractor about a job here at the house. I did so, then texted her, "They're coming this Friday at 1."
At no point in any of that early morning stuff did I intentionally sin... did I intentionally thought, "You know what, I'd really rather IGNORE my wife's request and just tell her I forgot." (And even if I did, is that really a sin? And even if it is, would it be properly punished by an eternity of torture??)
From there, I went to visit a client to help her prepare for employment opportunities. I asked them about their day, genuinely concerned with how things were going. I asked about their appointment to get their wheelchair fixed, again, with no evil intent. I interacted politely and in a friendly manner with them and the people around them. All in an effort to eventually help them find employment.
Was any of that sinful? Do I have ANY reason to suspect I actually had some evil motivation for doing that? If I did, what could it possibly be? If I did, would that "crime" reasonably be punished by hell??
From there, I drove in my car and stopped at the store to pick up a few supplies for home. Now, I did drive a gas-powered car and I know that this causes pollution. Is that a sin in your mind? Is it one that is reasonably punished by hell? But if I don't use a car, it would be very difficult to do this job that works to help people, so is that a fair trade-off? HOW would we know?
At the store, I forgot to bring a cloth bag, so I would have to use the store's plastic bag. I picked up some low-calorie vitamin waters for my wife because I know she likes them.
cont'd...
Now, I know that the plastic bags and plastic bottles are pollutants and ideally, I wouldn't use them, but I did because it was convenient to do so and that's how our system is set up right now. But is that a sin, to use plastic that causes pollution/landfill problems? Is it worthy of an eternity in hell?
Like that. I could go on and on walking through my day. Walking through my wife's day, through my pastor's day. Through many of my clients and colleagues and church friends' days. We're by and large just going through the day, trying to do basically good work for basically good reasons, including getting paid to be able to pay for food and shelter. By and large, there are no bad motivations in any of these daily steps, no intentional efforts to cause harm or do evil or "sin." There are POLICY or societal practices that we all recognize have problems, taken in total (the plastic bags, driving gas cars, etc), but are those actual sins, in your estimation?
If you think they are, do you think that they're worthy of hell?
And, like me and my friends, I suspect the same is largely true for you. I suspect you go through your day without once intentionally saying, "I'm going to do this hurtful, selfish thing. Indeed, I'm going to spit in the face of God and do evil." Who does that? I just don't know of anyone.
And even if you or I DID decide, out of imperfection, to do a slightly selfish thing (I'm not going to call the plumber like I told my partner! I don't feel like it!) if called on it, I suspect you (and I know I) would apologize for it.
You note (RIGHTLY) that God knows us best. But it appears you draw different conclusions from that than I do. It sounds like you suspect that God knows us best and thus KNOWS that we have some secret evil intentions and motivations, even if we're doing benign or even good actions. Whereas I suspect that BECAUSE God knows us best, God is able to LOVE us best. God knows those days when we're slightly tired or sick or just worn out and don't feel up to making that plumber phone call we said we'd make. God KNOWS, in that case, that there was no evil intent, just human imperfection and tiredness or anxiety or whatever.
I'm just having a hard time understanding what you all are guessing at as the "evil motivations" or hidden sins you think everyone is actively deliberately involved in as an effort to rebel against God.
How many times a day do you intentionally think you're going to cause harm to someone or do evil? I suspect that number must be close to zero, but you tell me.
Marshal...
But it's our imperfection which condemns us, and Dan wants to pretend it's an out. Doesn't work that way
Prove it. You think our imperfections condemn us? You think that God is so shallow and venal and impatient that God would condemn IMPERFECT people for being IMPERFECT?
At the very least, can you see how that sounds irrational on the face of it?
Craig...
But I think it's more about wanting to run everything through his Reason and deciding things based on his subjective Reason instead of anything else.
I don't know how many times I need to say it: I'm not placing my reason above God and what God wants. I'm trusting MY reason over YOUR reason when I find your reason to be lacking or irrational or outright ungracious or ungodly.
Just like you do for me, am I correct?
Craig...
What it looks like to me is just someone wanting to set their own terms and reserve final judgement to themselves when it comes to things like sin.
God has the final judgement, never said ANYTHING to suggest otherwise.
But you, my friends, are NOT GOD. I don't trust that YOU all understand God right sufficiently that I'd set aside what I think is obvious and clear in favor of what YOU think is reasonable or Biblical. JUST like you do.
When I tell you that God does NOT say that newborn infants are evil, that gay marriage is not wrong, you will and have and do say, "Does God really say?" in one form or the other. Think about it: Your ENDLESS requests for "but where is a bible verse that says so..." That IS your version of "Did God really say?"
Are you condemning yourself for that?
Craig...
Please tell me exactly who has said this. (Who has said that a newborn can sin?)
Dan...
"Do you think that Babies are born and with that FIRST BREATH, somehow they sin?"
Craig...
I think that there are multiple instances in scripture where language is used like "conceived in sin" or "sinful from my mother's womb", which seem to contradict your claim.
Perhaps if you would just for the love of God and all that is good in this whole wide world you would answer directly, I could understand. You say things like the above which makes it sound like you think that newborns sin. Then you say "I didn't say that."
When I ask if you think newborns are sinful/can sin and you respond:
"sinful from my mother's womb", which seem to contradict your claim.
it makes it SOUND like you're saying that a baby sins even as a newborn, that they are full of sin ("sinful," literally). Do you think that newborns are FULL OF SIN? Do you think that NEWBORNS are sinning from their first breath? Do you think that newborns are telling lies from their first breath? From the womb??
Just answer, clear and directly. Help me understand your position because in SPITE of the many words that you've offered, you have not answered this question in a direct and clear manner.
"I've not said that just based on casual observations I can draw precise conclusions about motivations. But, in instances where we're talking about more extensive observations and lacking ANY evidence to make me want to guess at some secret motivations that aren't obvious and that are evil in intent, then I/we/anyone have no reason to guess at evil intent."
Interesting. You just acknowledged that you are reaching conclusions about the motivation of others without "ANY evidence". Motivations that drive actions are literally by definition "secret" from other people. You as an observer have absolutely zero way to determine motivation with 100% accuracy. The fact that you acknowledge that you are giving people you know some benefit of the doubt, merely confirms that you are allowing your biases to color your conclusions.
"Look, let's get specific and see if that helps you explain to me your theory. While I can't 100% speak to the intentions/motivations of others, I am pretty clear on my intentions, poor sinner that I am."
So. You keep making claims about others, are you now acknowledging that you can't accurately know other's motivations with 100% accuracy?
I'm not going to waste time on you idiotic "example".
"Was any of that sinful?"
I don't know. I have no way to know if you're telling 100% of the Truth, nor any way to know your motivations. It seems like you think that I am suggesting that it is impossible to engage in any normal interactions at all without committing a sin. If this is the case, you are mistaken.
"Do I have ANY reason to suspect I actually had some evil motivation for doing that?"
Given the information I have, I have absolutely zero way to reach an accurate conclusion.
"If I did, what could it possibly be? If I did, would that "crime" reasonably be punished by hell??"
I have no idea, that sort of thing is way above my pay grade. It seems like you think that people are saying that one specific sin is specifically punished by an eternity of punishment. If that is what you believe someone to be saying, that calls your ability to comprehend what "conservatives" believe.
"But is that a sin, to use plastic that causes pollution/landfill problems? Is it worthy of an eternity in hell?"
No idea, don't know, don't care, stupid questions.
Interesting that you've seemingly moved away from your earlier position that you don't have any way to determine the motivation of other's actions, to claiming that you have specific detailed information about all of the actions and motivations for people other than yourself.
"If you think they are, do you think that they're worthy of hell?"
Insufficient data.
I don't care about your hunches about any of your anonymous friends or anyone else. Your assumptions about the motivations of others have absolutely zero value.
"You note (RIGHTLY) that God knows us best."
Thanks for acknowledging that you think something I said was RIGHT. Your approval means so much to me and when your throw me a little bone like this it makes my day.
"It sounds like you suspect that God knows us best and thus KNOWS that we have some secret evil intentions and motivations, even if we're doing benign or even good actions."
No.
"Whereas I suspect that BECAUSE God knows us best, God is able to LOVE us best. God knows those days when we're slightly tired or sick or just worn out and don't feel up to making that plumber phone call we said we'd make. God KNOWS, in that case, that there was no evil intent, just human imperfection and tiredness or anxiety or whatever."
This is quite the unproven hunch, which conveniently is also incredibly self serving. Your unproven hunches about YHWH just coincidentally happen to perfectly align with your other unproven hunches.
"I'm just having a hard time understanding what you all are guessing at as the "evil motivations" or hidden sins you think everyone is actively deliberately involved in as an effort to rebel against God."
Who said "evil motivations"? My point is simple. You have absolutely zero possible way to know others motivations, YHWH does. I'm merely suggesting that YHWH is in a much better position to accurately analyze the motivations that drive people actions, than you are. But enjoy your time in your fantasy world.
"How many times a day do you intentionally think you're going to cause harm to someone or do evil?"
I don't keep score. I suspect it's more than I think.
"I don't know how many times I need to say it: I'm not placing my reason above God and what God wants. I'm trusting MY reason over YOUR reason when I find your reason to be lacking or irrational or outright ungracious or ungodly."
Ok, if you say so.
"Just like you do for me, am I correct?"
Ok, if you say so.
"God has the final judgement, never said ANYTHING to suggest otherwise."
I'm glad to see that you acknowledge this. Are you suggesting that whatever YHWH's final judgement is that it will align with your hunches about what's fair, and just?
"But you, my friends, are NOT GOD. I don't trust that YOU all understand God right sufficiently that I'd set aside what I think is obvious and clear in favor of what YOU think is reasonable or Biblical. JUST like you do."
I've never claimed to be.
"When I tell you that God does NOT say that newborn infants are evil, that gay marriage is not wrong, you will and have and do say, "Does God really say?" in one form or the other. Think about it: Your ENDLESS requests for "but where is a bible verse that says so..." That IS your version of "Did God really say?""
No it's not. It's an acknowledgement that you are saying that YHWH will specifically do a specific thing, or that the lack of a specific quote from YHWH means that your hunches about sinless children are automatically correct. It's simply a request for you to offer proof beyond your "Reason", or experience that proves you claims to be True.
"Are you condemning yourself for that?"
No, why would I condemn myself for doing exactly what Paul told the Bereans to do, or warned the Galatians about?
"Perhaps if you would just for the love of God and all that is good in this whole wide world you would answer directly, I could understand. You say things like the above which makes it sound like you think that newborns sin. Then you say "I didn't say that.""
I did answer you directly. I pointed out the reality that scripture, in multiple places, uses language that suggests that we were "conceived in sin", that our sinfulness is a part of our nature before we are born. You would have to offer some credible theory that would demonstrate that those scriptural references actually mean that "babies or sinless when they are born". The problem you have is that the scripture I offered, contradicts your hunch, and you have zero scriptural support for your hunch that is anywhere near as direct an unambiguous.
"sinful from my mother's womb", which seem to contradict your claim.
"it makes it SOUND like you're saying that a baby sins even as a newborn, that they are full of sin ("sinful," literally)."
No, that's how you choose to interpret it.
"Do you think that newborns are FULL OF SIN? Do you think that NEWBORNS are sinning from their first breath? Do you think that newborns are telling lies from their first breath? From the womb??"
No. But that's saying something entirely different.
I've asked this question before, and I don't remember of you've ever answered it clearly and directly. So I'll try again here because it might shed light on this discussion.
DO WE SIN BECAUSE WE ARE SINNERS, OR ARE WE SINNERS BECAUSE WE SIN?
"Just answer, clear and directly. Help me understand your position because in SPITE of the many words that you've offered, you have not answered this question in a direct and clear manner."
I have answered clearly and directly. I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin". You have offered nothing to shed some clarity on the subject, so I'm compelled to align myself with what scripture says, not with what you say.
Craig...
DO WE SIN BECAUSE WE ARE SINNERS, OR ARE WE SINNERS BECAUSE WE SIN?
I'm relatively sure I've answered this question multiple times but I'm glad to do so again, directly and clearly. It's an easy question to answer:
Maybe I'm a simple man, but I think a killer is one who kills, a cheater is one who cheats and a sinner is one who sins. Period. As simple as that. We are sinners WHEN we sin. Before we sin, we are literally, by definition, NOT sinners. Which is why infants are not sinners.
Biblically speaking, "sinners" are ones who miss the mark, who fall short of the target. Here again, what "target" is it that infants can possibly fall short of? Trying to apply the term "sinner" to a newborn is just not rational (or biblical) on the face of it, biblically or just speaking from standard English (and I'm relatively this is true for all languages).
Do you see how this is at the very least a rational understanding - That those who DO NOT engage in sin ARE NOT sinners?
Craig...
I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".
1. Is it not possible that it could be figurative, to make a point or for some other reason?
2. That passage - "conceived in sin" - is from Psalm 51, which also says:
"Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin."
Do you think that the ONLY way to understand this line is literally.. that God literally uses soap and water and washes away sin?
3. That passage also includes this from David (who is the one speaking, confessing his actual great sin of killing a husband to bed down his wife):
"Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight;"
Does this mean literally that David did NOT sin against Bathsheeba's husband, who he had killed? That he didn't sin against his nation for abusing his power? MUST that line also be ONLY taken literally?
4. AFTER uttering those two lines, then David said, of himself:
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
David is speaking of himself and only of himself, literally, in that passage. Does that mean we should only take it literally about David, OR should you make it figurative and say that David was speaking of all humanity, although he literally isn't? If so, why?
5. Conversely, another place that says something similar is Psalms 58 (which is addressed SPECIFICALLY and literally to oppressive, unjust rulers):
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."
Do we take this literally... that the ONLY way to understand this line is that newborns are literally speaking lies? That's observably false, we can agree on that reality, correct? Why should we take the line about "estranged from the womb" literally but not the clearly figurative "infants speaking lies..."?
Craig...
I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".
So, given that there are only TWO places that say something pretty close to "born in sin," or "born as a liar" and given that LITERALLY the main passage you're quoting is literally speaking of David, why is it not possible that David is being figurative or, somehow, speaking ONLY of himself? Why is it not exceedingly rational that David was feeling overwhelmingly guilty for murdering a man to bed his wife and so he moaned and berated himself exceedingly? This is a common human reaction to being caught in great wrong-doing. On what basis MUST we assume that David was trying to say this was a reality for ALL newborn babies (or even for himself)? Because it's what you're used to thinking?
The more I read it, the less rational, less biblical it seems. At the very least, can you see how others would find this opinion of yours to NOT be a very biblically deep or rational way of viewing this passage?
Is it possible that because you've grown up in religious traditions that REALLY emphasize this point, that it's hard for you to view it any other way, even though it's not an exceptionally biblical point of view to take?
Or consider this: Ezekiel says...
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
That passage, for what it's worth, was literally written to one king, who turned out to be a bad man engaging in oppression. But that bad man, according to Ezekiel's pronouncement, was BLAMELESS until he did wrong. (And as an aside, some conservative types say that the passage is a figurative reference to "the devil/Satan..." which would be saying that even SATAN was blameless until he did wrong!)
Or consider this, from Jesus:
“Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them,
for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
If you take the ONE line in the Bible "We are born in sin..." literally because, well, it's there (albeit, literally referring specifically to David who had committed a great crime)... WHY not take this ONE line literally, when it's coming from Jesus, speaking apparently of literal children?
All of that to say that, while you personally don't understand why we shouldn't take this passage from David sort of literally (well, not the part about him speaking specifically of himself - THAT part we should make figuratively applicable to ALL of humanity, but the single line, ripped from context, "born in sin," THAT we should take literally - sort of - to mean that babies are sinners), that you personally don't understand why we should interpret it the way you interpret it, that this is not a compelling reason to agree with your interpretation?
Craig...
I'm compelled to align myself with what scripture says, not with what you say.
Literally, what you INTERPRET/READ INTO scripture what YOU THINK makes sense TO YOU. Since nowhere - not one single line on one single page in the Bible - does it say that newborns are sinners. NOT ONE LINE, NOT ONE TIME.
Can we agree on that basic literal reality?
"Do you see how this is at the very least a rational understanding - That those who DO NOT engage in sin ARE NOT sinners?"
Interesting point, it's not really a simple direct answer, and it may not be an answer at all. But it is a response, an it seems through all of your obfuscation that your answer is that we are sinners because we sin. Now, I'd challenge you to point to one human being besides Jesus who has not sinned. Because using an example that doesn't exist seems problematic. I do understand how it seem rational to you with your subjective standards of what is Rational. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's a Biblical hunch.
"1. Is it not possible that it could be figurative, to make a point or for some other reason??"
It's theoretically possible that it could be a call for rainbow unicorns to invade earth, of course it's theoretically possible that it could mean the exact opposite from what it clearly says. How many times do you say something, but mean the opposite? Of course, your lack of offering a plausible alternative meaning doesn't really give anyone any reason to take this bullshit seriously.
"2. That passage - "conceived in sin" - is from Psalm 51, which also says: "Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.".
Yes it is, and so what.
"Do you think that the ONLY way to understand this line is literally.. that God literally uses soap and water and washes away sin?"
No, but it aligns with multiple other instances where the Bible refers to forgiveness of sin as a cleansing or washing. Jesus memorably used this example at the Last Supper.
"3. That passage also includes this from David (who is the one speaking, confessing his actual great sin of killing a husband to bed down his wife): "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight;""
Again, yes, and so what.
"Does this mean literally that David did NOT sin against Bathsheeba's husband, who he had killed? That he didn't sin against his nation for abusing his power? MUST that line also be ONLY taken literally?"
No it appears that David is asking for forgiveness for his many sins. I'm not sure of any other way to take someone who is repentant before YHWH acknowledging his sins, and asking for forgiveness.
"David is speaking of himself and only of himself, literally, in that passage."
Interesting, you are now arguing that this one phrase MUST be taken in a woodenly literal manner, while the rest of the context MUST be taken figuratively. I've seen you do this before where you decide that some things MUST be woodenly literal, and other things MUST be completely figurative even withing the same sentence or paragraph. Yet you offer no rationale for this parsing.
"Does that mean we should only take it literally about David, OR should you make it figurative and say that David was speaking of all humanity, although he literally isn't? If so, why?"
This is interesting. I think that most Biblical scholars would conclude that David was speaking of himself, but that he is not unique among all of humanity. You'd have to offer some example of people who haven't committed any sin, in order for this to make sense as a woodenly literal translation. But, hwy would I try to stop you from making up your own personal, unique, subjectively Rational, interpretation that fits your other unproven hunches.
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."
Interesting. Are you really saying that the term "The wicked" can only refer to the "oppressive leaders" that you mentioned? Why would you argue that this MUST be taken in a woodenly literal manner and ONLY applied to the specific folks you claim?
"Do we take this literally... that the ONLY way to understand this line is that newborns are literally speaking lies?"
I;m not suggesting that it's the only possible explanation, I'm suggesting that it's consistent with the rest of scripture.
"That's observably false, we can agree on that reality, correct?"
Since you haven't proven this claim, no. Sunless you are suggesting that your personal observations are sufficient to declare something to be "factual".
" Why should we take the line about "estranged from the womb" literally but not the clearly figurative "infants speaking lies..."?"
I see no reason to do otherwise. The problem is that you haven't offered a coherent reason or alternative explanation of what those passages mean. You've made some pronouncements, made some claims, asked some questions, but you haven't provided an alternative interpretation.
"So, given that there are only TWO places that say something pretty close to "born in sin," or "born as a liar" and given that LITERALLY the main passage you're quoting is literally speaking of David, why is it not possible that David is being figurative or, somehow, speaking ONLY of himself? Why is it not exceedingly rational that David was feeling overwhelmingly guilty for murdering a man to bed his wife and so he moaned and berated himself exceedingly?"
If you mean that he confessed and repented of His sins, then sure. Are you suggesting that it's possible to confess our sins too much?
"This is a common human reaction to being caught in great wrong-doing."
If you say so.
" On what basis MUST we assume that David was trying to say this was a reality for ALL newborn babies (or even for himself)? Because it's what you're used to thinking?""
You don't have to assume anything. I'll simply note that you really haven't offered a rational alternative for the meaning of the phrases, and let that stand.
No.
"The more I read it, the less rational, less biblical it seems. At the very least, can you see how others would find this opinion of yours to NOT be a very biblically deep or rational way of viewing this passage?"
Unless you are claiming that your hunches are objectively Rational, those hunches are of no interest to me.
"Is it possible that because you've grown up in religious traditions that REALLY emphasize this point, that it's hard for you to view it any other way, even though it's not an exceptionally biblical point of view to take?"
It's theoretically possible, although I'd suggest that the fact that I have spent years investigating these sorts of topics would lead one to conclude otherwise. But hey, if it helps your self esteem to think that no one else has studied to the massive extent that you claim to have studied, I wouldn't want to deflate your puffed up self importance.
"That passage, for what it's worth, was literally written to one king, who turned out to be a bad man engaging in oppression. But that bad man, according to Ezekiel's pronouncement, was BLAMELESS until he did wrong. (And as an aside, some conservative types say that the passage is a figurative reference to "the devil/Satan..." which would be saying that even SATAN was blameless until he did wrong!)"
Interesting. You seem critical of my pointing out only "2" passages that you claim are figurative and mean something else entirely, while then pulling one phrase out of the context it belongs in, and insisting that your woodenly literal interpretation is the only Rational one.
"If you take the ONE line in the Bible "We are born in sin..." literally because, well, it's there (albeit, literally referring specifically to David who had committed a great crime)... WHY not take this ONE line literally, when it's coming from Jesus, speaking apparently of literal children?"
Except that Jesus never says that these children were 100% free from any sin. Nor does He say that these specific children will inherent His Kingdom. But I can't stop you fr it the way you interpret it, that this is not a compelling reason to agree with your interpretation?
om insisting that your insertion of something that isn't in the text, and your assertion that that missing language must mean what you claim it means.
"... THAT we should take literally - sort of - to mean that babies are sinners), that you personally don't understand why we should interpret it the way you interpret it, that this is not a compelling reason to agree with your interpretation?"
1. What you find compelling carries no weight with me.
2. You haven't offered anything that makes any more sense.
"Literally, what you INTERPRET/READ INTO scripture what YOU THINK makes sense TO YOU. Since nowhere - not one single line on one single page in the Bible - does it say that newborns are sinners. NOT ONE LINE, NOT ONE TIME."
Yet another pronouncement by The Great and Mighty Dan!!!!!! Coming from someone who regularly argues from silence, and from someone who obsesses about certain words and phrases that must be exactly as you construct them, this is sad and pathetic.
"Can we agree on that basic literal reality?"
No, we can't agree on something that you've simply announced to be reality. You've literally argued that you can't prove virtually anything you say, have offered no alternatives that make sense, and think that your bullshit should be accepted as "reality">
No thanks, I'm out of your bullshit. The NT authors have so much more credibility than you so I'll stick with the plain reading of the text, it's less likely to lead me into error.
Dan,
I might have accidentally deleted one of your comments while I was getting rid of some other trash. I apologize for my error, and hope that you can reconstitute the comment I accidentally deleted.
Dan,
I see that you've decided to take this conversation over to the friendly and safe confines of your blog where you've made it quite clear that I am unwelcome, unless I rigidly adhere to your capricious whims and say what you demand that I say.
That's fine, and I understand why you do it.
But, I think the problem that we have here is very fundamental. You believe that babies are born 100% free from ANY sin or sin nature and that they stay sinless until they commit their first knowing sin.
Whereas I look at scripture and see things like "all have sinned", and "no one is righteous". I look at those and conclude that, in fact, all does really mean all, and no one literally means none. I further look at the tense and realize that both in the past tense, as if this has already happened. We see this regularly in scripture where something that hasn't happened yet, is communicated in the past tense. This usually indicates that whatever is being referred to will absolutely happen. So, I'm left with what seems like an assurance that every single human except Jesus will sin, and I'm forced to conclude that we humans are born with something in our nature that will inexorably lead us to commit sins. Then I realize that there are sins of omission, and sins that don;t require any action at all, which reinforces the notion that all does mean all. This leads me to conclude that the reality of human sinfulness is something that is part of our nature, something that we are born with.
You, seem to be saying that sin is kind of like drug/alcohol/porn use. That we start free from all sin, then we commit our first sin and realize that it's not as bad as anyone thought it would be, or that it actually felt pretty good. Perhaps we start by lying to avoid the negative consequences of our actions, and we feel good because we got away with something. In any case you seem to think that sin slowly accumulates from a sinless being, and at some point a tipping point is reached.
Now you can't explain how this works, what the tipping point is, or how anyone can keep score of their sins, or really any details of how things work. But, you do seem incredibly certain that your observational abilities are sufficient for you to know these things to an exceedingly high degree of certainty. You've referred to this knowledge you posses as "fact" several times.
In conclusion, you clearly admit that you can't prove your claims of "fact" or that your observations can't see everything or know anyone's motives. While you also demand that I offer some sort of proof that you might accept. I could be summed up by saying that you hold out some hope that a perfectly sinless baby could possibly make it through it's entire life with either zero sins, or just a tiny number of "minor" sins. While I would suggest that as long as we are part of the all who have sinned, that something in our nature inexorably draws us toward sin or towards placing ourselves in the position of determining good and evil.
I'm not sure how beating this horse further really helps.
Craig...
"You, seem to be saying that sin is kind of like drug/alcohol/porn use. That we start free from all sin,
then we commit our first sin and realize that it's not as bad as anyone thought it would be,
or that it actually felt pretty good.
Perhaps we start by lying to avoid the negative consequences of our actions,
and we feel good because we got away with something.
In any case you seem to think that sin slowly accumulates from a sinless being, and at some point a tipping point is reached."
Well, except for the "tipping point," line, yes. That is precisely correct. I don't know what you mean by tipping point, but it's nothing I've said. I guess you're saying that it seems I'm saying at some point after committing multiple sins, one is a sinner.
What I'm stating as simply definitional, once someone commits a sin - JUST ONE SIN - then one is a sinner, by definition. And before someone commits a sin, they can't reasonably be called a sinner because, by definition, they're not.
Newborn babies are born and literally have not sinned. They literally haven't lied, killed, cheated, done ONE SINGLE THING WRONG, they simply aren't able to make decisions and take actions or adopt attitudes that even allows them to commit a sin. Again and as always, HOW can a newborn sin? HOW can a newborn lie?
It's an inane and irrational claim, IF that's what you're saying.
From the point of someone committing ONE sin and becoming a sinner, THEN the question comes up of, "What's an appropriate response to that sin?"
Now, it sounds like you all think (what I used to think) that sin itself - ANY sin, being a "sinner") is reasonably due to be punished for an eternity. I'm stating the more I reviewed that theory - in light of both what the Bible says and just reason - the more irrational, unbiblical, unjust and immoral it became. It just doesn't make sense.
In what possible sense is that child of whatever age, once they've committed their first "sin" (although it's entirely likely they may not even know it), somehow worthy of eternal torture?? The Bible never states this and, again, it just sounds crazy-town. Do you recognize how crazy-sounding that is? If not, why not? HOW can you make that sound rational?
Or stepping back even further, presuming that your unsupported and unproven theory that infants are born with a "sin nature" is accurate, HOW is it reasonable to say that being born with a sin nature - with a tendency to commit sin - worthy of eternal torture? I'm not asking if you agree, just, do you see how crazy that sounds? How there is no rational or direct biblical case for such a theory?
Craig...
Whereas I look at scripture and see things like "all have sinned", and "no one is righteous". I look at those and conclude that, in fact, all does really mean all, and no one literally means none.
When we look at Scripture and King David lamenting about the great evil of his sin, he says, literally, "I AM A WORM!" and yet, clearly we don't insist that he must therefore literally be a worm.
Likewise, when Paul says that all have sinned to emphasize the universality of sin to the human condition, WHY would we insist that THIS line must be taken literally to include newborn infants, but not the "worm" line?
What is your rational, biblical rubric for deciding the one must be understood literally and the other must be, of course, taken figuratively?
Craig...
we can't agree on something that you've simply announced to be reality.
It is literally a reality that there is not one single line in the Bible that says that all newborn infants are sinners, committing sins. We do have Paul, for instance, saying, "All have sinned," but we also have David saying, "I am a worm."
WHY must we take the one literally and not the other?
You've literally argued that you can't prove virtually anything you say, have offered no alternatives that make sense
I literally just did and have been. King David, Paul, in those instances, were emphasizing the point of their great failures, their great sinfulness or the great sinfulness of humanity. AND SO, to EMPHASIZE how bad David's sin was, he LITERALLY used a metaphor and said he was a WORM when of course he was not a worm! It was a way of emphasizing the point.
Likewise, "All have sinned," "I was a lying baby" and "I was a sinful zygote" are all clearly the same sort of metaphor. How is that NOT rational in the extreme?
Do you think that David transformed into a literal worm?!
Come on!
Craig...
I see that you've decided to take this conversation over to the friendly and safe confines of your blog where you've made it quite clear that I am unwelcome, unless I rigidly adhere to your capricious whims and say what you demand that I say.
1. I find these conversations fascinating. By putting them on my blog, I make it easier for me to find them again. Additionally, to the degree that I might have any readers (and I still do occasionally), it's a way of showing the "sides" of such discussions (such as the sides may be).
2. I've always been clear that you're welcome to comment on my blog. EVERY COMMENT that comes to my blog shows up. Now, if I'm asking you questions and want to get the answers and you routinely don't answer, I may well remove the comments as a way to try to get answers. I'm not demanding that you say anything. But if I've asked you a reasonable, direct question, it is reasonable to expect in respectful adult conversations, either a clear, direct answer or an admission that you can't answer the question.
Sorry if you have difficulty with that. But then, I have difficulty with you not answering questions directly, so, life's tough, peaches.
Craig...
This leads me to conclude that the reality of human sinfulness is something that is part of our nature, something that we are born with.
And how is it not reasonable (and biblical) to say, "Yes, and that condition is that we are imperfect humans, not always sure of the right answers and sometimes, even when we know the right answers, we don't live up to our better selves..."?
Please, define "sinful nature."
The one time (I think) that you've tried this, you said (and I've taken the liberty of adding numbers):
Our sin nature is
I. that part of us that wants to be able to decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil.
II. It's the part of us that asks, "Did YHWH really say...".
III. It's the part of us that makes excuses for why it's not sin when we do something.
I. I don't know that this is any great tragedy or some kind of evil reality. Of course, we need to decide what is good and evil for ourselves. If we're not going to do it, who will?
II. It's a reasonable question to ask. You do it every time you say, "Show me some Bible verses to support it..." That is YOU saying, "But does God agree with this?" How is it not? And even if you want to dispute that, asking "DID GOD REALLY SAY THIS?" is a reasonable question to ask in a world of imperfect humans, some who may tell you, "Well, God doesn't want the gays to get married." or, "God doesn't want black and white races to intermingle" or "God doesn't want us to engage in war" or any of thousands of proclamations people make. WE MUST ask, "Did God really say...?" in the face of such proclamations IF we believe in God and doing the right thing.
How is that bad?
III. Indeed, we DO sometimes make excuses for our failures, trying to downplay them. That IS a common failure to humanity. We are, dang it all, imperfect humans. No doubt.
Now, does that mean that a newborn has committed sins, even in their human imperfection? Does it make sense to suggest that they've become "sinners" (ie, one who commits a sin) simply by being born? I won't ask "Did God really say...?" But I will ask, WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT is a reality of all newborns? In one of the same passages where we are also called worms, when we're not?
The Bible doesn't say this. God has not told you this. Reason does not support it.
Our babies and all of us born imperfect? Of course, we can see that. Our babies sinning? We have no biblical or rational reason to believe that, anymore than we should believe that David was a worm.
I could be summed up by saying that you hold out some hope that a perfectly sinless baby could possibly make it through it's entire life with either zero sins, or just a tiny number of "minor" sins. While I would suggest that as long as we are part of the all who have sinned, that something in our nature inexorably draws us toward sin or towards placing ourselves in the position of determining good and evil.
A. Sinless babies - newborn infants who have not deliberately or accidentally committed a "sin" - are the reality. Just like it's the reality that David was NOT a worm, even though he said he was. We have no biblical reason to believe that newborn infants sin. You have no rational data to support that claim, if you want to try to support it.
B. Humanity is imperfect, observably. Some humans theorize that it's because we have a "sin nature," but what that means has been described in a variety of ways as people try to guess as to the cause or meaning of our sin nature. Regardless, it is a human theory, not a proven fact.
C. Some "sin nature" theorists say that we are "stained" by the literal "sin" of a literal "Adam" and because "Adam sinned," then all of humanity is cursed with this "sin nature." It's an interesting creation myth and one can debate on how biblically or rationally sound it is. Some SN theorists say that this means that newborns are "sinners" even though they literally have not/can not commit a sin in any reasonable or biblically-supported manner.
D. I literally have not said that these newborns who have not sinned when they were born and did not get "alienated in the womb," any more than David was literally a worm, go through life without sinning. I've been quite clear that humanity - all of us - are imperfect and we do things wrong sometimes. Frequently even.
E. The question, then, is what is reasonable punishment for these imperfections, these sins? Do all sins, large and small, get reasonably punished the same way? A lie about stealing a cookie is deserving of an eternity of torture just the same way as Hitler's massacres? What a belittling of sin or oppression to make that suggestion, IF you're making it.
Do you think all sins deserve the same punishment?
Do you think merely having a "sin nature" is deserving of an eternity of torture? You know, God has not said that and it's not a literal biblical teaching, right?
Look at the God Questions people and their answer to this question? Do you see how they're cherry picking verses scattered throughout the Bible and creating a defense of this theory that is not stated anywhere specifically in the Bible (or reason)? It's a cobbled together theory, made of bad human theories and theologies and broken-up verses.
"HOW can a newborn sin? HOW can a newborn lie?"
I've never claimed that they can, because I don't think that the focus in on us and our perfection.
As far as a tipping point, you seem to acknowledge that there is some point in a person's life where they've committed so many "major" sins that there is some sort of unknown, somewhat negative consequence. This part is more of a guess since you've never been very clear about what happens to "major" sinners, nor about what happens to "minor" sinners.
"From the point of someone committing ONE sin and becoming a sinner, THEN the question comes up of, "What's an appropriate response to that sin?""
No, then the question becomes what is the appropriate response to a lifetime of sin.
"Now, it sounds like you all think (what I used to think) that sin itself - ANY sin, being a "sinner") is reasonably due to be punished for an eternity. I'm stating the more I reviewed that theory - in light of both what the Bible says and just reason - the more irrational, unbiblical, unjust and immoral it became. It just doesn't make sense."
NO, that is wrong.
"In what possible sense is that child of whatever age, once they've committed their first "sin" (although it's entirely likely they may not even know it), somehow worthy of eternal torture?? The Bible never states this and, again, it just sounds crazy-town. Do you recognize how crazy-sounding that is? If not, why not? HOW can you make that sound rational?"
I've never made this argument in any way shape of form, do you realize how irrational it is to act as if your made up bullshit is actually a position I've taken and defended, and for your to pretend like your made up bullshit actually represents reality?
"Or stepping back even further, presuming that your unsupported and unproven theory that infants are born with a "sin nature" is accurate, HOW is it reasonable to say that being born with a sin nature - with a tendency to commit sin - worthy of eternal torture?"
No.
"I'm not asking if you agree, just, do you see how crazy that sounds? How there is no rational or direct biblical case for such a theory?"
Yes, it does sound crazy when you make shit up and act as if I've actually made the arguments you've made up. It sounds incredibly crazy, especially when you continue to do so even after I've told you that you are wrong.
"When we look at Scripture and King David lamenting about the great evil of his sin, he says, literally, "I AM A WORM!" and yet, clearly we don't insist that he must therefore literally be a worm."
This has absolutely no relationship to what I said that you are responding to. Although, again you claim that the figurative nature of David's statement means something other than the logical conclusion. (IE, David is expressing his unworthiness) Yet, again, you never offer an explanation, just act as if noting that it is figurative is sufficient.
"Likewise, when Paul says that all have sinned to emphasize the universality of sin to the human condition, WHY would we insist that THIS line must be taken literally to include newborn infants, but not the "worm" line?"
First, as I noted, the key (which you've ignored" is that Paul uses the term "all" and he appears to mean "all". You seem to be suggesting that "all" really means "not all", which is absurd.
Second, (as I noted) Paul is making a claim about what future humans will do, but doing so in the past tense. In afterwords, that human sin is a foregone conclusion.
Third, Paul refers to himself as the "chief of sinners" and repeatedly uses the language of being a "slave to sin". So clearly he takes his own sin very seriously, and acknowledged that sin can act as our master if we allow it to.
Fourth, I don't see how conflating the "worm" thing with Paul's comments makes any sense.
"What is your rational, biblical rubric for deciding the one must be understood literally and the other must be, of course, taken figuratively?"
Given your refusal to provide your secret code for rightly dividing scripture between myth, reality, history, metaphor and the like, why would you expect me to do what you will not do.
It's pretty simple, either "all" means "all", or all means "not all". Which is it?
"It is literally a reality that there is not one single line in the Bible that says that all newborn infants are sinners, committing sins. We do have Paul, for instance, saying, "All have sinned," but we also have David saying, "I am a worm.""
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, the "The Bible doesn't uses these exact words in this exact order, therefore the concept isn't ini scripture." canard.
"WHY must we take the one literally and not the other?"
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the I'm going to ask a question I won't answer and repeat it endlessly canard.
"I literally just did and have been. King David, Paul, in those instances, were emphasizing the point of their great failures, their great sinfulness or the great sinfulness of humanity. AND SO, to EMPHASIZE how bad David's sin was, he LITERALLY used a metaphor and said he was a WORM when of course he was not a worm! It was a way of emphasizing the point."
That's not proving your point, it's just you taking a couple of partial texts out of context, without offering any alternative meaning. It's your way of hiding from the fact that you won't answer whether or not "all" means" all. Davids lament in the midst of his repentance for his sin, is simply a way of expressing how unworthy he feels to be in the position he was in. Which doesn't mean that "all" means "not all".
"Likewise, "All have sinned," "I was a lying baby" and "I was a sinful zygote" are all clearly the same sort of metaphor. How is that NOT rational in the extreme?"
Because you have offered no proof of your claim, just announced your feelings about the matter and pretended as if yoru feelings equal reality.
"Do you think that David transformed into a literal worm?!"
No. But you get points for an idiot question to cap off your idiotic attempt to dodge explaining how "all" doesn't actually mean "all".
"1. Impressive excuse. I'm sure that the fact that you've banned me from commenting has nothing to do with your actions.
2. Bullshit. You've been quite clear that I am not welcome to comment at your blog unless I jump through your capricious and petty hoops, or regurgitate your bullshit on command.
"Sorry if you have difficulty with that. But then, I have difficulty with you not answering questions directly, so, life's tough, peaches."
Yes you do have trouble answering questions directly, that's why I keep pointing out your failure to do so, and why I regularly parse your comments and answer each and every question right under the copy/paste quote where you ask the question.
I get it, you like to be in control, and you don't like not having control.
"And how is it not reasonable (and biblical) to say, "Yes, and that condition is that we are imperfect humans, not always sure of the right answers and sometimes, even when we know the right answers, we don't live up to our better selves..."?"
It's clearly Reasonable to you. It does not however adhere to some objective standard of Reasonableness.
"Please, define "sinful nature.""
https://www.compellingtruth.org/sin-nature.html
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/sin/are-we-born-with-or-do-we-learn-a-sinful-nature.html
https://412teens.org/qna/what-is-the-sin-nature.ph
"I. I don't know that this is any great tragedy or some kind of evil reality. Of course, we need to decide what is good and evil for ourselves. If we're not going to do it, who will?"
Clearly you feel quite confident to place your hunches, feelings, and Reason as the standard of deciding what is good and what is evil.
II. "It's a reasonable question to ask. You do it every time you say, "Show me some Bible verses to support it..." That is YOU saying, "But does God agree with this?""
NO, it's me asking you to demonstrate that YHWH really says what you claim He has said. It's appealing to something besides your fallible, imperfect, sinful, mistaken, Reason for answers.
"How is it not?"
See above.
"How is that bad?"
Clearly you don't think that taking over the prerogative of YHWH is bad, and nothing I say will convince you otherwise. So I see no reason to waste my time.
III. So what.
"Now, does that mean that a newborn has committed sins, even in their human imperfection?"
Again, no. How many times do I have to answer this question clearly and directly before you'll stop this idiocy?
"Does it make sense to suggest that they've become "sinners" (ie, one who commits a sin) simply by being born?"
No. Although I've never made this claim.
"I won't ask "Did God really say...?" But I will ask, WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT is a reality of all newborns? In one of the same passages where we are also called worms, when we're not?"
You've managed to explain away multiple passages, why would I continue to offer your scripture when you'll just dismiss it, conflate it with something else, or fail to offer an alternative meaning.
"The Bible doesn't say this. God has not told you this. Reason does not support it."
Again, the great and mighty Dan has spoken and asserted that majesty of his Reason as being the final arbiter of all Truth
"Our babies and all of us born imperfect? Of course, we can see that. Our babies sinning? We have no biblical or rational reason to believe that, anymore than we should believe that David was a worm."
I guess you've answered your own questions while continuing to ignore my repeated answering of these questions. Which makes me wonder, why ask if you're going to insist that your unproven, subjective, answer are absolutely right.
Craig...
"That's not proving your point, it's just you taking a couple of partial texts out of context, without offering any alternative meaning. It's your way of hiding from the fact that you won't answer whether or not "all" means" all."
Interesting. Seriously, I'm not being facetious, this is all so extremely interesting to me. I've clearly and directly answered these sorts of questions over and over in a variety of ways and yet, I think you truly think I haven't.
" It's your way of hiding from the fact that you won't answer whether or not "all" means" all..."
Newborn babies and zygotes CAN NOT SIN, THEREFORE ALL CHAVE SINNED CANNOT BE SPEAKING OF AT THE VERY LEAST NEWBORNS. So, no. Once again, no, all literally can not mean all.
Did you truly not understand that was my clear answer? Again, that's a sincere question. I'm trying on my side to understand how I can be more clear in my answers. I genuinely thought that my unending emphasis on the reality that newborns can't sin would be clear that, therefore, not all have sinned.
Which you appear to agree with, right?
Dan
A. Please provide objective empirical evidence that 100% demonstrates that babies are 100% "sinless".
B. Again, you'd need to provide 100% empirical, objective proof that your claims are 100% True. You'll have to prove that your chosen term "imperfect" isn't just a whitewash of the term "sin nature". You'll need to prove that no sins are ever anything except mistakes>
C. Yes, Jesus Himself seemed to believe this to be True. Unfortunately, in the absence of you offering any alternative at all, I'll stick with what the Biblical authors said on the subject.
D. Again with this notion that because you've said something, that something must be True even when it's not proven.
E. "The question, then, is what is reasonable punishment for these imperfections, these sins?"
No, the question then is, who is the best equipped to make decisions about what is appropriate punishment for sin, you or YHWH?
"Do all sins, large and small, get reasonably punished the same way?""
I have no way to know the specifics, although I 've never claimed that they do. I don't see any indication that each individual sin has a specific punishment as much as we are judged by the totality of our sin.
"Do you think all sins deserve the same punishment?"
I literally answered this over a week ago, and immediately above this question.
"Do you think merely having a "sin nature" is deserving of an eternity of torture? You know, God has not said that and it's not a literal biblical teaching, right?"
But hey, asking the same question 3 times within the same comment is completely and totally reasonable. Especially when I've already answered it over a week ago. But I admire your commitment to this particular straw man, it's impressive.
"Look at the God Questions people and their answer to this question?"
This sentence/question is literally incoherent and has no meaning that is decipherable by applying standard English grammar, syntax, and definitions to the words.
"Do you see how they're cherry picking verses scattered throughout the Bible and creating a defense of this theory that is not stated anywhere specifically in the Bible (or reason)?"
No. But I do see how you are cherry picking proof texts, failing to offer alternatives to passages you claim are figurative, or providing any direct/unequivocal, specific scriptural support for any of your hunches. Even if your claim is correct, what others have offered is significantly more than you've offered.
"It's a cobbled together theory, made of bad human theories and theologies and broken-up verses."
Yes, your notions and hunches are exactly as you've described above. The problem is that you have failed to accurately represent anyone else's positions, and have failed miserably to offer any direct/u8nequivocal/specific/ in context scriptural support for your meanderings. Nor have you explained why "all" doesn't really mean "all", but instead means "not all".
"Interesting. Seriously, I'm not being facetious, this is all so extremely interesting to me. I've clearly and directly answered these sorts of questions over and over in a variety of ways and yet, I think you truly think I haven't."
Perhaps because you haven't, as I've pointed out when I parse your comments and respond to them id detail, along with answering virtually all of your questions. I suspect that disconnect is that you really think that you saying something with absolutely zero direct/specific/unequivocal support external to your subjective Reason, is actually an answer that must be accepted as reality.
"Newborn babies and zygotes CAN NOT SIN, THEREFORE ALL CHAVE SINNED CANNOT BE SPEAKING OF AT THE VERY LEAST NEWBORNS. So, no. Once again, no, all literally can not mean all."
This is fascinating. You've literally made a pronouncement while offering absolutely ZERO proof of your claim, nor any explanation of why the term "all" was used to mean "not all", as if your statement and the ALL CAPS simply proves your point. If you're going to make emphatic claims like that, proof is usually expected.
"Did you truly not understand that was my clear answer?"
No, this time you actually did finally provide a reasonably clear answer unlike your other attempts. Of course, you answer is totally unsupported by any proof, but it was finally relatively clear.
"I genuinely thought that my unending emphasis on the reality that newborns can't sin would be clear that, therefore, not all have sinned."
I really think that you honestly believe that the fact that you have put "unending emphasis" on your hunch that newborns are 100% sin free, means that your claim is empirically True, regardless of the lack of external evidence for your claim.
"Which you appear to agree with, right?"
No, I do not agree that newborns are 100% free from sin in any way shape or from. Nor have I ever claimed any of the other things you've said that I've claimed.
But keep up with the straw man.
If you spent half as much time actually making specific claims about specific outcomes, and provided specific/unequivocal proof of your claims as you do making shit up and trying to get me to defend your made up bullshit, it would probably be more productive.
Craig...
I really think that you honestly believe that the fact that you have put "unending emphasis" on your hunch that newborns are 100% sin free, means that your claim is empirically True, regardless of the lack of external evidence for your claim.
What I've said MULTIPLE times is that newborns HAVE NOT SINNED.
I did NOT SAY they are "sin-free," (which is how you keep reframing it).
But, if by "sin free," you mean, newborns haven't sinned, then that's a difference without a distinction.
But maybe it would help if you mean something different by "sin free" than "they haven't sinned."
When I say newborns haven't sinned, you keep responding as if I've said something shocking or incredible, demanding evidence for the self-evident. Perhaps you can understand why I find this puzzling given when I say...
"Now, does that mean that a newborn has committed sins, even in their human imperfection?"
And you respond...
"Again, no."
When I ask you "Do newborns sin/have they committed sins?" and you respond with a clear, "NO," then it sounds like you agree that newborns don't commit/haven't committed sins.
Am I understanding you correctly?
IF SO, then why do you push back saying "your hunch that newborns are 100% sin free, means that your claim is empirically True, regardless of the lack of external evidence for your claim..." It sounds like you DON'T believe it's obvious that newborns DO NOT sin, even when you just clearly stated that No, you don't believe newborns have committed sins.
Do you understand how this is confusing?
Can you maybe explain whatever distinction you're making?
When I say, "They haven't sinned," and you push back saying I'm saying newborns are "sinless" (YOUR word, not mine), do you mean something different by "sinless..."?
When you say "NO," I do not believe that newborns sin, are you saying that this is our shared hunch, but you think I have not objectively proved it?
If so, what does one need to do to prove that newborns haven't sinned (which AGAIN, you sometimes seem to agree with)?
I say that it's impossible for someone (a fetus, a person with severe intellectual difficulties) to sin because they can't form ideas in their minds yet. They are responding to stimulation or the lack thereof - hunger, thirst, discomfort, cold, hot, etc, but forming ideas about right and wrong, good and bad (beyond, I'm hungry and this is bad in some rudimentary manner)... that is just beyond a newborn's capacity as far as I think any evidence shows.
From one source...
"These first thoughts, called protothoughts, are based on sensations, as children this young are not capable of specifying everything they perceive with words or images. Children's minds are sensitive to what is occurring around them but are not conscious, as they are not yet able to reason or memorise like an adult."
Now, is it your hunch that newborns CAN have opinions about right and wrong beyond these sensation-based protothoughts? If so, based upon what?
If you think that newborns can sin (which again, you seem to easily agree with... except until you push back and demand proof that they don't commit sins), HOW? What does that look like? What needs to be in place for a human to sin?
Help me understand your seemingly self-contradictory comments.
Here's some thoughts on the topic from some guy who seems like he might be fairly traditional (he uses that same "Let's find some biblical passages to make up/give support to a theory" that is common in traditional conservatism).
Do you agree with his opinions or is he committing the same vague crime that I am, in your opinion?
"Scripture teaches us that, at death, “the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7). The parents do not give the soul to a child, but God does. If God hates sin (Ps. 45:7), cannot look at sin (Isa. 59:2), and is the giver of the spirit, a newborn baby’s soul cannot be sinful."
...How, then, do we explain the meaning of Psalm 51:5? When looking at this verse with fresh eyes, not having been convinced of the doctrine of Original Sin, no one would interpret, “in sin my mother conceived me,” to claim that David was born sinful. Consider what T. W. Brendts writes on this verse:
Were the wife to say, “In drunkenness my husband beat me,” or the child that “in anger my father whipped me,” surely no one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child.
The Gospel Plan of Salvation, 134
Some say that David meant that he was born into a sinful world. Some say that David was conceived during a sinful act. Some say David is alluding to an affair in his lineage (Gen. 38). Some say that David is using strong language to refer to his sinful nature and, with hyperbole, claims he has been sinful “his entire life,” which seems to be the clearest explanation..."
https://www.topicalbiblestudies.com/are-babies-born-with-sin.html
And just to make clear a response I offered earlier, where you said...
I really think that you honestly believe that the fact that you have put "unending emphasis" on your hunch that newborns are 100% sin free, means that your claim is empirically True, regardless of the lack of external evidence for your claim.
The empirical evidence is that one has to be a reasoning agent in order to commit sin. We wouldn't say a rock or a fish has committed a sin, even if the rock was thrown through a window or the fish was a shark that ate a human. It isn't sinning. It's being a fish and eating stuff. Agreed?
Newborns and some others with significant intellectual delays are not capable of forming moral opinions so far as ANY evidence shows. Again (and again and again) HOW can a newborn commit sins? What does that even look like?
Or, if you push back again and say, "I haven't said that a newborn can commit sin..." Then why are you asking for proof of something that is so self-evident that even you appear to go along with it? /snark
Expert opinion on infants and human moral development:
Morality is defined as the “recognition of the distinction between good and evil or between right and wrong; respect for and obedience to the rules of right conduct; the mental disposition or characteristic of behaving in a manner intended to produce good results.”
Moral development is the process through which children develop proper attitudes and behaviors towards other people in society, based on social and cultural norms, rules, and laws.
1. Infants (up to 2 years):
Infants cannot moralize. Their sense of right and wrong depends on their feelings and desires. After being for nine months in the mother’s womb, a baby expects the nurturing to continue. As a result, their sense of rightness depends on whether or not their needs are met. Hunger and loneliness are uncomfortable feelings for your infant and does not feel right. Being attended, cuddled, and fed feels right, while unresponsiveness is scary and wrong.
https://wowparenting.com/blog/moral-development-children/
If one can't moralize, if one can't form moral thoughts, then how can one sin? Do you disagree with this line of reasoning?
More...
The moral growth of children starts at infancy. An infant does not have the capacity to moralize, other than having a sense of rightness or wrongness as those feelings apply to himself.
After being nurtured in the womb for nine months, a baby enters the world, expecting that nurturing will continue. Never having been hungry, baby concludes that hunger is wrong; it hurts. Never having been unattended to, baby finds aloneness to be wrong; it’s scary. Never out of touch, baby knows that unresponsiveness is wrong. Being in-arms, at the breast, and responded to feels right! Baby feels she is the center of the world, and she develops a feeling of rightness that becomes her “norm.”
https://www.askdrsears.com/topics/parenting/discipline-behavior/morals-manners/5-stages-moral-growth-children/
I cannot even fathom what you're asking me to prove, since it's self evident and because you appear (sometimes) to agree.
I'm again likely wasting my time at Dan's trying to engage in "adult" discourse, which is just a word he likes to use (like so many others) which doesn't really reflect anything he says or does. But so far, he's not offered any reason for anyone to believe my arguments, nor the evidence I brought forth, should be rejected. And he's certainly not provided any evidence of any kind which counters the solid evidence and reasoning of my links. We'll se how things sit now.
Craig...
nor any explanation of why the term "all" was used to mean "not all"
In the Bible, we see phrases like David's "I am a worm," "a sinner from birth, from my mother's womb!" and "ALL have sinned" to emphasize the point that no one is perfect and that we all tend towards sin to varying degrees. They CLEARLY do not mean to say that David was a worm, that he was committing sin in his mother's womb or that ALL humanity, INCLUDING NEWBORNS who literally can't sin as "sin" is normally understood in the English language. They are obvious examples of hyperbole.
THAT, dear Craig, IS an explanation of why "worm" doesn't literally mean worm and "all" doesn't literally mean all.
Do you recognize that this is an explanation, even if you somehow disagree with it?
Craig...
As far as a tipping point, you seem to acknowledge that there is some point in a person's life where they've committed so many "major" sins that there is some sort of unknown, somewhat negative consequence. This part is more of a guess since you've never been very clear about what happens to "major" sinners, nor about what happens to "minor" sinners.
The reality is that God has not told us what are and aren't "major sins." We have no authoritative list to rely upon. We DO have our God-given reasoning to recognize that genocide IS a major evil while stealing a cookie from our friends' cookie jar is a very minor misdeed.
Do you disagree?
We DO have our moral reasoning to recognize that some actions have atrocious, horrible, painful, deadly consequences upon others while some may have almost no negative repercussions on anyone except for maybe us. We as rational humans can recognize that vast distinction and I say we should recognize that difference.
Do you disagree with any of that?
This part is more of a guess since you've never been very clear about what happens to "major" sinners, nor about what happens to "minor" sinners.
I can't be clear about that which is not known. I am not willing to give specific details, for instance, about any kind of "eternal punishment" beyond the grave. The fact is that God simply has not told us any specifics about how God might deal with major oppressions and evils or minor misdeeds. We have no authoritative word from God on that.
If we take biblical stories seriously, we CAN easily see that God holds those who oppress and harm or just ignore the poor and marginalized in harsh judgement - we just see no specifics other than quite serious-sounding warnings ("destroy you" "cast you into a lake of fire!" kinds of warnings for those specific type of great evils). On the other hand, more typical daily misdeeds - from those as serious as adultery to merely stealing a cookie - God has not told us how God will deal with that level of misdeed. Although we do see in the case of the "adulterous woman" that Jesus saved her from being punished and killed by religious zealots and said he did not condemn her and merely said, Go and sin no more.
The point being that, for those who take biblical teachings seriously, we DO see serious warnings about some specific misdeeds, generally specifically those that harm the poor and oppressed... AND we see Grace and literally NO suggestion that each and every smaller misdeed - OR even a lifetime's worth of them - is worthy of eternal torture.
Agree? Disagree?
"When I say newborns haven't sinned, you keep responding as if I've said something shocking or incredible, demanding evidence for the self-evident. Perhaps you can understand why I find this puzzling given when I say..."
The fact that you find something to be "self evident" does not establish that that thing is objectively True. Yes, I have used the phrase "100% free from sin" intentionally, I'm trying to clarify what specifically you mean.
"Again, no."
That is exactly what I've responded. I did so because I've answered your question before by saying "no", and I was pointing out that I'm answering "no" again this time.
"When I ask you "Do newborns sin/have they committed sins?" and you respond with a clear, "NO," then it sounds like you agree that newborns don't commit/haven't committed sins."
"Am I understanding you correctly?"
Yes. I'm glad you finally figured that out after asking the same thing again. In the future, you can refer back to this instead of asking the same question again.
"IF SO, then why do you push back saying "your hunch that newborns are 100% sin free, means that your claim is empirically True, regardless of the lack of external evidence for your claim..." It sounds like you DON'T believe it's obvious that newborns DO NOT sin, even when you just clearly stated that No, you don't believe newborns have committed sins."
Because I am trying to gain more clarity and insight into what you believe to be True. I'm asking the question to gain information.
"Do you understand how this is confusing?"
I understand that you seem confused in thinking that my questions are somehow statements of what I believe instead of questions. This shouldn't be confusing, but maybe you shouldn't be reading things into my questions.
"Can you maybe explain whatever distinction you're making?"
I'm not making a distinction, I'm asking you for additional detail.
"When I say, "They haven't sinned," and you push back saying I'm saying newborns are "sinless" (YOUR word, not mine), do you mean something different by "sinless..."?"
Again, I'm trying to understand what "haven't sinned" actually means when you use the term.
"When you say "NO," I do not believe that newborns sin, are you saying that this is our shared hunch, but you think I have not objectively proved it?"
Yes, I tend to agree that newborns have not actively committed specific sins, yet you still haven't proven that your claims on this subject are objectively True.
"If so, what does one need to do to prove that newborns haven't sinned (which AGAIN, you sometimes seem to agree with)?""
Interesting. You frequently ask for proof of things, and I assume that you have some idea of what you mean by that. I'm asking for the same thing you frequently demand. OR, I'm asking that you correct your claims and state them more accurately. I'm also pointing out that it's likely that you can't provide proof, which points out that your claims (as stated) are false. Finally, I always ask you for specific/unequivocal/direct scriptural support for your claims, even though I know that you can't provide any.
"Now, is it your hunch that newborns CAN have opinions about right and wrong beyond these sensation-based protothoughts? If so, based upon what?"
No.
"If you think that newborns can sin (which again, you seem to easily agree with... except until you push back and demand proof that they don't commit sins), HOW? What does that look like?"
I've never said that I believe this, it's just something you made up.
"What needs to be in place for a human to sin?""
Some level of knowledge of what YHWH has "written on our hearts" seems like a reasonable starting point.
"Help me understand your seemingly self-contradictory comments."
I've tried.
I'm going to take a break from parsing your comments to make a couple of general notes.
1. When you attempt to frame something in a way that it inaccurately reflects what I believe, I am going to respond by saying that I don't agree with your made up bullshit in a clear and direct manner.
2. You quoted some source about children not being able to process information in the same way that an adult does. I'm curious, at what point would you say that I child has the full cognitive ability of an adult?
3. The biggest problem with your obsession about newborns being able to commit sin is simply pointless. The reality is that every single newborn will sin at some point in their lives, and will sin multiple times. Further, as I've pointed out numerous times before, I have concluded that scripture tells us that YHWH will judge people based on the degree of knowledge that they posses, and that He will dispense justice tempered with mercy towards those who He chooses. I am convinced that children will be be judged differently than adults, which makes your whole panty wadding fears moot.
I didn't waste a lot of time on your nu-sourced, out of context, comment. But I didn't disagree with anything major that I saw.
"The empirical evidence is that one has to be a reasoning agent in order to commit sin."
Really? Where does one find this empirical evidence? How does one test this empirical evidence for repeatability? How does one falsify this empirical evidence?
"We wouldn't say a rock or a fish has committed a sin, even if the rock was thrown through a window or the fish was a shark that ate a human. It isn't sinning. It's being a fish and eating stuff. Agreed?"
Sure.
"Newborns and some others with significant intellectual delays are not capable of forming moral opinions so far as ANY evidence shows. Again (and again and again) HOW can a newborn commit sins? What does that even look like?"
Asked and responded to/answered.
"Or, if you push back again and say, "I haven't said that a newborn can commit sin..." Then why are you asking for proof of something that is so self-evident that even you appear to go along with it? /snark"
I'm simply pointing out that you keep trying to impute things to me as if I've said them, or I believe them, when neither is True. Further, when you make claims, you should be prepared to prove your claims. Finally, I don't think this topic has any relevance.
I'm not wasting time on your comment about infants and morality, your whole obsession with sin free infants is ridiculous and I'm tired of rehashing the same crap endlessly.
But, you could explain when exactly a child gains the full cognitive abilities of an adult.
"In the Bible, we see phrases like David's "I am a worm," "a sinner from birth, from my mother's womb!" and "ALL have sinned" to emphasize the point that no one is perfect and that we all tend towards sin to varying degrees. They CLEARLY do not mean to say that David was a worm, that he was committing sin in his mother's womb or that ALL humanity, INCLUDING NEWBORNS who literally can't sin as "sin" is normally understood in the English language. They are obvious examples of hyperbole."
I see what you've done there, you've chosen to decide that you know exactly what those phrases meant and the intent of the author. Yet all you've done is claim that you know that they couldn't possibly have meant what they said. You've simply expressed your hunches about these passages, not facts.
"THAT, dear Craig, IS an explanation of why "worm" doesn't literally mean worm and "all" doesn't literally mean all."
Well, it's an interesting hunch, but it's not anything that you can prove. I have a choice to make when I study scripture. I can look at what people who have much more knowledge and education have to say, and I can determine what how much of a consensus these experts express. Or I can take the word of some random internet troll who makes all sorts of claims that very few, in any, actual scholars agree with. I hate to break it to you, but I'm more likely to go with experts, not you.
"Do you recognize that this is an explanation, even if you somehow disagree with it?"
It's an explanation. Yet it lacks an alternative interpretation that makes sense. It lacks specifics, details, and facts, but is long on hunches, biases, and speculation. When the author wrote the phrase "All have sinned", we might presume (and can certainly do the research to confirm) that they specifically chose the term translated as "all", when other terms (which mean "some" or "not all") were available to him. This raises the question. If the author was so inaccurate in what he claimed, then why wouldn't that call into question every single word that he wrote? You've offered an "explanation", but not a reason why Paul would use an inaccurate term.
"The reality is that God has not told us what are and aren't "major sins." We have no authoritative list to rely upon. We DO have our God-given reasoning to recognize that genocide IS a major evil while stealing a cookie from our friends' cookie jar is a very minor misdeed."
So you are acknowledging that your claims about "major" and "minor" sins have absolutely zero scriptural backing, and that you have absolutely zero way to determine if your hunches are correct or not, or to define :minor" and "major" sins with any accuracy at all.
"Do you disagree?"
As a general rule, I will disagree with anything that you are unable to provide support (especially direct/unequivocal/specific biblical support for), because I don't consider things that you make up to be worthy of agreeing with. In the future, when you are tempted to ask if I agree with something you've made up, you can remember this and know that the answer will be no.
We DO have our moral reasoning to recognize that some actions have atrocious, horrible, painful, deadly consequences upon others while some may have almost no negative repercussions on anyone except for maybe us. We as rational humans can recognize that vast distinction and I say we should recognize that difference."
Of course you still can't provide anything that grounds your objective claims about morality, and base your hunches in your fallible/biased/imperfect human Reason.
"Do you disagree with any of that?"
See answer above.
"I can't be clear about that which is not known. I am not willing to give specific details, for instance, about any kind of "eternal punishment" beyond the grave. The fact is that God simply has not told us any specifics about how God might deal with major oppressions and evils or minor misdeeds. We have no authoritative word from God on that."
So you admit that you don't actually know anything, while you continue to claim that your hunches represent reality. You're just making this shit up and pretending like you got it from your god.
"If we take biblical stories seriously, we CAN easily see that God holds those who oppress and harm or just ignore the poor and marginalized in harsh judgement - we just see no specifics other than quite serious-sounding warnings ("destroy you" "cast you into a lake of fire!" kinds of warnings for those specific type of great evils). On the other hand, more typical daily misdeeds - from those as serious as adultery to merely stealing a cookie - God has not told us how God will deal with that level of misdeed. Although we do see in the case of the "adulterous woman" that Jesus saved her from being punished and killed by religious zealots and said he did not condemn her and merely said, Go and sin no more."
Blah, blah, blah, just the same old pap that you always spew. Not worth wasting time over this verbal vomit or talking points. Especially after you've just acknowledged that you don;t really know anything because your god hasn't told you.
"The point being that, for those who take biblical teachings seriously, we DO see serious warnings about some specific misdeeds, generally specifically those that harm the poor and oppressed... AND we see Grace and literally NO suggestion that each and every smaller misdeed - OR even a lifetime's worth of them - is worthy of eternal torture."
Well, if that's the way you "see" things than your hunches must be authoritative.
"Agree? Disagree?"
See my answer above.
I feel like this might be too late, but I just realized how much of this is really just semantic games.
As long as you can define "sinner" as one who actively commits "sins" (which you haven't/can't define" other than to cast sins in terms of "mistakes"), then you can ignore the notion that our very nature has been affected negatively by sin. It's a very effective (although intellectually dishonest) way to control the discussion by defining the terms to exclude anything other that your hunch. You claim that sin is "missing the mark", while being unable to define what the "mark" is. You repeatedly make claims about the Bible not being a "rule book", while ignoring the fact that perhaps the "rules" ARE the mark, or at least represent the "mark".
I've never encountered someone who was so convinced of the rightness of their position, while steadfastly insisting that there confidence is based on the fact that we can't actually know anything about any of this. That YHWH didn't speak clearly enough for you, or that words mean the opposite of their normal meaning.
Thankfully, my faith doesn't rest on your hunches, feelings, opinions, or Reason.
I'm trying to clarify what specifically you mean.
LITERALLY, that a newborn HAS NOT COMMITTED A SIN. That is what I specifically mean.
You agree?
you could explain when exactly a child gains the full cognitive abilities of an adult.
The Bible, as I imagine you know, does not tell us this in any kind of direct, authoritative way. And the science behind this is not as simple as, "13. At 13, every child gains full cognitive abilities of an adult."
Hopefully, you can agree to those two bits.
Given that, the best data we have from experts in this field is that roughly at the age of 25 is when the brain has reached the point where adults are roughly at "full cognitive ability."
That is a direct and specific answer to that direct and specific question. Would you like the research links to that or were you familiar with that already?
Which is not me saying that "before 25, children and young adults are not accountable for their deeds and misdeeds." It's just a literal, direct answer to that specific question.
Really? Where does one find this empirical evidence? How does one test this empirical evidence for repeatability? How does one falsify this empirical evidence?
Sorry, sloppy word choice. I mean to say:
The best evidence and research and reason we find on the notion of moral development is that we have NO evidence to suggest a newborn or very young baby (under the age of ~2) is able to form moral conclusions.
There is no verifiable or rational data to support a claim (if anyone is making it) that newborns can commit sins. On the face of it, that would be an irrational and unsupportable claim.
A point which you appear to agree (that newborns can't commit sinful acts).
Sorry for the sloppy language.
I'm trying to understand what "haven't sinned" actually means when you use the term.
Are you really trying? I mean, by "newborns haven't sinned," that newborns have not committed sins. Has that been confusing to you? Did you think I meant something else?
I'm trying to understand what your confusion is about what seems like a clear point.
I tend to agree that newborns have not actively committed specific sins, yet you still haven't proven that your claims on this subject are objectively True.
You "TEND TO" agree? You can't say clearly, "Yes, of course, newborns haven't committed sins. It's a preposterous, irrational claim to make..."?
If something is self-evident, do you think it needs to be proven?
Do you suspect that the reality of newborn babies not being able to commit sins is NOT self-evident?
I believe (along with many good, rational people) that human liberty is self-evident, even if it's perhaps impossible to objectively prove it.
Do you think people who believe that human liberty is self-evident but who can't objectively prove it need to prove it somehow in order to be taken seriously?
The reality is: There's a great deal about morality that simply isn't provable in an objective manner. Do you agree?
Do you agree with me, then, that we should be concerned about morality (especially causing harm to innocents) EVEN IF we can't objectively prove it?
Do you agree with me, then, that even if we can't objectively prove particulars of morality, that we can REASONABLY understand it?
What do you base your hopes of ANY morality on, given that you can't prove it, if it needs to be objectively proven?
You frequently ask for proof of things, and I assume that you have some idea of what you mean by that. I'm asking for the same thing you frequently demand.
No. I frequently ask people who are making bizarre, irrational or outlier claims to prove it. Rational, common sense, self-evident claims... these I don't ask for proof on.
If you claim there is no known life on the moon, I will not ask you to prove it.
If you claim that there are purple unicorns flying around on the backside of the moon, I WILL ask you to prove it.
If you want to claim (with me) that newborns can't commit sins, I won't ask for you to prove it. It's obvious.
IF you want to claim that newborns are born telling lies, THAT is an irrational, outlier claim that has no data to support it. It's reasonable to ask for proof of that if anyone says it.
Do you disagree with this concept?
I'm going to return to this...
You quoted some source about children not being able to process information in the same way that an adult does. I'm curious, at what point would you say that I child has the full cognitive ability of an adult?
First of all, can we agree that this is obvious, observable and self-evident? OF COURSE a newborn doesn't have the capability to process information in the same way a 3 year old does, nor the 3 year old in the same way a 10 year old does, nor a 10 year old in the same way a 25 year old does. It's obvious.
I assume we can agree with all the rational world that this is CLEARLY abundantly self-evident?
From there, I presume we can agree that humans all develop differently. There is and CAN BE no one "age" when an adult is fully intellectually developed or fully morally developed. It depends on a great number of things, with age being a huge factor.
Can we agree?
Then, given the vagueness of human moral development, do we have ONE answer as to when a child is emotionally, intellectually and morally developed as an adult?
The answer is not an age, I'd say, but a state of being. When a person can recognize and appreciate the notion of human rights for all - not just for themselves, not just for their tribe or people - and have the ability for empathy, for understanding to some degree what others are going through and their concerns, then that person is more fully reached moral maturity.
Do you disagree?
Are you familiar with moral studies and the notion of stages of moral development in humans?
Are we able to agree that the Bible does not give authoritative answers to "what is morally mature" in any specific manner and, indeed, it is necessarily a vaguely defined and understood line of understanding?
AND, at the same time, can we agree that, even if it's non-specific with NO one authoritative source for answers, that we humans can reasonably agree to some basics, even if imperfectly?
So you admit that you don't actually know anything, while you continue to claim that your hunches represent reality. You're just making this shit up and pretending like you got it from your god.
Nope. Not what I said, not what I "admitted." There is a difference between saying, "We have NO ONE authoritative source for objectively provable answers to moral questions" and saying, "we don't actually know anything."
And I have not said my "hunches represent reality." I've been quite clear that this is not the case. I've said that what is self-evident is self-evident. I've noted that I believe what I believe is rational and something reasonable adults can generally agree with.
For instance: Newborns can't sin IS rational and I believe self-evident. We have NO DATA to make us guess that newborns are actively committing sins.
A point you appear to agree with, even if you remain vague and continue to hedge your bets ("I tend to agree..."). I'm not saying it's objectively proven reality. I'm saying it's self-evident and we have zero bits of data to make us guess otherwise.
Understand the distinction?
When I say humans are imperfect, I do so because that is observable reality.
When I say that the theory of a "sin nature" is an unproven theory based on traditional interpretations humans have made of some verses rather ripped from context... that's because that is the reality. It IS literally a human theory. It is literally not proven. It's a religious theory devised and developed by humans over the centuries.
Understand the distinction? Am I mistaken somehow?
I'm not saying we can't know anything. I'm just noting the distinction between what we can objectively prove, what is reasonable, what is theory and what is unproven theory.
I responded to Marshal's comments on my blog about his theories of a "sin nature." He had cited some religious types citing their theories. I took the time to go through their proof texts and here's the result:
First of all, there's nothing from Jesus. Nada. Jesus never made a claim that newborns are sinners or have a sin nature. You'd think something as basic and foundational as that, Jesus might have mentioned it. Any alleged "Christian" doctrine or theory should find support in Jesus' teaching as a minimal starting point.
But setting that glaring hole aside, the author cites:
Psalm 51 - literally makes NO claim about all infants being born with a sin nature or that they are sinners. It's literally not there. The passage is literally David speaking about himself and his OWN sinful nature in a moment of distress following greatly evil acts he committed. Just like David called himself a "worm" in another passage citing his own great personal evil. Clearly hyperbolic, but even if you think otherwise, it's literally not a claim about all babies and fetuses.
Isaiah 6 - Isaiah speaking of literally himself:
"Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
Literally nothing about sin natures of sinful newborns/babies as a universal condition of newborns and preborns.
Isaiah 53:
"We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all."
Literally nothing about sin natures of sinful newborns/babies as a universal condition of newborns and preborns.
Isaiah 64:
"All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away."
Literally nothing about sin natures of sinful newborns/babies as a universal condition of newborns and preborns. Indeed, it says, "We have BECOME..." indicating that they were not always in the same sinful state as they perceive themselves to be now.
Jeremiah 17:
"The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?"
Literally nothing about sin natures of sinful newborns/babies as a universal condition of newborns and preborns.
And that's it from the entirety of the OT, from your first source.
From the NT, then:
Romans 3:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
Literally nothing about sin natures of sinful newborns/babies as a universal condition of newborns and preborns. Also, it engages in figurative hyperbole to emphasize the point (we're not perfect, we're sinners) by saying "our throats are open graves" (they literally aren't) "Poison of vipers is on their lips" (it literally isn't) - these are hyperbolic, figurative claims to emphasize a point of our sinfulness, but it's literally NOT a claim about the sin nature of babies.
Romans 5:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"
Literally nothing about sin natures of sinful newborns/babies as a universal condition of newborns and preborns.
And on and on it goes for a few more verses, very much in the same vein. Marshal's OWN SOURCE can't cite even ONE SPOT where it proves that we have something called a "sin nature" or that infants have a sin nature or are sinners. Offering verses and saying "EVEN THOUGH it says nothing about sin nature in infants, this is what it means..." is literally not objective proof and it truly isn't even ANY kind of proof. It only undermines your theories because those verses don't even TRY to say what you're trying to make them say.
You know what you find if you do a bible search on "Sin nature..."? Nothing. It's not in the Bible.
You know what you find if you do a search for "nature..."? Verses talking about a lot of things, but NONE of them saying ANYTHING LIKE "infants have a sin nature as a universal reality..." NOT THOSE WORDS, but ANY words suggesting that irrational theory.
If nothing else, you ll re helping me understand just how thoroughly UN-biblical this set of human traditions and unsupported theories are. Thanks for that.
Truly, tell me: What do you think are THE MOST CLEAR and UNMISTAKABLE three (five??) biblical passages that deal with this theory of yours? Do you have any beyond the few that Marshal's source spoke of?
This raises the question. If the author was so inaccurate in what he claimed, then why wouldn't that call into question every single word that he wrote? You've offered an "explanation", but not a reason why Paul would use an inaccurate term.
WHY did David call himself a worm when he wasn't a worm? HYPERBOLE is the answer, that IS an explanation. Hyperbole is a long-used communication tool where we hyper-exaggerate to make a point. David was feeling AWFUL about his sin! And so, he exaggerated the point, saying he was a worm, a sinner from since being a fetus. That is hyperbole. A communication tool.
You recognize the hyperbole, presumably, with "worm..." why is it not at least a possible (if not incredibly obvious) explanation for ALL?
Have you never joked about some food (or whatever), saying, "That was the WORST hamburger I've ever had and probably in all of human history!!" ...not meaning it literally? People use hyperbole. Paul used hyperbole. Jesus used hyperbole. Why is it not possible here??
Craig...
As long as you can define "sinner" as one who actively commits "sins" (which you haven't/can't define" other than to cast sins in terms of "mistakes"), then you can ignore the notion that our very nature has been affected negatively by sin.
As long as you can define "sinner" as one who actively commits "sins"...
1. First of all, can we agree that it's not like I'm crazily, whimsically saying, "We MUST DEFINE SINNER as one who SINS! BWAHAHAA!!!" That's literally the standard definition, right?
You're acting as if I'm doing something astounding by understanding the word as it is typically literally understood.
(which you haven't/can't define" other than to cast sins in terms of "mistakes")...
2. As to "can't define," of course, I can and have.
In the Bible, the word translated Sin is literally, "to miss the mark," as an archer aiming for a target and falling short or otherwise missing the target. I think this biblical definition is helpful and instructive, in that not sinning is something to aim for, but not always a simple matter to hit... an archer's aim can be off or their expertise. It's not always even purposeful, in their human imperfection, an archer can just miss the mark sometimes, even while trying.
I think that's a helpful understanding of sin and it's biblical.
Otherwise, I also recognize and am speaking of the typical English definition:
an offense against religious or moral law
I've never spoken of sin in any other way and I'm pretty sure I've referenced these definitions. How would you LIKE me to define sin differently than it's typically understood?
then you can ignore the notion that our very nature has been affected negatively by sin.
You might need to define more specifically what you mean "our very nature..." has been affected negatively.
What I would take that to mean (which may be different than you) is that by sinning, by failing to hit the mark perfectly, by doing wrong... we are impacted and the people and world around us are impacted and in a negative way. There are repercussions to our failure to be perfect and not "sin" or do wrong. And part of that would be in our own psyche or "soul," if you prefer.
I do think that there's something to the notion that the more you do stuff that causes harm and THEN, defend it by explaining away the harm (or trying to), that "hardens our heart," it stiffens our neck... to say it metaphorically/poetically. We become more callous to causing pain.
Maybe the guy who grew up hearing his innate attraction to women being condemned if it went too far. He really WANTED to look at women and admire their beauty... but he did it in a way that began to objectify women and make women uncomfortable, causing harm as it does in the real world. But he pushed back and said, "It's just natural human attraction, there's nothing wrong with that! (and indeed, there's not, insofar as that goes)." But the more he heard it warned against by preachers and religious types, maybe he eventually decides to reject ANYTHING that religious types and go another way. "If God doesn't like me to like women, then I don't need THAT type of morality/religion/God..." and he doubled down and really begins objectifying women, stalking them, harassing them... and maybe that eventually grows to the point of physical assault or abusing teenaged girls... There's something in the path of rejecting harm/bad actions/sin that I think has been documented to sometimes have an ever-worsening set of behaviors. They've calloused themselves to being decent people and it becomes increasingly easy to cause more and more harm.
But what do you mean by our "very nature" is impacted by sin?
(which you haven't/can't define" other than to cast sins in terms of "mistakes")...
Perhaps what you're referring to here (since I have always used extremely clear, extremely standard definitions of "sin") is that I acknowledge the reality that we have no objectively provable source to authoritatively say: "HERE is the list of sins. Don't do these!"
But that is the reality. You can point to no such list.
Beyond that, any lists we have are going to be flawed because of the conditional nature of right and wrong. Is it wrong to lie? Sure. But what if your a parent in Ukraine and your children are terrified of the bombings going on all around on a regular basis and it's causing them psychological harm (this sin of war against innocents)? When they hear a rumble in the background and they flinch, do you tell them "Don't worry, that's just construction work... it's a car backfiring..." Do you lie to them to try to HELP emotionally?
Well, one very well might do that (I used that example because I was just listening to a news report about this very example). Now, one could debate how ideal a solution that is? Does it really comfort them, knowing they're in a war zone, to hear a false explanation? Maybe, maybe not. And maybe it might depend upon their age.
But is that LIE a sin?
I think one would have to be a rather calloused literalist type of SOB to call that parent to their face a sinner for telling that lie.
You?
You see, that's PRECISELY why I'm a Christian, a follower of the teachings of Christ. Jesus came teaching a way of GRACE, not legalism... indeed, he was an active opponent of legalism, as were later Christians. "The sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath." The laws were made to help... use them in helpful ways and DON'T use them in ways that lead to harm. That would be missing the point of the laws entirely.
For legalism and the strict law are paths to death and pain and dysfunction. Grace is a path to life and acceptance and healthy, beloved communities!
I want to embrace the grace that brings life, not the legalism that brings shame, pain and death.
To me, that "lie" told by the parent is a path of grace practice, a path of beloved, healthy, helping community. That's the Christ of Grace that I follow.
And so, legalistic attempts to force on humanity, "nope, nope.. NO! That's a LIE of the devil just as sure as dropping bombs on children. That lie leads to hell and destruction. God hates lies!"... I don't think those sorts of attempts are consistent with Christian teaching of just simple data-driven reason.
You?
All of that to say that maybe that's what you mean when you say I can't define Sin (which I have regularly - a false claim, itself, by the by) is that I recognize the nuanced nature of right and wrong and why we have such a need for grace.
Craig...
while steadfastly insisting that there confidence is based on the fact that we can't actually know anything about any of this. That YHWH didn't speak clearly enough for you, or that words mean the opposite of their normal meaning.
Of course, once again, this is NOTHING that I've said. It is a misrepresentation of my words, a lie, if you will.
Indeed, I've been quite clear that I think the difference between right and wrong is generally quite clear - even in the reality of the nuances of such ideas. I do NOT think that God has been unclear.
And noting that Paul's "all" could be hyperbole is NOT saying Paul meant the opposite, any more than David's "worm" is hyperbole is not saying David meant the opposite. It's a communication convention that humanity has long (always?) used, this hyperbole.
So, it's just an irrational claim counter to the data at hand to falsely say that I say words mean the opposite of their normal meaning.
Indeed, given your understanding of "justice" (which appears to mean to you that wildly disproportionate punishment can somehow be "just" when definitionally, it would be the exact opposite - UNjust) or "sinner" (which appears to mean to you that someone who has NEVER sinned - as in a newborn - can reasonably be called a sinner because they're imperfect or have this theoretical "sin nature" that some human traditions have fantasized about), perhaps you're not in a safe place to say I'm using non-standard definitions...?
Can you point to ANY words - even one - where I'm saying words have meanings opposite to their standard understanding?
If not, perhaps you'd be inclined to apologize for some of these objectively demonstrated false claims you keep making.
"You agree?"
I agree that you hold this position. But your answer raises further questions.
1. Are you suggesting that a child is 100% free from any sin?
2. Are you suggesting that the only way for someone to sin is by engaging in a specific action which is sinful?
"Given that, the best data we have from experts in this field is that roughly at the age of 25 is when the brain has reached the point where adults are roughly at "full cognitive ability."
That is a direct and specific answer to that direct and specific question. Would you like the research links to that or were you familiar with that already?"
Direct, specific answers from you are rare, but I'm impressed that you actually can give them occasionally.
Your answer however, does raise the question you alluded to, as well as one other.. At what point does a child become culpable for their sinful actions? Is there a circumstance where a child can engage in an act that is sinful, but not have it accounted to them as sinful?
"Sorry for the sloppy language."
Wow, a direct/specific answer and an apology in two successive comments, I'm shocked.
"Are you really trying? I mean, by "newborns haven't sinned," that newborns have not committed sins. Has that been confusing to you? Did you think I meant something else?"
Yes. I'm trying to understand precisely what you mean bu "haven't sinned", and at what point this condition of being 100% sin free changes.
"If something is self-evident, do you think it needs to be proven?"
Given that self evident is a subjective term, while proven indicates objectivity, of course. Self evident, by definition, is rooted in the individual self of each observer and is not an objective standard.
"Do you suspect that the reality of newborn babies not being able to commit sins is NOT self-evident?"
It's clearly "self evident" to you, but you don't represent any sort of objective standard by which others can measure Truth or facts by.
"Do you think people who believe that human liberty is self-evident but who can't objectively prove it need to prove it somehow in order to be taken seriously?"
As a general rule, one would need to prove their claims about the objective reality of the subject of their claims. Merely asserting that something is self evident, therefore immune from the necessity of being proven to be objectively True is simply an attempt to turn something subjective into something objective without having to prove one's claim.
"The reality is: There's a great deal about morality that simply isn't provable in an objective manner. Do you agree?"
Given your hunches that morality is subjective, along with the sociological construct that claims that morality is subjective, I would think that it is impossible to prove objectively something which is inherently subjective.
"Do you agree with me, then, that we should be concerned about morality (especially causing harm to innocents) EVEN IF we can't objectively prove it?"
Sure, although since you can't prove your subjective morality objectively you have no foundation to apply your personal subjective moral code to others who accept a different subjective moral code.
"Do you agree with me, then, that even if we can't objectively prove particulars of morality, that we can REASONABLY understand it?"
Yes, each individual or group that holds to the same subjective standards for morality, can understand that subjective morality within the context of that individual or group. It is also possible to understand someone who has a different subjective moral code, while not agreeing with their subjective moral code.
"What do you base your hopes of ANY morality on, given that you can't prove it, if it needs to be objectively proven?"
I base my hope of morality on YHWH, and what He's revealed to us.
"Do you disagree with this concept?"
Yes. I disagree with the notion that you can make subjective claims that you treat as/pretend are objective claims by simply labeling those claims "self evident". If you want a claim you make to be treated as if it's an objective claim, then you'll have to provide proof.
"First of all, can we agree that this is obvious, observable and self-evident? OF COURSE a newborn doesn't have the capability to process information in the same way a 3 year old does, nor the 3 year old in the same way a 10 year old does, nor a 10 year old in the same way a 25 year old does. It's obvious."
That's special. Of course, it's not an answer to the question.
"I assume we can agree with all the rational world that this is CLEARLY abundantly self-evident?"
Still not an answer, but more answering a question with a question.
"From there, I presume we can agree that humans all develop differently. There is and CAN BE no one "age" when an adult is fully intellectually developed or fully morally developed. It depends on a great number of things, with age being a huge factor."
Ahhhhhhhh. the point where Dan usually gets into trouble, when he presumes. Of course, I anticipated this line of obfuscation and specifically did not ask for a specific age. But, still no answer.
"Can we agree?"
That you haven't answered the simple direct question in a simple direct manner, yes.
"Then, given the vagueness of human moral development, do we have ONE answer as to when a child is emotionally, intellectually and morally developed as an adult?"
That's the question I asked you, which you still haven't answered. Because answering a question with a question, isn't an ansnwer.
"The answer is not an age, I'd say, but a state of being. When a person can recognize and appreciate the notion of human rights for all - not just for themselves, not just for their tribe or people - and have the ability for empathy, for understanding to some degree what others are going through and their concerns, then that person is more fully reached moral maturity."
Finally, sort of an answer.
"Do you disagree?"
More or less.
"Are you familiar with moral studies and the notion of stages of moral development in humans?"
I'm not familiar with every single one of them, no. Without being familiar with them all, I can conclude that you can do a google search and cherry pick a few studies that at least appear to validate whatever claim you are trying to make. While, I could likely do the same thing and find studies that disagree.
"Are we able to agree that the Bible does not give authoritative answers to "what is morally mature" in any specific manner and, indeed, it is necessarily a vaguely defined and understood line of understanding?"
More or less.
"AND, at the same time, can we agree that, even if it's non-specific with NO one authoritative source for answers, that we humans can reasonably agree to some basics, even if imperfectly?"
I can agree that you are imperfect. Strangely enough, the Jews have agreed on this for centuries. I suspect that the early Jewish Christians likely continued with that understanding.
Of course after all of that, I'll note that you moved the goal posts by slipping in qualifiers for understanding. The real issue is (for example) can a child recognize the difference between Truth and a lie, by the time they're able to carry on a conversation? Can a child be expected to follow certain rules from their parents by the time they're old enough to communicate? Does YHWH somehow not count any sins committed before the point where a child has this complete adult understanding of morality?
"Nope. Not what I said, not what I "admitted." There is a difference between saying, "We have NO ONE authoritative source for objectively provable answers to moral questions" and saying, "we don't actually know anything.""
How does one "know" anything in the complete and total absence of any authoritative source of knowledge about the subject in question? Are you suggesting that in imperfect, subjective, conclusion about something actually constitutes "knowing" that something?
"And I have not said my "hunches represent reality." I've been quite clear that this is not the case. I've said that what is self-evident is self-evident. I've noted that I believe what I believe is rational and something reasonable adults can generally agree with."
Yes, you've made all of those subjective claims, as well as the claim that the majority of people who have ever existed agree with yoru subjective hunches.
"Understand the distinction?"
Yes, I understand your distinction and why you make it. I think that claiming that zero data exists, without proof, is quite an unbelievable claim. But, I understand why you need to believe it.
"Understand the distinction? Am I mistaken somehow?"
Again, yes, see the answer above. I believe that it is possible that you are mistaken, and that acting as if the subjective is objective seems problematic. Making claims for others based on what you subjectively conclude is self evident", again seems problematic if you want to apply your subjective conclusions beyond your self.
"I'm not saying we can't know anything. I'm just noting the distinction between what we can objectively prove, what is reasonable, what is theory and what is unproven theory."
Again, I never said that you admitted that we "can't" know anything. Merely that you admitted that we don't know anything.
I'm not going to waste time parsing Dan's cherry picked, out of context, proof claims, or his "conclusions" whereby he simply announces that none of those verses support the concept of a sin nature. Others have done this work, and Dan's unwillingness to do that research isn't my problem given my limited time to waste on this.
"You recognize the hyperbole, presumably, with "worm..." why is it not at least a possible (if not incredibly obvious) explanation for ALL?"
Ahhhhhhhhh, the "hyperbole explains away any and everything simply by the use of the term" canard. The obvious reason, is that David comparing himself after his grievous sin to a creature that is lowly, makes complete sense in context. It's a way to explain his position in relationship to a completely Holy God." Whereas, using the term "all" to indicate the opposite of "all" renders the illustration incoherent. It's as if I went to my wife on our anniversary and said "I hate you.", because hyperbole. The problem with this dodge, is that hyperbole exaggerates what is being said, it doesn't contradict what is being communicated.
"Have you never joked about some food (or whatever), saying, "That was the WORST hamburger I've ever had and probably in all of human history!!" ...not meaning it literally? People use hyperbole. Paul used hyperbole. Jesus used hyperbole. Why is it not possible here??"
No. It's theoretically possible that Paul intentionally decided that the best way to make his point was to use a term that represented the opposite of the point he was trying to make. But suggesting that something is theoretically possible, is a long way from saying that it is True or even likely. How often in his letters did Paul intentionally use a word that meant the opposite of what he was trying to convey.
Trying to claim that "all" means anything but "all" in this context renders the entire statement incoherent. This is an excellent example of why it's important for you to offer a reasonable, coherent, alternative interpretation instead of just claiming "hyperbole" as if it explains everything.
1. Yes, you have. The problem as I see it is that by limiting "sin" to only actions, you nullify Jesus' teachings on sin, as well as nullify the concept of sins of omission.
2. Yes, you can and have. The problem is that you don't posses the ability to authoritatively impose your limited definition on others.
As usual, what you think about something has very little value as long is it's just your unproven hunch.
"I've never spoken of sin in any other way and I'm pretty sure I've referenced these definitions. How would you LIKE me to define sin differently than it's typically understood?"
You can define anything any way you want, it's what you don anyway and nothing will stop you.
Not interested on your psychological meanderings.
"But what do you mean by our "very nature" is impacted by sin?"
That we were originally created to be in direct communion with YHWH, and when sin entered the picture that relationship was forever altered. Our nature changed fundamentally to where we place ourselves in the position of YHWH. Our focus has shifted from YHWH to ourselves and what we think is right and wrong.
"You can point to no such list."
Not only can I point to more than one list, I can point to multiple instances of individual commandments for us to follow.
"But is that LIE a sin?"
I think you're asking the wrong question. Of course the lie is a sin, even if it's committed in what the person believes to be a good cause. The questions should be. Is forgiveness available for that sin? Is YHWH able to work in the situation without the help of someone lying? What is YHWH's purpose in this circumstance? Will YHWH use someone telling the Truth as opposed to lying? Does any human have the capability to accurately assess all possible outcomes of telling the lie, as opposed to telling the Truth?
Even in your examples you place the focus on the people and their actions, rather than putting the focus on what YHWH wants to/can/will do in that situation.
Does YHWH really need our help to accomplish His plans and purposes? Does the God of Truth, really need lies to help Him out?
"You?"
Pointing out the reality that that parent, like every other human being throughout history (except Jesus), is a sinner is simply acknowledging reality.
I get that in your world of semantic games, it's somehow better to substitute "imperfect" for "sinner", but the reality is that it's just a way to make you feel better about excusing the consequences of sin.
"You?"
No. Strangely enough, neither Jesus, nor Paul were opposed to The Law, while they were opposed to those who made the law their god, instead of the Law Giver.
"And noting that Paul's "all" could be hyperbole is NOT saying Paul meant the opposite,"
This is what happens when you take these courageous stands and hide behind the word "hyperbole" without providing an alternative explanation that makes sense. The reality is that Paul's use of the term all leaves only two possible options. 1 "all" means "all". 2 "all" means "not all". Under what condition is "not all" not the opposite of "all"? What is childish, simplistic, pile of steaming dung.
"Indeed, given your understanding of "justice" (which appears to mean to you that wildly disproportionate punishment can somehow be "just" when definitionally, it would be the exact opposite - UNjust)"
Again with the made up bullshit that you try to pretend represents anything I've actually said.
" or "sinner" (which appears to mean to you that someone who has NEVER sinned - as in a newborn - can reasonably be called a sinner because they're imperfect or have this theoretical "sin nature" that some human traditions have fantasized about), perhaps you're not in a safe place to say I'm using non-standard definitions...?"
See above. But hey I get how much you don't like to define your terms, and why you think it's unfair when we press you to do so.
"Can you point to ANY words - even one - where I'm saying words have meanings opposite to their standard understanding?"
It's less about you using terms to mean the opposite of what they mean, than of you using terms without being clear what you actually mean.
"we were originally created to be in direct communion with YHWH, and when sin entered the picture that relationship was forever altered. Our nature changed fundamentally to where we place ourselves in the position of YHWH. Our focus has shifted from YHWH to ourselves and what we think is right and wrong."
Is this something that you can objectively prove or a subjective opinion you hold but can't prove?
"Well that's a big chunk of my day wasted with Dan's self serving bullshit."
I've spent good parts of my days, too, in good faith efforts to hold respectful conversations with you to try to better understand one another. While it's a bit exhausting, I value the effort and consider it well worth it. If it bothers, by all means, just say you don't want to talk about it and thereby waste your time.
I don't see any need to demonize or attempt to demean you, even when you make false claims or otherwise demonize me.
Dan
Now, THIS might be helpful.
"I think you're asking the wrong question. Of course the lie is a sin, even if it's committed in what the person believes to be a good cause."
To be clear, you're saying, "of course, I Craig believe this lie to be a sin..." or are you saying, "I, Craig know objectively and authoritatively that as a proven point of fact, this lie is considered by God and IS a sin..."?
Because, of course, many people would disagree with your hunch that this lie is a sin.
Dan
Craig...
How does one "know" anything in the complete and total absence of any authoritative source of knowledge about the subject in question?
One can know and understand a great deal bit of quite important things in life without being able to objectively prove things. One can recognize what does and doesn't functionally work on a daily basis, for instance. For example, I don't understand enough about electricity or bluetooth or wireless or a great number of things with anything like any certainty, but I know I can flip the switch on my wall and lights will come on... that I can take some steps to connect my cell phone to the internet and that I will be able to get access.
I may not (you may not) be able to prove objectively that slavery is a great evil or that God opposes any and all instances of this great evil, but we can easily recognize the horror and evil slavery causes and the total lack of justice when it happens.
Do you disagree?
Or do you think, "Well, I can't prove slavery is always wrong, so, doobydoobydoo... if someone enslaves me or a loved one, I guess I can't condemn it..."?
That's a serious, reasonable question. You WOULD oppose your loved ones being enslaved, even if you can't prove it's wrong, correct?
Are you suggesting that in imperfect, subjective, conclusion about something actually constitutes "knowing" that something?
Yes. Of course. Once again, just because we can't objective prove that kidnapping and slavery are great evils, if someone came here, kidnapped your loved ones and sent them to be enslaved, you WOULD know enough to call it evil and atrocious, would you not?
I can not understand for the life of me why you keep bringing this up when you've lost any reasonable standing with these questions when I've answered them again and again and again.
As a point of fact, YOU can not prove slavery is a great evil. That's reality. Do you recognize that reality?
But the fact that we can't prove objectively that slavery is a great evil does not/should not stop us from saying, "Nonetheless, we can REASONABLY recognize that slavery is a great horrific affront to self-evident human rights and all humanity should stand in opposition to it!" Do you agree?
It's less about you using terms to mean the opposite of what they mean, than of you using terms without being clear what you actually mean.
??!! Are you serious? WHO is the one who clearly demonstrates and supports what the words mean that are being used, offering standard definitions? EVEN WHEN there's no real question involved.
What do I mean newborns aren't sinners? I MEAN THEY HAVEN'T COMMITTED A SIN. Which is just the standard English definition.
What do I mean by sin? Doing wrong. Biblically, "missing the mark," which I went on then to explain in some detail.
Am I saying that only those actions which are actively committed are what constitutes sins? No, I am NOT saying that. There are, of course, sins of omission. I've been quite clear on this and there never was any real doubt on that point because NO REASONABLE ADULTS disagree. These are all basic understandings of these concepts.
What do I mean by justice? Just the standard English definitions.
"the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness" And, as is commonly understood in English (and in the Bible) this means holding people to account with reasonable responses, with the hope being of restoring right relationship. That is, a punishment that is wildly disproportionate to any "crime" would be an unjust punishment. Punishing person B for the wrongs of person A is a violation of justice, as it is commonly understood.
And on it goes. WHAT am I being unclear about what I mean?
These are very interesting conversations to me, but they are also deeply bewildering. Your responses so rarely seem to line up with either reality or what I'm saying.
Or referring to this time in conversation being "wasted" with my "self-serving bullshit..."? WHAT is self-serving in ANY of this for me? How am I benefiting from this? And what about what I'm saying is in any stretch of the imagination "bullshit..."? That I don't believe that newborns are sinners because they clearly haven't/can't commit sins? That's just reasonable and a point you sometimes appear to agree with.
So deeply intriguing.
Craig...
Does YHWH really need our help to accomplish His plans and purposes?
Well, given the reality that God doesn't overtly insert God's Self into our every day affairs, doesn't stop to give housing to an unhoused person or help someone unemployed find employment, yes. God operates in this world through our hands and feet and minds and actions.
God expects our actions to accomplish God's plans. If you'd like a Bible verse (or a dozen) to support this theory, just to show this is basic biblical teaching (although why in the hell you can't just use your God-given reasoning is beyond me)
"For we are God’s handiwork,
created in Christ Jesus to do good works,
which God prepared in advance
FOR US TO DO."
Ephesians 2
So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.
The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and
each will be rewarded according to his own labor.
For we are God's fellow workers...
1 Cor 3
Yet you have made [humans] a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned [us] with glory and honor.
You have given [us] dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under [our] feet [ie, to manage, help, make things better with OUR management/cooperation]
Psalm 8
Truly, truly, I say to you,
whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do;
and greater works than these will they do...
Jesus, in John 18
Now you are the body of Christ,
and each one of you is a part of it. (the point of the greater text is that each of us have our roles and should be doing those roles for the betterment of the Beloved Community.)
I Cor 12
“Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.
Each one should use whatever gift they have received
to serve others,
faithfully administering God’s grace
in its various forms.”
1 Peter 4
YOU feed them.
Jesus, Mark 6
What YOU DO for the least of these
you do for me
Jesus, Matt 25
I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.
Does the God of Truth, really need lies to help Him out?
Why not?
The point is doing good. If following rules from some magic rule book leads you to doing WRONG - even committing atrocities (perhaps by a sin of omission, by the way), in spite of following the "rules," you've missed the point.
This is the problem with woodenly literal thinking instead of using your God-given reasoning. You would find problems with "lying" to protect a child or "stealing" (carbeurators from the Nazi's cars) to save people's lives. YOU would call those "sins..." and fail to get the point. Completely. Horribly.
Hear the words of Jesus and understand. Open your heart, eyes and mind and be free from the chains of legalism, friend!
Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.
I get that in your world of semantic games, it's somehow better to substitute "imperfect" for "sinner", but the reality is that it's just a way to make you feel better about excusing the consequences of sin.
Do you think it wise to make accusations about motives you don't know? Does it not bother you that this is a false claim? A stupidly false claim? A lie, if you will?
"Sinner" and "sin" are religious words with a lot of chains and baggage attached (thanks, in large part, to religious people of a wide variety of faith traditions). They can be loaded and mean many things to many people.
It is a fact and observable that we humans are imperfect. But having a "sin nature..."? More of a religious theory put forth as if it was a given or solid fact.
"Sin..."? In what sense? Helping someone on the Sabbath while technically breaking the "sabbath rule..."? Jesus was quite clear that following the rule and failing to do good was missing the point.
On the other hand, driving cars that produce pollution that damages God's good world and the people therein...? Well, it's not mentioned in the Bible, but doing harm to others IS mentioned and driving cars, in total causes GREAT harm... but does that make the individual car driver a sinner...? Well, it's just not clear to probably most of us and so, well, it's complicated and we're imperfect. Again, our imperfection is not in question. But is that committing a sin? It IS in question.
I tend to use more precise words less loaded with cultural baggage, save the harsher words for more clear bad actions (or inactions). Raping someone of course is a sin and a great evil. Slavery, targeting children or innocents in wartime, wiping out a whole city, failing to help the poor or welcome the refugee when we can...? These are clear sins - clear instances of causing harm to others either by action or failing to act. I'm glad to call these awful sins.
But lying to a child so as not to scare them?
Stealing a genocidal maniac's carburetors to let some innocent people escape?
Of course, these are good - not bad - actions. Helpful and kind actions, not "sin."
"Well that's a big chunk of my day wasted with Dan's self serving bullshit."
Ah, but it's good to have you back!
I'm going to mostly restrict my comments to that which is related to Dan's response to comments I made at his blog...since I haven't gotten to his blog yet to see all his responses. How I return volley doesn't mean I won't be deleted there, so...
"First of all, there's nothing from Jesus. Nada. Jesus never made a claim that newborns are sinners or have a sin nature."
The "Jesus didn't say it so it can't be true" angle is childish and not at all a legitimate rebuttal. Jesus doesn't need to speak on every detail. We don't know what isn't recorded by the Gospel writers, but we do know that there was much which they didn't record. Could Jesus have never spoken directly on babies having a sin nature? Sure. But it still wouldn't mean it isn't so. It's simply not required that we must have words from Christ on any topic to know what is or isn't true.
"You'd think something as basic and foundational as that, Jesus might have mentioned it."
Honest people would know that people like Dan would think folks should think that in order to pretend it means he has evidence in support of his opposing opinion. Too bad Dan's opinion about his opinion doesn't make his opinion fact or reality.
"Any alleged "Christian" doctrine or theory should find support in Jesus' teaching as a minimal starting point."
Says Dan, but not Scripture. Given Christ is God the Son, Who was with the Father since before Creation, actual Christian doctrine finds support for truth in either Testament. The doctrine of our sin nature appears in both.
Thus, no "glaring hole" except in Dan's desperate attempt to make the irrelevant relevant.
As to the Scriptural verses and passages listed in my links Dan didn't study, I will say that once more, despite my having presented evidence with the EXACT verse or verses cited as evidence, Dan again can't find it in his "grace embracing" self to do likewise. Here, he merely cites the chapter alone, as if I have unlimited time to go back and find the exact verse referenced. As always, this is done with intention...not even laziness...as he could simply have copy/pasted the exact verse as provided in my link. I know Dan can't cite the entire Bible verbatim. Why he expects that I'll always know exactly what is being referenced, where exactly a verse or passage he presents can be found...it's clearly to avoid what he knows is coming and cannot refute or rebut. In any case, the 1st from Psalm 51:5 (I'm using an NIV....see how simple that is?):
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
As it says in the notes, "He cannot plead that this sin was a rare aberration in his life: it sprang from what he is and has been (in his inner parts) from birth." To try to suggest this is only a reference to David alone needs some evidence of that, as well as some argument proving David is somehow different than all of mankind. In other words, Dan would suggest that ONLY David has a sin nature from birth and David was only referencing THAT, as opposed to a universal truth regarding all of mankind. I'll wait here while Dan avoids the challenge.
Isaiah 6:5--At least Dan presented the verse, despite not providing its number. But I'm quite certain I conceded not all the author's offerings are each perfect evidences of the point, but in the aggregate, those like this one add support for it.
Isaiah 53:6--Here, the complete corruption of Israel is described, as he predicts the coming of Christ to save us from our sin natures which separates us from God.
Isaiah 64:6--Another less than perfect example, but it does not mitigate the fact of our sin nature. It does, however, suggest how it manifested, very much in the way our sin nature is described elsewhere by both Scripture's authors and its many scholars.
Jer 17:9--Clearly indicates the natural corruption of the heart, such that it can't be trusted or understood. Dan would suggest it develops its corruption over time, but couldn't back that up.
Dan would then suggest that this encompassed the entirety of verses and passages which support the concept of our sin nature. But he does this without truly knowing what else exists because he's not truly a serious and prayerful student of Scripture. Worse, he expects there MUST be a verse which specifically states anything directly regarding the sin natures of infants and pre-born. But that's just Dan demanding what HE wants to be said so he doesn't have to accept the truth. Again, if something isn't stated exactly the way Dan demands it must, he can reject the truth.
He goes on with the same nonsense in the next comment regarding the question of our sin nature since conception. Because the NT verses don't make reference to that, there's no possible way in Dan limited imaginings will he honestly conclude it can't be any other way. But that's lying. It wouldn't be if he had verses which render the understanding erroneous, but neither he nor any I've seen on line actually do that.
Then of course, in typical Dan fashion, as he has with PSA, Sola Scriptura and other well known, widely accepted (over the course of the centuries) Biblical concepts, he notes that "sin nature" nowhere to be found in his Bible. I haven't scanned all versions of Scripture, but it wouldn't matter. The names more modern scholars give to concepts and teachings are nothing more than that, and because Scripture doesn't include those names, that doesn't have any mitigating effect on the existence of the teaching in question. It's just another desperate attempt by a fake Christian to diminish the truth in order to allow liberty for his heresies and corruptions. Heresies and corruptions generating from Dan's sin nature.
"The reality is that Paul's use of the term all leaves only two possible options. 1 "all" means "all". 2 "all" means "not all". Under what condition is "not all" not the opposite of "all"? What is childish, simplistic, pile of steaming dung."
Craig, are you doing okay? I'm seriously a little concerned for your emotional state. I hope things are okay.
You're just flatly mistaken. If a term is being used in a hyperbolic sense to make a point, then it's not saying that sentence in which the word appears can ONLY mean one of two things. David said, I'm a worm. That doesn't mean he was either saying he's literally a worm or he meant the opposite of a worm! He was making a point, emphasizing his own sin.
When Paul says all have sinned, he was emphasizing the ubiquity of sin in the lives of humanity. It doesn't mean he was insisting newborns have sinned.
When anyone says a hyperbolic claim - Everyone loves Raymond! - it's emphasizing the ubiquity, the widespread nature of the point, leaning into the literal definition of ALL, but not insisting literally All. That's how hyperbole works, brother.
I'm increasingly convinced that conservatives are folks who have understanding communication and symbolism.
Take care.
Dan
Post a Comment