"Just as Jesus noted: We will know good trees by their good fruit and we can know good people by their good actions and lives."
Except Jesus didn't actually say what Dan claims He said.
He did say: "15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Jesus was literally talking about "false prophets", yet Dan has twisted Jesus' words to support his hunches. He was specifically talking about drawing a distinction between "prophets" who spoke the Truth and were in accordance with Jesus' Gospel, and those who were "false".
But, what happens when we look at the context, and not just Dan's cherry picked paraphrase.
"3 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 [c]Because narrow is the gate and [d]difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
Jesus precedes Dan's proof text, with a clear statement that causes problems for Dan and his "almost all people are good" as well as his hunches about Heaven and Hell. Clearly Jesus is telling us that few people will find the "way which leads to life" and many will find the "way that leads to destruction". Now Dan has been explicit about what he believes will NOT happen in Hell, but incredibly vague about what he believes WILL happen. This raises the paraphrase of Dan's ever present question. "Will YHWH destroy those "good" people who've only committed a few minor sins?" Clearly Dan disputes that YHWH will punish people eternally, but he's been silent on destroying them.
Then Jesus goes on to say:
"
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"
Jesus seems pretty clear that many people who do "good" things in His "name" will be cast out as people who practice "lawlessness". So, maybe Jesus is telling us that looking at the "good" things people do, even in His name is not enough to determine whether or not people are "good". Because it sure sounds like people who "practice lawlessness", is not "good" people even if they appeared to be.
This seems like one more instance of Dan cherry picking a proof text, paraphrasing that text, and using his paraphrase (without the context) to support one of his hunches.
72 comments:
Wow. Is black, white? Is up, down?
The Bible has plenty of references to good people. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. The sun rises on the good and evil.
Etc, etc.
Are you not aware of such verses?
Dan
Indeed. I tried to get this very point across...and did actually, except Dan refuses to accept anything as "biblical" which contradicts his preferred understanding.
I think it's clear that Dan prefers his narrative because to be too concerned about the true messages and teachings of Scripture puts him and his "tribe" in a very precarious place. He abides the redefinition of terms rather than accept the sinfulness enabled and defended by his "tribe". "Good" means what he needs it to mean to include those who aren't actually good...but are proven to be "good" by citing good works done by those not actually good.
It's akin to pointing to someone who does all the things Dan lists in proving members of his "tribe" are good, but because they're Gazan, they also kill Jews. To other Gazans, this dude ain't just "good". He's GRRR-EAT! (apologies to Tony the Tiger) But unlike Dan's beloved he enables, Dan won't count the good works but focus on the murder of Israelis (I hope). Dan downplays the sin of his friends and redefines "good" to include them. But a good tree can't bear bad fruit, per Jesus, and Dan's trees all bear bad fruit.
"Are you not aware of such verses?"
Dan's response to my pointing out he his paraphrase of the verse that's key to his point doesn't accurately reflect the text he's basing his hunches on, and ignores the context, is to point out that he can paraphrase other snippets of text.
His implication that my post that started him on this particular rant is somehow inconsistent with scripture just demonstrates his inability to deal with anything that doesn't line up with his hunches.
Art,
Of course that's correct. Dan can't or won't deal with any scriptural argument that contradicts his hunches. He simply dismisses those arguments with his stock excuses. He could provide counter arguments, or positive proof that his hunches are correct, but he doesn't. He does crap like this.
Craig...
"Dan can't or won't deal with any scriptural argument that contradicts his hunches."
He said, as he can't and won't deal with any scriptural argument that contradicts his hunches.
Do you not see that YOU all are doing precisely what you're falsely accusing me of?
Da
I have NEVER said that the passage in question didn't also mention recognizing those who aren't good by their not good actions. But, the passage is literally Jesus saying that we CAN recognize the good by their good actions/personhood. You can't deny that reality.
Also, it's one of many passages pointing out good, just, righteous... even perfect people, people after God's own heart. People faithful to God. In the Bible, there are WAY more passages (I'd be willing to bet) that point to the reality of good, just, righteous people than there are of the handful (?) of verses that say, hyperbolically, that there is no one good.
To treat you all in the way of the Accusers of Pharisees have treated the ones they attack, IF you're denying the many verses speaking of good people, then you're calling God a liar and saying the Bible is untrustworthy.
Do you not understand what you're doing in choosing to be the Accuser in this way, over and over again? Do you not see that you're showing the sort of fruit your tree is bearing?
"Do you not see that YOU all are doing precisely what you're falsely accusing me of?"
Coming from someone who regularly does this, this is quite a bizarre statement.
Craig...
"He could provide counter arguments, or positive proof that his hunches are correct, but he doesn't. He does crap like this."
He said, as He does crap like this.
I've explained this over and over. I've made a rational and biblical case, over and over. In summation:
1. The Bible speaks of good people
2. We can SEE actual good people in the world.
3. Biblical authors regularly use hyperbole and figurative language.
Therefore, when we encounter a handful of verses saying NO ONE IS GOOD or EVEN BABIES TELL LIES, then we can rationally understand that the most likely explanation is that the authors were engaging in figurative language.
Now, you may not agree and choose to go with some vague, mysterious and unsupported human theory that guesses that you believe maybe that God thinks that no human is good unless they're perfect like God, but that, too, is a human theory and a rather weak rational guess. Especially when you don't even TRY to deal with biblical verses that speak of good people or just the reality of observably good people.
Dan
"I have NEVER said that the passage in question didn't also mention recognizing those who aren't good by their not good actions. But, the passage is literally Jesus saying that we CAN recognize the good by their good actions/personhood. You can't deny that reality."
Since I literally posted what the passage actually says, and noted that it doesn't say what your paraphrase says, I fail to see why doubling down on your unsupported claim helps you at all.
"Also, it's one of many passages pointing out good, just, righteous... even perfect people, people after God's own heart. People faithful to God. In the Bible, there are WAY more passages (I'd be willing to bet) that point to the reality of good, just, righteous people than there are of the handful (?) of verses that say, hyperbolically, that there is no one good."
1. It's literally the only "passage" you've paraphrased to make your point. Given that, and your taking it out of context, I fail to see why I should take your word for any of the others.
2. I've addressed this multiple times.
3. Your "hyperbolic" excuse is just one more example of you assuming something that supports your hunches without proof.
"To treat you all in the way of the Accusers of Pharisees have treated the ones they attack, IF you're denying the many verses speaking of good people, then you're calling God a liar and saying the Bible is untrustworthy."
Since I'm not doing what you accuse me of...
"Do you not understand what you're doing in choosing to be the Accuser in this way, over and over again? Do you not see that you're showing the sort of fruit your tree is bearing?"
I understand that I'm not doing what you accuse me of, but I understand why you are taking this tack of attacking me instead of proving that your hunch is correct.
"I've explained this over and over. I've made a rational and biblical case, over and over. In summation:"
"Rational" is subjective, and to make a "biblical" case without actually citing specific scripture seems counterintuitive.
1. This relies on your assumption that there is only one "good" and that it is not "good" as YHWH is "good".
2. Again, we can see actions that are good relative to other actions, and relative to one's individual hunches about what is "good". Further we cannot see motivation with close o 100% accuracy and therefore cannot factor in motivation in our assessment of "good". Of course I've offered an explanation for this, that you've consistently ignored.
3. Which doesn't prove that this one specific example was hyperbole or figurative, that's just your unproven hunch.
"Therefore, when we encounter a handful of verses saying NO ONE IS GOOD or EVEN BABIES TELL LIES, then we can rationally understand that the most likely explanation is that the authors were engaging in figurative language."
If one blindly accepts your subjective hunch as the only or even best possible alternative, that may be the case. Fortunately, I don't blindly accept your unproven hunches and anything of value.
"Now, you may not agree and choose to go with some vague, mysterious and unsupported human theory that guesses that you believe maybe that God thinks that no human is good unless they're perfect like God, but that, too, is a human theory and a rather weak rational guess. Especially when you don't even TRY to deal with biblical verses that speak of good people or just the reality of observably good people."
Well, if you're going to make shit up and pretend that it represents something I've actually said, maybe try to make a tiny attempt to be close to accurate. But what you pretend that this made up bullshit represents anything I've said, especially when I've laid out my position multiple times, you just make yourself look like an idiot who's desperate to preserve his made up hunches against any push back.
1. It's literally the only "passage" you've paraphrased to make your point. Given that, and your taking it out of context, I fail to see why I should take your word for any of the others.
There's nothing wrong with paraphrasing a passage. And my paraphrase was not incorrect. Yes, the point of that particular passage was that we can recognize bad men by their bad "fruit," but Jesus still made it perfectly clear that we can recognize good people by their good "fruit." The paraphrase was apt for our conversation.
Again, are you NOT familiar with the many verses which speak of good, just, righteous people? I guess maybe once you get in a human tradition that REALLLY emphasizes the unproven human opinion/theory that all of humanity is "totally depraved" and "evil," even, then they/you all don't bother to read passages that contradict that theory? You tell me.
even if these three men—Noah, Daniel[a] and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord.
~Ezek 14
For God makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
~Matt 5
This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.
Gen 6
“There is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil”
Job 1
Turn from evil and do good;
then you will dwell in the land forever.
For the Lord loves the just
and will not forsake his faithful ones.
Wrongdoers will be completely destroyed;
the offspring of the wicked will perish.
The righteous will inherit the land
and dwell in it forever."
Psalm 37
The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil."
~Matt 12
"For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith."
~Acts 11
...Just a random sampling. There are many more such passages. I'm surprised (but not much) that you're not aware of them. It's like you're ignoring the evidence being presented, fingers in your ears saying, "BUT I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING CONTRARY TO MY HUMAN TRADITIONS!!"
Craig, irrationally and with no support, said:
1. This relies on your assumption that there is only one "good" and that it is not "good" as YHWH is "good".
No, it relies on the notion that we CAN recognize good people and we ARE expected to recognize good people and BE good people in the pages of the Bible. If it weren't possible, then it would be a lie or a cruel joke to make. Are you calling Jesus, etc liars? (again, that's the way you all like to "argue" a point...)
Craig, irrationally and with no support said, again:
2. Again, we can see actions that are good relative to other actions, and relative to one's individual hunches about what is "good".
No, we SEE GOOD ACTIONS and GOOD PEOPLE. No one is talking about with a caveat "...but only barely and comparatively good to others..." I am talking about observably good people AS GOOD IS UNDERSTOOD in the language. When I note the school teacher who poured out their lives in service to children, selflessly giving of themselves to help and educate others, I see a GOOD person doing GOOD work. Where's the comparison? I'm not making one. YOU may be, but that's on you. IF you want to claim that such clearly good people are NOT good... if YOU want to be the accuser of good folks, then YOU can do so if you can support it. But if you can't support it, well, that's your problem, isn't it?
You all are begging the question. You're assuming your human traditions and opinions are correct and then not bothering to try to prove your accusations.
How am I mistaken? Specifically.
Well, if you're going to make shit up and pretend that it represents something I've actually said
It's literally what Marshal's theory is to support his unsupported claims. I don't know what your theory is, as you won't provide one. But by all means, make yourself clear: What IS your specific theory about the non-existence of good people?
"There's nothing wrong with paraphrasing a passage."
There is if the paraphrase misrepresents the content of the passage and is used to further a false, incorrect, or misleading narrative.
"And my paraphrase was not incorrect."
As I posted your exact paraphrase, and the exact text, and the text does NOT contain things that your paraphrase added, I beg to differ.
"Yes, the point of that particular passage was that we can recognize bad men by their bad "fruit," but Jesus still made it perfectly clear that we can recognize good people by their good "fruit." The paraphrase was apt for our conversation."
While Jesus might have made that point, it was not in the passage you paraphrased and not in the context of the snippet you cherry picked for your proof text.
"Again, are you NOT familiar with the many verses which speak of good, just, righteous people?"
I am. I just don't think that you've offered anything that demonstrates that your hunch about how they relate to Jesus' claim about only YHWH being "good" is accurate. Further, as you literally offered one (imperfect) paraphrase of one out of context verse, where your paraphrase added information not in the verse, as your one proof text, I fail to see how bringing additional proof texts helps the actual case you made.
"I guess maybe once you get in a human tradition that REALLLY emphasizes the unproven human opinion/theory that all of humanity is "totally depraved" and "evil," even, then they/you all don't bother to read passages that contradict that theory? You tell me."
Once again, your "guess" is wrong, yet you keep on with this bullshit guessing. I have "told you", you've ignored what I've "told you", and I've stopped repeating myself.
"...Just a random sampling. There are many more such passages. I'm surprised (but not much) that you're not aware of them. It's like you're ignoring the evidence being presented, fingers in your ears saying, "BUT I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING CONTRARY TO MY HUMAN TRADITIONS!!""
Again, you make up false bullshit and pretend like it represents anything that I've actually said. No wonder you think your paraphrase, which added things not in the text, is just fine. You clearly have no problem making shit up and attributing it to others.
"It's literally what Marshal's theory is to support his unsupported claims. I don't know what your theory is, as you won't provide one. But by all means, make yourself clear: What IS your specific theory about the non-existence of good people?"
What a bizarre response to you making shit up and pretending that it represents what others have said.
If you are going to make claims about Art's "theory" then quote him directly, don't make shit up and pretend it's what he said.
I've repeatedly made myself "clear" that you've ignored or misrepresented what I've said, isn't my problem. I see no reason to repeat what I've already said when it's readily available to you, and you choose to pretend that your made up bullshit represents me. It's your job to prove that the claims you make are accurate. That you refuse to do so, while demanding that others do what you won't is your problem. That you make up bullshit is also your problem.
I can state my case directly so Dan doesn't feel the temptation to inaccurately "paraphrase" it:
There is none good but God.
How do I know this? Jesus said so in quite a definitive manner. It was unambiguous and direct.
But could Jesus have been speaking figuratively or using hyperbole? There's no indication of either in the context of the passage in which He says this. What's more, it aligns with the many and various other passages which speak of man's sin nature, which exists in all people.
But Dan says I'm insisting that "good" means "perfect". Not really. But Jesus is by saying there is none good but God. I'm "good" with that. It doesn't mean I can't refer to another human being as "good", which necessarily suggests a contrast between that human being and others whose moral quality doesn't match his. It's illogical that one can be both "good" and possessed of a sin nature which results in a propensity to sin. God has no such sin nature nor a propensity to sin. That's why He's "good" and no human being is.
But what about all the verses wherein God/Jesus refers to "good people".
There are three distinct examples of such:
1. God/Jesus referring to what "good people" look like, while not identifying anyone specifically. That is, if one is a good person, he'll look/act like this (with examples given).
2. God/Jesus speaking generally to make a point, such as "God's grace falls on both the evil and the good". Again, no specific persons in mind because it's not about any specific person.
3. As with we humans, referencing a human as "good" or "righteous" is always said with the community in which the subject exists in mind, as well as the striving of the subject to be "good" or "righteous". But given all such subjects are human beings with a sin nature, they cannot truly be "good" or "righteous" or any other quality unique to God.
Why these realities put Dan's panties in such a bunch is curious indeed. But his objections are not really any different than the typical person who objects to being called a sinner. Dan's doing the exact same thing in a different way. It's one thing for us to use the word "good" to describe someone as a means by which others can have some confidence in the quality of the person so described. But to balk so irrationally in confronting the truth that no one is truly good is mental.
Art,
Do you really think that you stating your case with clarity and detail will stop Dan from paraphrasing it?
I think you're right in the sense that "good" actions are always relative to something or someone. Clearly the YHWH intrinsic "good" is beyond us, yet He also gave us the pathway to stand before Him as positionaly sinless and holy. Our "goodness" is not based on our actions, but on YHWH's action.
Craig:
I've repeatedly made myself "clear" that you've ignored or misrepresented
Then help me understand, as I have not ignored anything you've said or intentionally misrepresented anything you've said. I'm trying to understand your human theory on "sin" and humanity. Help me. I'll try to make it simple. I'll state what I've said and what I believe, and ask if this is also something you agree with, then you can clarify one way or the other.
I. I acknowledge the objective reality that in the Bible, there are a few verses that read like "no one is good but God...." AND at the same time, there are verses that cite actual good people - even perfect people.
Do you agree that this is the reality that we can find both sorts of comments in the pages of the Bible?
II. I note the potential conflict of Jesus saying "No one is good but God" and Jesus saying God causes the rain to fall and sun to fall on the just and unjust, the good and the evil, clearly indicating the existence of good people. There are also many such verses indicating the existence of good people in the Bible.
Do you acknowledge there could be seen as a potential conflict between saying "There are NO good people" and "There are good people..."?
III. I acknowledge the observable reality that throughout the pages of the Bible, there are many times when figurative statements/language are used and times when the language seems more literal.
Do you acknowledge the biblical authors sometimes use figurative language?
IV. I further acknowledge the reasonable position that not every claim needs to be "proven" with a bible verse. Some realities are observable. For instance, when the Psalmist says that the wicked go astray and spread lies from birth (Psalm 58), that we don't NEED to find a verse to "prove" that newborns don't spread lies. We can observe the reality that of course, newborns are not capable of telling, much less spreading lies.
DO you recognize that not every claim needs to be proven or disproven with a Bible verse? That some things, we can just see and observe and if there is a verse that contradicts something observably actual in the real world, then we can be reasonably certain that said verse should not be taken literally?
V. Given the reality that there are bible passages that refer both to NO, there are no good people and YES, there are good people, AND given the reality that biblical authors use figurative language, I'm saying it's reasonable to take the claim that there are NO good people, that NO ONE is good but God as a figurative, hyperbolic claim, just as we do for the claim about lying newborns. It's a ridiculous and unsupported theory to suggest there are no good people or that newborns spread lies.
Do you see - even if you don't agree - that it's not irrational or unbiblical in any sense whatsoever to take the "no good people" as figurative... that people have good reasons - biblical and rational reasons - to take it figuratively?
If not, why not? Why is it "wrong" in your personal opinion, to take it figuratively IF you think that?
VI. Whatever your personal opinions about "good people," do you acknowledge that no person has objective proof to support a claim that there are no good humans? Do you agree that anyone who thinks that there are no good people, that it IS a personal, subjective and unproven human opinion?
Help me understand.
dan
I think you're right in the sense that "good" actions are always relative to something or someone.
And you're certainly welcome to that opinion. But my repeated question to you is: Do you all understand that this is an unproven personal theory you all have with no hard data to support it?
Do you understand that people of good will may say, "Well, people who are good are just demonstrably good, based on their attitudes and actions. There's really no comparison to anyone else happening..." And that is a completely valid opinion with more demonstrable support than your personal human opinions?
Clearly the YHWH intrinsic "good" is beyond us
Clearly, mortal humans will never be perfect like God is perfect (even though Scripture encourages us to do so!) But perfect is different than good. Do you agree that there's a huge difference between saying "No one is perfect" and saying "No one is good..." The former is obvious and demonstrable, the latter is a matter of debate and almost certainly not an objective fact, taken literally.
It's your job to prove that the claims you make are accurate.
That's why I go to such lengths to make sure I do. That's why I strive to be clear when I'm offering (or YOU are offering) a subjective, unproven human opinion rather than an objective fact.
See:
A. It is an objective fact that the Bible repeatedly speaks about good people.
B. It is an objective fact that the Biblical authors sometimes/often use figurative language.
C. It is an objective fact that humans today have no way to appeal to biblical authors to get authoritative, objectively proven interpretations on any texts (was that line meant literally or figuratively? Was that line meant as literal history or as myth/legend? etc)
D. It is an objective fact that humans of good will may love the Bible and the God of the Bible and disagree in good faith on things like "The notion of there being NO good humans is debatable..."
Like that. Those are all established, observable objective facts. Do you disagree? By all means, prove otherwise if you disagree. Just provide the data and not your personal opinion about the best interpretation of a text.
You keep saying things like this...
As you cannot prove that either of the above claims are objectively True, nor can you objectively prove that the motives behind the actions are 100% pure and noble (or knowable), this is just one more of your claims that you desperately want to be accepted as True without actually demonstrating that it is True.
And I keep pointing out that Jesus and Paul and others keep telling us we CAN know people by their actions and attitudes. And just regular folk... you and me, we CAN and do regularly recognize good people.
As a point of objective fact, people regularly do recognize good people.
Now, in saying that, am I saying we can completely or perfectly recognize good people? No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying, generally speaking, it's just not that hard to recognize good people.
Do you disagree? Do you have a theory that generally and most of the time, humans are incapable of recognizing good people?
If so, based on what?
Or, do you have a theory that unless and until we can perfectly recognize good people, that we shouldn't say we can recognize good people?
Also, a reminder that me asking questions about your increasingly and unceasingly vague positions is not me making an accusation. It's a question.
Dan
Marshal...
"Dan says I'm insisting that "good" means "perfect". Not really. But Jesus is by saying there is none good but God. I'm "good" with that."
Then help me understand, Marshal.
You're NOT saying that it's an objective fact that Jesus redefined good to mean, perfect?
Are you saying that's only your personal, subjective and unproven human theory?
If so, great. We agree.
I believe you indicated on my blog that it's NOT just your opinion, that it's a fact. Perhaps you misspoke.
Feel free to clarify.
Dan
"Do you really think that you stating your case with clarity and detail will stop Dan from paraphrasing it?"
Uh...no.
Dan clearly believes one's actions determine their goodness. But again, he does so...intentionally or otherwise...to deflect from the truth, which is that we're all sinners, as made clear in Scripture. This fact is reflected in Christ's pronouncement of truth that, "None are good but God." Jesus defines what "good" is with this statement. Dan can't accept it and regards it as disparaging to people who are "good" compared to other people, as if that isn't good enough as far as it goes...which isn't as far as truly "good".
To Dan, accepting this truth makes us "the Accuser"...the latest accusation (ironically enough) to go with his assertion we're like Pharisees.
I. So.
"Do you agree that this is the reality that we can find both sorts of comments in the pages of the Bible?"
Yes.
II. I don't see a conflict. You clearly do, likely because of your prior commitment to your hunch that all people are intrinsically good, and that Jesus didn't mean what He said.
"Do you acknowledge there could be seen as a potential conflict between saying "There are NO good people" and "There are good people..."?"
Sure, it's possible.
III. So, you acknowledge that you subjectively and without any real basis decide what seems like figurative/literal language to you and expect others to accept your subjective, unproven hunch.
"Do you acknowledge the biblical authors sometimes use figurative language?"
If you really read, paid attention to, and understood my responses, you wouldn't be wasting my time with this stupidity.
IV. No, but you do need to prove you claim somehow using something beyond your subjective hunches.
"DO you recognize that not every claim needs to be proven or disproven with a Bible verse?"
Not if your making claims about things the Bible deals with, even if it's not required it seems like something that an alleged christian, who loves the Bible would do when discussing things that are "Biblical".
" That some things, we can just see and observe and if there is a verse that contradicts something observably actual in the real world, then we can be reasonably certain that said verse should not be taken literally?"
That's quite the unproven, unsupported, leap of faith. If you can objectively prove this, beyond your subjective observations/anecdotes/hunches go right ahead. But I see what you did, you tried to slip your subjective, unproven, hunches in as if they were objective Truth without actually demonstrating your claim.
V. I don't really care what you "say". It's as irrelevant as your subjective "Reason".
"Do you see - even if you don't agree - that it's not irrational or unbiblical in any sense whatsoever to take the "no good people" as figurative... that people have good reasons - biblical and rational reasons - to take it figuratively?"
Sure, I can see that some people could misinterpret scripture in many ways. I can see how people put their own subjective, biased, personal hunches above all else and use those to judge everything else. I can see how people might take their subjective, anecdotal experiences based on imperfect/incomplete biased observation of a small sample size of like minded people and assume that their biased, subjective, observations apply universally.
"If not, why not? Why is it "wrong" in your personal opinion, to take it figuratively IF you think that?"
Take it however you like, just stop pretending that it's anything but your subjective, unproven, hunch. Or prove that your hunch is correct, and that Jesus was lying/mistaken/deceptive/wrong. Your lack of a plausible alternative explanation for Jesus' clear and direct claim also detracts from your credibility.
VI. "Whatever your personal opinions about "good people," do you acknowledge that no person has objective proof to support a claim that there are no good humans?"
Once you acknowledge that you have no objective proof to support your claims, I'll be happy to consider your demand. As long as you won't do what you demand of others, I'll pass. Or you could read and pay attention to what I've said repeatedly.
"Do you agree that anyone who thinks that there are no good people, that it IS a personal, subjective and unproven human opinion?"
Well, I'd say that Jesus' words do not represent "a personal, subjective, human opinion", and that quoting Jesus' words is merely repeating what He said not stating a "personal, subjective, human, opinion". It's quoting Jesus' claim, a claim you haven't proven to be wrong.
"Help me understand."
Given your apparent unwillingness to understand what I've said clearly and repeatedly and your condescending tone, I seriously doubt you care to understand.
"And you're certainly welcome to that opinion. But my repeated question to you is: Do you all understand that this is an unproven personal theory you all have with no hard data to support it?"
Thank you for condescendingly, ungraciously, allowing me to reach and express my own conclusions at my own blog, that's so nice of you. Given that you've provided no "data" (hard or otherwise) to demonstrate that my conclusion is objectively wrong, I fail to see how you making this claim represents anything but you asserting that your "unproven, subjective, human, hunch" is right while everyone else is wrong.
"Do you understand that people of good will may say, "Well, people who are good are just demonstrably good, based on their attitudes and actions. There's really no comparison to anyone else happening..." And that is a completely valid opinion with more demonstrable support than your personal human opinions?"
Yes, I understand that people do express those opinions, I also understand that the mere fact that someone expresses a subjective, unproven, personal opinion doesn't make that opinion True. Your continued insistence that the existence of an opinion that is different, somehow renders the other "opinion" false is simply absurd. People say all sorts of things that aren't True. Harris keeps saying that she'll "fix" the housing situation and magically conjure up millions of "affordable" houses, which simply defies the reality that exists in multiple ways.
"Do you agree that there's a huge difference between saying "No one is perfect" and saying "No one is good..." The former is obvious and demonstrable, the latter is a matter of debate and almost certainly not an objective fact, taken literally."
Please demonstrate that "No one is perfect" is demonstrable. I'll wait.
You keep making these unproven claims as if the fact that you make them renders them True and unassailable,
"That's why I go to such lengths to make sure I do. That's why I strive to be clear when I'm offering (or YOU are offering) a subjective, unproven human opinion rather than an objective fact."
Then you regularly fail to do so. Offering yourself, your anecdotal observations, your subjective "Reason", or anything grounded in yourself is not objective proof of anything.
A.It is an objective fact that you have no special insight into what the Biblical authors specifically mean by "good", and whether or not they are all referring to the same definition of "good" every time they use the word(s) translated as "good".
B.Which does NOT objectively prove that Jesus (or any specific text) was using figurative language in His statement that "No one is good...". You regularly use this tactic as a way to "prove" that the general use of figurative language elsewhere in the Biblical text proves that the specific Biblical text you don't like can only be described as figurative.
C. If you say so.
D. Which, again does NOT automatically mean that those who insist that Jesus was wrong/using figurative language/mistaken/misleading/etc are correct. Again, arguing that some vague, general "principle" proves the specific instance is ridiculous.
"By all means, prove otherwise if you disagree. Just provide the data and not your personal opinion about the best interpretation of a text."
Once you provide the objective, unequivocal, hard, proven, "data" that proves your claims to be objectively True, without any reference to you or your Reason/observation/anecdotes/etc, then we can talk. But not until you do what you demand of others.
I keep saying things like that because they are True.
"And I keep pointing out that Jesus and Paul and others keep telling us we CAN know people by their actions and attitudes. And just regular folk... you and me, we CAN and do regularly recognize good people."
Interesting, are you now claiming that the recorded words of "Jesus and Paul" are "hard data" that can prove something to be objectively True?
Of course, I've dealt with repeatedly and see no reason to do so again.
"As a point of objective fact, people regularly do recognize good people."
Yes, people recognize that people are "good" relative to other people or relative to whatever subjective standard their society recognizes as "good". If you simply watch the reactions of thousands of Muslims and Hamas/Hezbollah supporters to events like 10/7, it seems clear that they regard the actions of the perpetrators of 10/7 as "good". Hell, they think that the 10/7 perpetrators are holy because they're killing Jews. Many Germans thought that it was "good" to turn in Jews to the NAZIs. Many African tribes thought it was "good" to kidnap and sell weaker tribes into slavery. But you keep on insisting that you can infallibly identify "good people".
"Now, in saying that, am I saying we can completely or perfectly recognize good people? No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying, generally speaking, it's just not that hard to recognize good people."
Yeah, you kinda are, you just want to cover your ass. Of course we can recognize that people's actions are "good" relative to other people's actions or relative to subjective social mores. Unfortinately to identify a "good person" (not merely a person who does relatively "good" deeds) requires the ability to know motives and thoughts.
"Do you disagree? Do you have a theory that generally and most of the time, humans are incapable of recognizing good people?"
I've answered this repeatedly, I'm done repeating myself.
"If so, based on what?"
Reality. That no one can read people's minds and determine their motivation for doing "good" deeds.
"Or, do you have a theory that unless and until we can perfectly recognize good people, that we shouldn't say we can recognize good people?"
No. Me pointing out flaws in your hunches, doesn't require me to provide an alternate option that satisfies you.
"Also, a reminder that me asking questions about your increasingly and unceasingly vague positions is not me making an accusation. It's a question."
When the "question" contains a claim or accusation, then it's appropriate to point that out. For example, when you "ask" "Because you believe X, why won't you do or say Y?". There is a specific claim being made "Because you believe X", when you haven't proven the claim that underlies the "question", you need to prove the claim or the "question" is invalid. Not to mention the fact that you often add a "?" to the end of a statement to pretend that you've asked a question.
Craig:
II. I don't see a conflict. You clearly do, likely because of your prior commitment to your hunch that all people are intrinsically good, and that Jesus didn't mean what He said.
I'd ask you to be respectful and argue in good faith.
1. I have been entirely clear that I do not believe that "all people are intrinsically good." Period. I've clarified that with you over and over. This is just a stupidly false claim. Do you understand that now? Perhaps it's the case that you have a bad memory as I do and you just keep forgetting what I've made clear.
2. I'm not disagreeing with Jesus. Period.
3. If one person claims: THERE ARE NO GOOD PEOPLE. And then they claim, "THERE ARE GOOD PEOPLE." ... those are two comments directly in conflict with each other. They are contradictory IF one is taking both literally. It can't be factually correct that there are both NO good people and there ARE good people. One or the other is right, if you're talking about taking them literally.
Do you think that it's both true that there are NO good people and yet, there ARE good people?
Please clarify.
Dan
"You're NOT saying that it's an objective fact that Jesus redefined good to mean, perfect?"
This is correct. I'm NOT saying Jesus "redefined" the word "good" to mean "perfect". Jesus clarified the word "good" already meant "perfect". Otherwise, He would not have expressed that the word is unique to God.
"Are you saying that's only your personal, subjective and unproven human theory?"
No. When I repeat what was clearly presented in Scripture, I'm not presenting my opinion. Direct statements as this one from Jesus does not lend itself to opinion. He's either saying something which is true or He's not. I've no reason to doubt His word, given He's not prone to lying or misleading. The problem isn't with what Jesus said, but with what mankind has been saying. We're misusing the word, while He clarified reality.
However, so long as we understand the truth He clarified, we're free to operate in the way we have been, now understanding that our use of the word and ONLY be a case of contrasting the quality of one person against others, on the basis of our own subjective or cultural notions of what constitutes "good".
Thus, you can point to someone you know, list their qualities and good deeds, and apart from the fact that this person was born with a sin nature, I can know this person isn't truly good if you've described the person as being in agreement with the various immoral behaviors you promote, defend, celebrate and enable. Such a person is clearly a sinner who strives to do good according to subjective standards of what constitutes "good".
"I believe you indicated on my blog that it's NOT just your opinion, that it's a fact. Perhaps you misspoke."
I did not. It's a fact. Jesus doesn't lie.
"Feel free to clarify."
I just did...yet again. Are you merely hoping I'll say something in a way which will allow you continue in your false beliefs?
And by the way, you contradict yourself when you prove Jesus wasn't literal by citing other statements of His as if those weren't figurative. This indicates you're willing to assert when He's speaking one way or the other as serves you to do so. The question then is, why is He speaking figuratively about there being none good but God, and not figuratively when saying something like "it rains on by the evil and the good"? The answer is clearly: because you NEED Him to be speaking figuratively for the sake of those YOU regard as "good".
Craig:
You've been clear that children are born perfectly "good" and 100% free from sin, have you not?Do you disagree?
I get that you have a human theory that newborn babies have a theoretical "sin nature," but that is not the same as saying that newborn babies have sinned. Right?
Presumably you agree that new born babies have not sinned. (because even conservatives can't be that obtuse!)
Do you also agree that your theories about a theoretical "sin nature" are not objectively proven and are just a human opinion?
How is this not claiming that everyone is born intrinsically good?
Because in the real world, there is a difference between acknowledging the simple reality that new born babes have committed exactly zero sins and saying that all humans are intrinsically good.
I'm noting the reality that newborns have committed ZERO sins AND that all humans, given time, will make mistakes and be imperfect and will commit what you think of as "sin."
Do you disagree with that?
You see, I'm trying very hard to stick with what is observable and demonstrable, as distinguished between human theories and human traditions and human opinions about a theoretical "sin nature," which you objectively can not prove.
Do you agree that you can't prove your human opinion about a "sin nature?"
Do you acknowledge that the term "sin nature" is not found anywhere in the Bible and that it is a human theory, NOT something the Bible or Jesus or God explicitly tell us about?
Dan
Craig:
Starting with the original post that began this conversation.
I'm sure you think that in your head. But I've looked at your words in the original post that you wrote. You nowhere make it clear if you think there are NO good people or if there ARE some good people.
From what you've said so far, I THINK you are saying that:
1. Jesus said there are no good people.
2. Jesus also noted that we can see/recognize good people.
3. That there are people who are "comparatively good," but, in YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN OPINION, unsupported by any objective hard data, you personally in your head don't think they are ACTUALLY "good people," only people who are good "in comparison to other people..
But I honestly don't know what you actually think, that's why I ask the questions I'm asking. What DO you think?
If you think that there are "relatively good people, but only if you compare them to other humans..." Do you recognize that is your personal opinion, not a proven fact?
When I say there are good people, I'm talking about definitionally good people... People who are good according to the common understanding of the notion of GOOD.
Do you disagree?
That is, "good" has a common definition (biblically and for us today). I'm saying that, GIVEN the common understanding of "good people," there ARE objectively, definitionally good people in the world - people who are kind, helpful, compassionate, giving, forgiving and loving.
DO YOU DISAGREE?
DO YOU DISAGREE that this is the commonly understood English (Greek, Hebrew, etc) definition of the word?
Help me understand your personal human opinions.
Help me understand whether or not you think your personal human opinions are objective facts or just your personal subjective human opinions.
Dan
I noted:
A. It is an objective fact that the Bible repeatedly speaks about good people.
You replied:
A. It is an objective fact that you have no special insight into what the Biblical authors specifically mean by "good", and whether or not they are all referring to the same definition of "good" every time they use the word(s) translated as "good".
So... do you AGREE with the reality that the biblical authors speak of good people?
From there, you appear to note that NO HUMAN has "special insight into what the authors specifically mean by good..."
Is that what you're saying?
If you are merely noting that none of us can objectively prove that any of us can objectively prove what the biblical authors meant - in any authoritative sense - what they mean by good, that's fine. But you tell me if that's what you mean.
Do YOU, Craig, have no objective proof of what the biblical authors meant by good people, when they referenced them?
I further noted:
B. It is an objective fact that the Biblical authors sometimes/often use figurative language.
instead of answering, you said:
B.Which does NOT objectively prove that Jesus (or any specific text) was using figurative language in His statement that "No one is good...".
I'm glad to agree that neither you nor I can objectively prove what Jesus was thinking when he said no one is good. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
I said:
C. It is an objective fact that humans today have no way to appeal to biblical authors to get authoritative, objectively proven interpretations on any texts (was that line meant literally or figuratively? Was that line meant as literal history or as myth/legend? etc)
You responded...
If you say so...
NO. I'm asking if you agree with that reality. YOU can choose to tell me if you agree or not, I can't answer for you.
I said:
D. It is an objective fact that humans of good will may love the Bible and the God of the Bible and disagree in good faith on things like "The notion of there being NO good humans is debatable..."
And you responded:
Which, again does NOT automatically mean that those who insist that Jesus was wrong/using figurative language/mistaken/misleading/etc are correct. Again, arguing that some vague, general "principle" proves the specific instance is ridiculous.
Fair enough. When I think that Jesus clearly meant to use "there are no good people" in a figurative manner, it is MY HUMAN opinion. When YOU take it literally, do you likewise agree that it is YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN opinion, one you can't prove?
Will you ever answer questions directly?
I said and asked:
III. I acknowledge the observable reality that throughout the pages of the Bible, there are many times when figurative statements/language are used and times when the language seems more literal.
Do you acknowledge the biblical authors sometimes use figurative language?
Without answering my question, Craig responded:
III. So, you acknowledge that you subjectively and without any real basis decide what seems like figurative/literal language to you and expect others to accept your subjective, unproven hunch.
No. I did not say I "acknowledge that I subjectively and without any real basis decide what seems like figurative language..."
What I acknowledge is the reality that there ARE figurative phrases/language in the Bible. DO YOU DISAGREE with that reality?
I further do acknowledge that it is up to you and to me to decide, for ourselves, what is and isn't figurative.
Do you disagree?Do you disagree?</B?
IF you think in your head that YOU personally have some rubric that lets YOU PERSONALLY know authoritatively what is and isn't objectively figurative, please share. IF you have no such rubric, please be intellectually honest enough to say clearly: "I HAVE NO RUBRIC that authoritatively, objectively gives me these sorts of answers."
Dan
Craig...
If you say so now. You seem quite clear when you insist that Jesus was using "hyperbole" when He made the "no on is good" statement, yet you have no possible way of knowing with a high degree of certainty if your hunch is True.
I disagree with your human hunch.
As I've said, IF there is a passage anywhere that contradicts known reality, we can be fairly certain that the claim was figurative in some fashion or just mistaken.
If there is a claim that the entire universe was created in six days, we can certain that the original claim is either figurative or mistaken.
If there is a claim that newborns spread lies, we can be fairly certain that the original claim is either figurative or mistaken.
If there is a claim that lightning in the skies are shot from the hands of a sky god, we can be fairly certain that the original claim is either figurative or mistaken.
It doesn't matter if the original claim comes from the Bible or some other source, reality doesn't contradict itself, at least as a rule.
Do you disagree?
If you do disagree, do you acknowledge that disagreement is your personal human opinion, not objective fact?
Dan
"Because in the real world, there is a difference between acknowledging the simple reality that new born babes have committed exactly zero sins and saying that all humans are intrinsically good."
Well, restating your premise without proof certainly clears things up
"I'm noting the reality that newborns have committed ZERO sins AND that all humans, given time, will make mistakes and be imperfect and will commit what you think of as "sin.""
So, you are stating that it is inevitable that all humans with commit what YHWH calls "sin", yet humans are not born with a nature that makes the sin inevitable. Somehow all these perfect children inevitably sin for no reason.
"Do you disagree with that?"
Obviously. I disagree with you defining sin only as "mistakes", with your insistence that "sin" is something I dreamed up, and with the incoherence of perfect/sinless children all of a sudden just "sinning" absent something in their nature that makes it inevitable.
"You see, I'm trying very hard to stick with what is observable and demonstrable, as distinguished between human theories and human traditions and human opinions about a theoretical "sin nature," which you objectively can not prove."
How interesting. You are seriously claiming that you have observed every child ever born, applied some sort of test that provides 100% accurate empirical "data" that allows you to make such a broad claim of objective fact. Impressive. I've never seen anyone who's able to read minds like you can along with the ability to "observe" every child.
"Do you agree that you can't prove your human opinion about a "sin nature?""
Well, I'd suggest that the literal reality that the percentage of people who commit sin is 100%, (Jesus being the exception), and that something withing human nature would drive that sin is a place to start. Of course, you can't "prove" any of your various hunches, and that doesn't stop you from making all sorts of claims. I'm merely agreeing with the Christian doctrine which has somehow hung around for thousands of years.
"Do you acknowledge that the term "sin nature" is not found anywhere in the Bible and that it is a human theory, NOT something the Bible or Jesus or God explicitly tell us about?"
I acknowledge that many terms are not found in the Bible, yet express Truth that is in the Bible. I'd suggest that "All have sinned", is the functional equivalent of "sin nature". Strangely enough, many if not most of your claims meet the criteria you demand of others, yet that doesn't seem to concern you.
FYI, the fact that a specific "term" is not "in the Bible" doesn't mean that the "term" does not accurately convey a Biblical Truth. That is just your way to divert the topic.
"I'm sure you think that in your head. But I've looked at your words in the original post that you wrote. You nowhere make it clear if you think there are NO good people or if there ARE some good people."
That's not my problem. I've been clear in multiple comments and the original post. If you can't figure it out, that's not my problem and I see no reason to spoon feed it to you again. The very fact that you can't seem to conceive of this misunderstanding not being my fault, and can't imagine that you could be the problem tells me all I need to know.
From what you've said so far, I THINK you are saying that:
You're actually pretty close, unfortunately you had to start with the bullshit.
"But I honestly don't know what you actually think, that's why I ask the questions I'm asking. What DO you think?"
Read for understanding, not to blame me for not spoon feeding you, and comprehension.
"If you think that there are "relatively good people, but only if you compare them to other humans..." Do you recognize that is your personal opinion, not a proven fact?"
If you say so. Given that you have been clear (at least as clear as you can be) that the "good" that describes "YWHW" is perfection, as is the "mark" that every single human will "miss". So, obviously, you can't be taking your standard of measuring "good" from the "good" used to describe YHWH. Therefore, you can only be basing your standard for measuring "good" based on something else. It could be your subjective "moral code" or it could be the actions of others, you're not telling. What you are doing is declaring that some people are "good" based on your personal observation of some of their actions and none of their motivation/intent. By all means explain how you can honestly describe people as "good" with such a staggering lack of evidence, and why you don't just be honest and say that you observe some people engaging in actions you believe to be "good", with no objective knowledge of their motivation/ intent.
"When I say there are good people, I'm talking about definitionally good people... People who are good according to the common understanding of the notion of GOOD."
Excellent job of using a term to define itself.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes. I believe that people who are "not good" can and do engage in actions that we perceive as "good" based on some subjective standard.
"That is, "good" has a common definition (biblically and for us today). I'm saying that, GIVEN the common understanding of "good people," there ARE objectively, definitionally good people in the world - people who are kind, helpful, compassionate, giving, forgiving and loving."
Well, if you say so and choose not to provide this Biblical definition, and share your magical ability to read minds, I guess we have no choice but to uncritically believe you. Because you said so, powerful evidence.
"DO YOU DISAGREE?"
Yes.
"DO YOU DISAGREE that this is the commonly understood English (Greek, Hebrew, etc) definition of the word?"
Since you haven't provided a "definition" to agree with, I can't disagree with something that doesn't exist.
"Help me understand whether or not you think your personal human opinions are objective facts or just your personal subjective human opinions."
I have never, and would never claim that my personal opinions are facts. Unlike you.
"So... do you AGREE with the reality that the biblical authors speak of good people?"
I agree that the notion exists in scripture, although you haven't even attempted to prove that your hunches and the Biblical uses mean the same thing.
"Is that what you're saying?"
No.
"If you are merely noting that none of us can objectively prove that any of us can objectively prove what the biblical authors meant - in any authoritative sense - what they mean by good, that's fine. But you tell me if that's what you mean."
I'm telling you that I've seen no evidence that demonstrates your ability to divine some special, mysterious, secret meaning to the text, that often contradicts the plain meaning of the text. Clearly there are people who are better at interpreting scripture than others.
"Do YOU, Craig, have no objective proof of what the biblical authors meant by good people, when they referenced them?"
I've never claimed to, you have. Who should be proving their claim?
B. Because repeating this meaningless claim somehow magically helps your case that in ONE SPECIFIC INSTANCE Jesus was definitely, without question, using figurative language.
"instead of answering, you said:"
That was the answer. You are trying to claim that the mere existence of figurative language in scripture proves without a doubt that Jesus used figurative language in one specific instance. THAT'S NOT PROOF.
"I'm glad to agree that neither you nor I can objectively prove what Jesus was thinking when he said no one is good. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?"
No.
C. Again, repetition somehow makes things more True.
You responded...
"NO. I'm asking if you agree with that reality. YOU can choose to tell me if you agree or not, I can't answer for you."
Since you didn't ask a question, I saw/see no reason to answer. I responded the way I did because it made the most sense.
"I said:"
Well, if you "said" something I guess that settles it, especially if you repeat something and preface the repetition with "I said".
"Fair enough. When I think that Jesus clearly meant to use "there are no good people" in a figurative manner, it is MY HUMAN opinion. When YOU take it literally, do you likewise agree that it is YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN opinion, one you can't prove?"
Since you can't "prove" your hunch, and your pathetic attempt to pretend that the existence of "figurative language" elsewhere in scripture validates your hunch about this one specific scripture, failed so badly that you aren't even going to try to justify it, I fail to see your point.
I'm merely arguing the obvious. Jesus said what was recorded, and His words were accurately translated from Aramaic or Koine to English with a reasonably high degree of accuracy. You are the one whose hunch is that Jesus didn't really MEAN what He is recorded as saying, that He really MEANT something entirely different. That He actually meant something completely opposite of the clear, obvious, meaning of His recorded words. I can't imagine an instance where the burden is on me (for simply agreeing with Jesus' recorded words), instead of on you who is proposing that He meant something else entirely.
"Will you ever answer questions directly?"
I regularly do, you should try it more often.
"No. I did not say I "acknowledge that I subjectively and without any real basis decide what seems like figurative language...""
I was being sarcastic. Of course you don't acknowledge the things you regularly do, how stupid would it be to acknowledge your own actions? I'll simply note that your default response whenever anything in scripture doesn't align with your personal, subjective, eisegetic, framework, you simply declare it to be "figurative language" choose not to provide any proof or explanation of the "figurative" meaning, and move on. As if you waving a magic wand and declaring something "figurative" solves everything.
"What I acknowledge is the reality that there ARE figurative phrases/language in the Bible. DO YOU DISAGREE with that reality?"
How many times do I have to answer this????? Again, yes! Yet the existence of "figurative language" in general DOES NOT "prove" that a specific instance (In this case Jesus' claim. Because the further you can move the discussion of one specific claim, the better it suits your inability to deal with that one specific claim.) is definitively "figurative language". You just do so arbitrarily.
"I further do acknowledge that it is up to you and to me to decide, for ourselves, what is and isn't figurative."
If you say so.
"Do you disagree?Do you disagree?</B?"
Yes.
"IF you think in your head that YOU personally have some rubric that lets YOU PERSONALLY know authoritatively what is and isn't objectively figurative, please share. IF you have no such rubric, please be intellectually honest enough to say clearly: "I HAVE NO RUBRIC that authoritatively, objectively gives me these sorts of answers.""
Your incessant demands that I recite some rubric that you've invented, as a way to pretend like your rubric somehow represents anything but your vivid imagination, while you simultaneously project what you do regularly onto me, is old and not worth wasting time with. Your double standard shtick is tired, idiotic, and absurd.
"I disagree with your human hunch."
What "human hunch"? The "human hunch" that you have not, can not, and will not, actually demonstrate to even a minuscule degree of certainty that Jesus' claim that "no one" is "good" is objectively "figurative language". Conversely, you can not, have not, and will not, prove that the plain meaning of the text, is not the correct meaning of the text.
"As I've said, IF there is a passage anywhere that contradicts known reality, we can be fairly certain that the claim was figurative in some fashion or just mistaken."
Interesting claim. That you have the ability to "know" all "reality" on a certain topic, is quite extraordinary. To act as if "reality" is limited to only that which you can "know" is extraordinary as well. I won't bother to ask you to prove this extraordinary claim, as I know that you can't and wouldn't even if you could.
"If there is a claim that the entire universe was created in six days, we can certain that the original claim is either figurative or mistaken."
Actually, we can be certain that it is either True, "figurative" or "mistaken. Unless you have eyewitness testimony or secret proof that is 100% accurate, you can't simply ignore the very possibility (even if you'd consider it remote) that Truth is an option. But, to be fair, this is exactly how you operate. You set up a situation, exclude one or more possibilities arbitrarily, and then announce that your (false) example is simply "reality".
Before, you even start with your idiotic demands. I am merely pointing out the possibility that "True" is an option whether you like it or not. But, this is exactly my problem. Let's say I grant your premise about Creation. That STILL DOESN'T prove that your hunch about the claim of Jesus in question is absolutely figurative or mistaken. It's a nice attempt, but it fails for two reasons.
"If there is a claim that newborns spread lies, we can be fairly certain that the original claim is either figurative or mistaken."
I'll simply note that the fact that you used the modifier "fairly" before "certain" is an acknowledgement that you CAN"T actually BE certain, and that you can't actually determine what the likelihood of being CERTAIN really is.
I'm not going to wast time with your idiotic diversions, when none of them help you with the problem of one specific claim of Jesus. If you think that discussing everything besides the veracity of the one specific claim of Jesus being discussed helps you prove your hunch about that claim, then I can't help your delusions.
"Do you disagree?"
With so much of what you've said that I can't keep track.
"If you do disagree, do you acknowledge that disagreement is your personal human opinion, not objective fact?"
Irrelevant. My perception (or yours) does not define reality or objective fact. That you are unwilling to acknowledge that you could be objectively wrong, might be the problem.
Your final words, Craig, is sinless because it didn't miss the mark. What is literal or figurative is based on how it serves Dan's agenda, but which is which only requires evidence when we're standing by the opposite. That is, we have to prove what Jesus said is what He meant, because Dan doesn't like what Jesus meant. Because Dan doesn't like what Jesus meant, he insists Jesus was speaking figuratively. Yet somehow, while we're obliged to be out and about gathering definitive data proving Jesus meant what He said...data which satisfies Dan's fluid criteria...Dan's doesn't lift a single finger in explaining what Jesus actually meant by saying, "None are good but God".
I don't know about you, but I'm really eager to hear what Jesus actually meant and to review all the data which supports that understanding. I don't know why he's keeping it from us.
"Your final words, Craig, is sinless because it didn't miss the mark."
I think the problem we have is that one can "miss the mark" both through a "mistake" as well as by intention. So called "sins of omission" are obviously an example of choosing to to do what should be done. Dan seems fixated on sins being "mistakes", while ignoring or minimizing any other options.
"What is literal or figurative is based on how it serves Dan's agenda, but which is which only requires evidence when we're standing by the opposite."
Yes to the first part, however as we are simply affirming what Scripture records Jesus as having said (which should need no extraordinary "proof") Dan is arguing that the plain meaning is NOT the correct meaning yet failing to provide an alternative. At least beyond his hand wringing "It's figurative language", with no clue as to the meaning of the "figurative language".
"That is, we have to prove what Jesus said is what He meant, because Dan doesn't like what Jesus meant."
Which is absurd, since the recorded words of Jesus are quite plain in this case. To offer any other alternative IS the extraordinary option and should be proven.
"Because Dan doesn't like what Jesus meant, he insists Jesus was speaking figuratively."
Not only that, but he's not offered what this "figurative language" really means.
When scripture refers to the "4 corners" it's clearly figurative and that figurative language has a clear meaning (the whole world). Dan, however, fails to offer an alternative meaning for the claim of Jesus, only that it MUST be figurative because Dan can't find any alternative to harmonize the apparent contradiction.
"Yet somehow, while we're obliged to be out and about gathering definitive data proving Jesus meant what He said...data which satisfies Dan's fluid criteria...Dan's doesn't lift a single finger in explaining what Jesus actually meant by saying, "None are good but God"."
That's just Dan demanding things from others that he doesn't demand of himself, nothing new there.
"I don't know about you, but I'm really eager to hear what Jesus actually meant and to review all the data which supports that understanding. I don't know why he's keeping it from us. "
That'd be nice for a change.
I had asked:
"What I acknowledge is the reality that there ARE figurative phrases/language in the Bible. DO YOU DISAGREE with that reality?"
Craig responded:
How many times do I have to answer this????? Again, yes!
But then, Craig and Marshal have also said multiple things like:
"How do I know this? Jesus said so in quite a definitive manner. It was unambiguous and direct...."
AND...
"Jesus said what was recorded, and His words were accurately translated from Aramaic or Koine to English with a reasonably high degree of accuracy. You are the one whose hunch is that Jesus didn't really MEAN what He is recorded as saying, that He really MEANT something entirely different."
Etc, etc. In other words, when you keep saying, "Well, but, but, but JESUS SAID that literally!" and ignore the obvious likelihood that he was speaking figuratively, well then, you WILL be asked that same question over and over. Saying "OF COURSE, Jesus/biblical authors sometimes use figurative language" while at the same time, "But, but, but... IT'S WHAT JESUS said! and I'm not going to call Jesus a liar like you are!" is self contradicting.
You allow in theory for the possibility of figurative language, but in THIS case, you push back on even the possibility that it might be figurative language. After all, you all say, Jesus SAID it. His words were accurately translated..." at the same time ignoring that he COULD have been speaking figuratively...
But what does it matter? You all are devoted to your human traditions and can't even allow for the possibility that fellow humans might have a different take on it or that we disagree for good reasons.
Like when you say,
The "human hunch" that you have not, can not, and will not, actually demonstrate to even a minuscule degree of certainty that Jesus' claim that "no one" is "good" is objectively "figurative language". Conversely, you can not, have not, and will not, prove that the plain meaning of the text, is not the correct meaning of the text.
I've OFFERED an alternative explanation, multiple times. I've explained why IF we can observe that there are, of course, good human beings... if we can observe biblical texts that assume that humans can be/are good... that IF Jesus was dealing with a group of legalists like the Pharisees, that it might make sense that he speak hyperbolically for THEIR sake, so as to remind them that, "You boys ain't perfect, don't forget that!" etc, etc. I HAVE offered exceedingly reasonable explanations of WHY Jesus should be considered to using figurative language there...
But none of that matters. You all are hopelessly and irrationally in love with the human traditions of other humans and legalists who have told you what to believe and you can't even see beyond those human traditions and opinions and I don't think you're even capable of SEEING that you are relying upon human opinions, unproven and frankly, depraved and vapid.
I don't know how to help you all. You ignore reasonable points explained to you over and over and fall back on your human traditions.
Sadly, much like the Pharisees.
But you don't see that, either.
Nor did the Pharisees.
"If there is a claim that the entire universe was created in six days, we can certain that the original claim is either figurative or mistaken."
This is untrue. But to the extent anyone can feel certain the claim is either figurative or mistaken, it requires a religious-like devotion to those who insist the universe is billions of years old.
There's a documentary provided by my streaming service called "Is Genesis History?" It provides at least a half dozen or so scientists from a variety of fields discussing why the "Old Universe" theory is wrong and they each explain their positions in good detail. (There are subsequent "sequels" to this documentary, each of which I believe focuses on one of those areas of study in greater detail, but I haven't been able to figure out how to access them...I think I have to cough up some cash.) At one point it is said that the "billions of years" of the universe came about in order to maintain the Theory of Evolution. That theory requires a vast amount of time in order for a species to evolve as it was thought to have progressed.
Fascinating stuff, and there's a sound logic about it that alleged Christians like Dan refuse to grasp. Like ambiguity, Dan needs science to subordinate a good deal of Scripture to maintain his delusional, self-serving preferences for what his "reality".
" Let's say I grant your premise about Creation. That STILL DOESN'T prove that your hunch about the claim of Jesus in question is absolutely figurative or mistaken."
While this is an excellent point, and exposes Dan for another of his cheap tactics when the going gets tough (the deflection gambit), it's also the case that if one grants Dan's premise about Creation, it's not the same as saying it's true and factual, and one more person buying doesn't get one there.
Craig:
Dan seems fixated on sins being "mistakes", while ignoring or minimizing any other options.
Just to be clear: Dan is fixated on having an accurate understanding of God, "sin," morality and goodness.
In that process, Dan notes that the actual word used for "sin" in the biblical context is "missing the mark." Failing to be perfect.
Dan is noting that "failing to be perfect" is not the same as being an evil tyrant or having a "rebellious heart" or having a "sin nature."
Dan is noting that in contrasting biblical messages about "missing the mark" and modern evangelical opinions about a "sin nature" and a "rebellious heart" and being "totally depraved" that those are two very different things.
We can SEE that humans are imperfect. No problem, it's just reality. It's a demonstrable, observable reality.
We can NOT see your mythical and non-biblical "sin nature." It is a human theory/mythology to try to explain the imperfection of humanity and evil in the world. Which is fine as far as it goes and as long as you acknowledge it as a human theory, not a fact or a biblical fact.
Craig:
When scripture refers to the "4 corners" it's clearly figurative and that figurative language has a clear meaning (the whole world). Dan, however, fails to offer an alternative meaning for the claim of Jesus, only that it MUST be figurative because Dan can't find any alternative to harmonize the apparent contradiction.
That is, TO YOU and other reasonable people, "four corners" is clearly figurative. And to me and many other reasonable people, Genesis 1 and 2 is clearly mythical/figurative and Jesus saying "no one is good" is also clearly figurative, GIVEN that Jesus also acknowledged the reality of good people.
And as I've noted already, I've explained multiple times at least one or two rational explanations of why Jesus would use hyperbole in dealing with an audience that included legalists like the Pharisees. MUCH of Jesus' message has to do with counter programming messages in contrast to the Pharisees. In reminding THEM, "YOU ALL are sinners, as well... NO ONE is perfect, don't forget that! No one is perfectly good but God..." That is a reasonable explanation for what is obviously figurative language.
Continuing...
Craig:
Your incessant demands that I recite some rubric that you've invented, as a way to pretend like your rubric somehow represents anything but your vivid imagination
I'm not talking about a rubric I have. I'm asking you if you recognize that YOU have no authoritative infallible rubric for deciding what is and isn't figurative and otherwise how best to interpret Scripture.
Remember, you JUST cited the case of "four corners" and noted that it's "obviously figurative." Which, of course, I agree with. Probably most of humanity can agree with that.
But what of other places where there is NOT agreement.
I think Genesis and the genesis of your all's "sin nature" hypothesis is clearly figurative (which undermines your personal human theory right from the start).
I think the handful or so of places that refer to words like "no one is good" is clearly, obviously figurative.
I'm asking you if YOU have a rubric (you don't) that lets YOU know that in the case of "four corners" it's figurative language and in the case of "no one is good" it's NOT figurative language.
You don't have that rubric and it's important to note that for humility's sake. I can argue all day that it's clearly, obviously figurative and you can argue that it's clearly not (to you) and neither of us can prove it objectively.
I mean, I think I have already abundantly proven in RATIONALLY, but I can't prove Jesus' intent and neither can you.
Where I've proven it rationally is in this:
1. Jesus states "no one is good but God."
2. Jesus also states that there ARE good people.
3. Therefore, both can't be literally factually correct.
3a. [Also, the reality of good people in the world, as good is typically understood - DEFINITIONALLY understood is a strike against a literal "No one is good."]
To explain this, we can assume:
A. Jesus could have been using figurative language.
B. Jesus could have been using "good" in an alternative manner.
C. Or perhaps Jesus had something else in mind besides those two alternatives that he didn't tell us.
D. BUT, Jesus could not be rationally (assuming Jesus was rational) saying that it's a reality that there are both NO good people AND that there ARE good people because that is contradictory on the face of it.
And in any case, we have no authoritative source or rubric to clarify for us objectively what Jesus' intent was. It doesn't matter HOW obvious I think the answer is, I can't prove it. And of course, neither can you. Objectively. Demonstrably. By the reality that you do not and can not even TRY to prove it beyond insisting, "But but but... Jesus is recorded as having said that!" Which is meaningless in a text where we agree that sometimes figurative language is used AND where you (nor I) have any rubric to sort that out authoritatively.
And THAT is why you admitting you have no rubric to define what is and isn't figurative is the beginning of humility and understanding.
"Etc, etc. In other words, when you keep saying, "Well, but, but, but JESUS SAID that literally!" and ignore the obvious likelihood that he was speaking figuratively, well then, you WILL be asked that same question over and over. Saying "OF COURSE, Jesus/biblical authors sometimes use figurative language" while at the same time, "But, but, but... IT'S WHAT JESUS said! and I'm not going to call Jesus a liar like you are!" is self contradicting."
That's quite the pile of shit there. Let's start with the problem that you have the possibility that Jesus was NOT speaking figuratively with absolutely no objective basis for doing so.
Let's move on to the fact that taking Jesus literally in that specific instance makes at least as much sense as taking Him figuratively.
Then let's conclude with the obvious. What difference does it make if Jesus was speaking figuratively, if His meaning is so obscured that even you can't offer a plausible alternative.
Finally, the presences of figurative language elsewhere in scripture DOES NOT automatically mean that this specific claim of Jesus is figurative, and "It seems figurative to me." isn't proof.
You can keep answering your idiotic, already answered question. You will keep asking it because you have to do something to hide your inability to deal with the glaring hole in your hunch.
"You allow in theory for the possibility of figurative language, but in THIS case, you push back on even the possibility that it might be figurative language. After all, you all say, Jesus SAID it. His words were accurately translated..." at the same time ignoring that he COULD have been speaking figuratively..."
When you're completely wrong, I guess all you have is to stick with being wrong and pretend otherwise. IF you could advance ONE theoretical explanation for Jesus claim being figurative that actually made sense in context, I'd consider it. You can't do so, so just just repeat your hunch that it must be figurative because there is some figurative language somewhere else in scripture.
"But what does it matter? You all are devoted to your human traditions and can't even allow for the possibility that fellow humans might have a different take on it or that we disagree for good reasons."
Yes it matters. Why wouldn't understanding the claims of Jesus matter? We obviously "allow" that there can be different conclusions. Where we have a problem is when those different conclusions have so little foundation, and absolutely zero explanation. When you can't or won't offer the meaning of Jesus' claim based on your "figurative language" standard, let alone one that makes sense, you undermine your claims and move them to the realm of mere preference.
"The "human hunch" that you have not, can not, and will not, actually demonstrate to even a minuscule degree of certainty that Jesus' claim that "no one" is "good" is objectively "figurative language". Conversely, you can not, have not, and will not, prove that the plain meaning of the text, is not the correct meaning of the text."
Yes, I said that because it's True. You haven't and can't do any of those things.
"I've OFFERED an alternative explanation, multiple times. "
Not an "alternative explanation" that makes sense in the context Jesus' interaction. You've spun fantasies about what it might. possibly mean, but nothing specific. That you can speculate some personal, individual, fantasy about what something might mean isn't a plausible scenario, nor does it suggest that your fantasies are likely to be accurate.
"But none of that matters."
Of course none of that matters to you. Offering an alternative that makes sense, proving your claims objectively, making sense, don't matter to you. Because you'd rather make up a bunch of bullshit (which I'm not wasting time with) and blaming others for your inability to hold yourself to the standard you demand of others.
Coward.
"I don't know how to help you all. You ignore reasonable points explained to you over and over and fall back on your human traditions."
Narcissist much? I don't need your help, nor do I want it. When you have nothing objective, concrete, or worthwhile to offer why would I? That you think your "help" is somehow so magically fantastic that I should jump at it, even when it's nonsensical demonstrates your hubris, narcissism, and your condescension. That you think that your "help" isn't just your own, personal, subjective, "human tradition" and ignore the fact that virtually no "experts" agree with you, tells me all I need to know about your ego.
"Just to be clear: Dan is fixated on having an accurate understanding of God, "sin," morality and goodness."
If you say so.
"In that process, Dan notes that the actual word used for "sin" in the biblical context is "missing the mark." Failing to be perfect."
Well, if you think that repeating yourself helps, feel free. Just because "missing" and "mistake" both start with "mis" doesn't mean that they are synonyms.
"Dan is noting that "failing to be perfect" is not the same as being an evil tyrant or having a "rebellious heart" or having a "sin nature.""
So, I was unaware that "Dan" "noting" something was the determining factor of whether or not something is True. My bad. Of course, "having a rebellious heart" and/or a "sin nature" would both explain why someone might "miss the mark". Of course that would mean that you would arbitrarily exclude those from consideration.
"Dan is noting that in contrasting biblical messages about "missing the mark" and modern evangelical opinions about a "sin nature" and a "rebellious heart" and being "totally depraved" that those are two very different things."
Possibly "different" but not unrelated. As noted above all three of those things can and do explain why we "miss the mark". They may not be the only explanations, but they certainly do provide options as to why we miss the mark. Arbitrarily limiting the reason for "missing the mark" to only "mistakes" seems exclusionary and incomplete. Doing so based on your subjective, individual, incomplete, flawed, limited, observations of a small sample size seems to suggest that you consider your powers of observation of anecdotal evidence to be determinative.
"We can SEE that humans are imperfect. No problem, it's just reality. It's a demonstrable, observable reality."
We also see humans choose imperfection, we see every single human fall into sin, to note the obvious yet ignore the cause seems just as closed minded as you appear to be. You're so fixated on your personal, subjective , human hunch that you summarily exclude anything that might possibly suggest that your hunch isn't perfect.
"We can NOT see your mythical and non-biblical "sin nature." It is a human theory/mythology to try to explain the imperfection of humanity and evil in the world. Which is fine as far as it goes and as long as you acknowledge it as a human theory, not a fact or a biblical fact."
It's strange that your "human theory", even though it's not really held by anyone else nor been the consensus among Christians for millennia, gets treated as if it is 100% accurate, yet any other "human theory" is summarily discarded as insufficient. It's almost like you're obsessed with demanding that your "human theory be blindly accepted as the only possible "human theory", while not actually proving your subjective, "human theory".
"That is, TO YOU and other reasonable people, "four corners" is clearly figurative. And to me and many other reasonable people, Genesis 1 and 2 is clearly mythical/figurative and Jesus saying "no one is good" is also clearly figurative, GIVEN that Jesus also acknowledged the reality of good people."
"4 corners" is figurative because it's literally a saying that is in common use and is figurative. Your hunches and just that, hunches. You can't, haven't offered and explanation that fits the words used in the claim, and makes sense in the context (just a lot of "ifs" and fantasies) and your basis for making those claims is that they "sound like" "figurative language" to YOU as an individual. Who cares what something "sounds like" to you? Are you so stupid, narcissistic, and self reverential that you really believe that "sounds like to Dan" is objective proof?
"And as I've noted already, I've explained multiple times at least one or two rational explanations of why Jesus would use hyperbole in dealing with an audience that included legalists like the Pharisees. MUCH of Jesus' message has to do with counter programming messages in contrast to the Pharisees. In reminding THEM, "YOU ALL are sinners, as well... NO ONE is perfect, don't forget that! No one is perfectly good but God..." That is a reasonable explanation for what is obviously figurative language."
Blah, blah, blah. You've offered vague generalities which don't even attempt to explain the specific claim Jesus makes in context, just a bunch of gobbeldygook with no substance. I get that you can spin ungrounded fantasies to "support" your subjective, individual, "human hunches", but I think something grounded outside of your subjective, flawed, imperfect, "human Reason" is needed.
Continuing...
"4 corners" is figurative because it's literally a saying that is in common use and is figurative.
It's commonly accepted as figurative NOW (and for a long time), because people recognize how obviously it must be figurative. But was it considered obviously figurative at the time? You literally don't know. Am I mistaken?
"blah, blah, blah, you've offered vague generalities..."
As have you. What of it?
Look, Jesus regularly used hyperbole. Here's an essay from what sounds to be a traditionalist addressing the point:
In his three and a half year ministry, Jesus often used an effective teaching method, hyperbole. This is an intentionally exaggerated statement or claims not meant to be taken literally but rather to emphasize a point. Yes, we interpret the Bible literally but with figurative language and such passages like hyperbole have to be understood and then once you understand what the author or speaker meant by his use of figurative or hyperbolic language, this is then what you take literally.
https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2018/04/09/the-great-teacher-jesus-taught-with-vivid-hyperbole/
For starters. Jesus used figurative language and hyperbole a good deal.
More...
Now, in Luke 18 (one place where "No one is good..." shows up), Jesus is in the context (here and throughout his ministry) of dealing with the legalism and gracelessness of the Pharisees. Jesus even offers a parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable:
“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
Following that parable, Jesus reminds everyone (with an eye to the Pharisees who he JUST addressed):
Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
He said that in dealing with the arrogance and gracelessness and self-perceived "righteousness" of the Pharisees.
In THAT literal, specific context of the proud, arrogant, graceless, legalistic Pharisees, the story moves to a rich ruler approaching Jesus - another of the typical antagonists in Jesus' life and message... the OPPOSITE of the humble poor and marginalized that Jesus told us he'd come to preach good news to (and in contrast to the wealthy, powerful and arrogant, who would be "brought down" in Mary's Magnificat and other places). The rich ruler talks and Jesus answers:
A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered.
“No one is good—except God alone.
Then, when the rich ruler tells Jesus (rather arrogantly!) that he's kept all the rules since he was a boy (!!) to THAT man (and by extension, the other arrogant legalists like the Pharisees) and THAT man specifically he says:
“You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Jesus using the hyperbolic saying "there is no one good but God" is addressing the arrogant rich and powerful ruler, along with the Pharisees in the crowd and for the benefit of the poor and marginalized people that Jesus came to preach good news to. Indeed, for those humble poor and marginalized folks, THIS response of Jesus WAS good news. "He's taking on the man! He's bringing down the arrogant and powerful rich ones!"
The marginalized poor folks were well aware that they weren't perfect... that they fail to hit the mark. They understood/understand imperfection and the flaws of humanity. They know that they are not perfectly good like God. But the rich and powerful, the arrogant and legalistic like the Pharisees, THEY often didn't know this, blinded as they were by their wealth and privilege.
In the text and context of this story, Jesus makes clear who he is addressing with his "No one is good" hyperbole.
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else...
You are looking at the text and missing the context, it seems to me.
But regardless of whether you find this CLEAR case I'm making compelling, I and others like me DO find it compelling. It's textually and contextually consistent with what we know of Jesus, who DID believe there were good people as he literally affirmed.
You, on the other hand, in spite of the literal context and text, you want to lean into your understanding of the human traditions you and I were raised in. Which is fine, as far as it goes, but you should not confuse your human traditions with God's Word or with sound reason.
How am I mistaken? Where is the textual support to make one think Jesus was not engaging in hyperbole here as he did so often, especially when addressing the Pharisees?
IF you're suggesting, "Well, the text says that Jesus says no one is good... therefore, that must be what Jesus literally meant" that is begging the question. The question IS, did Jesus make that claim (in contrast to other places where he acknowledges good people) figuratively or literally? Saying, "the text says what it says" is begging the question.
"It's commonly accepted as figurative NOW (and for a long time), because people recognize how obviously it must be figurative. But was it considered obviously figurative at the time? You literally don't know. Am I mistaken?"
Yes, it seems likely as it is obviously figurative, and there is virtually zero literal way to take the term in context. But you don't know either, so...
"As have you. What of it?"
This is what Dan has been reduced to. He can't offer specifics to back up his claims, he's got nothing but "I think", and all he has is projection.
"Look, Jesus regularly used hyperbole. Here's an essay from what sounds to be a traditionalist addressing the point:"
Which DOES NOT mean that the specific claim in question was definitively hyperbole. Are you really stupid enough to believe that the existence of hyperbole ELSEWHERE indicates that the specific statement in question must be hyperbole? Or are you so attached to your hunch that you'll grasp desperately at anything to avoid admitting failure?
Again this argument that a generality defines a specific is simply foolish and desperate. It's as if I said that because Jesus sometimes performed miracles, that every single thing He did was a miracle.
"For starters. Jesus used figurative language and hyperbole a good deal."
Which still tells us nothing about the one specific passage in question, are you too stubborn or too stupid to deal with this huge hole in your hunch?
"Now, in Luke 18"
Luke 18 has literally no bearing on the text in question, and is just one more attempt to pretend that Jesus use of "figurative language" or what you perceive as "figurative language" demands that the specific text in question be "figurative language", despite your lack of proof regarding the text in question.
"Jesus using the hyperbolic saying "there is no one good but God"..."
Given that you haven't established that the statement is, beyond a shadow of a doubt "hyperbolic", you are literally treating your unproven hunch as if it is True. Without proving it to be so.
It's me...Art!
Dan said,
"In reminding THEM, "YOU ALL are sinners, as well... NO ONE is perfect, don't forget that! No one is perfectly good but God..." That is a reasonable explanation for what is obviously figurative language."
I don't see where it says the Pharisees were present when Jesus responded to the rich young dude. Indeed, Mark 10 indicates they weren't. And without basis except to serve his human tradition, Dan incorrectly paraphrases Jesus, Who didn't say no one is "perfectly good" but God, but distinctly said no one is good but God. Jesus is stating "good" is synonymous with "perfect", because God is good, and no one else is. Thus, "perfectly good" is redundancy, as "good" is an absolute term. "Imperfectly good" is absurdly incongruent, because one is either good or one isn't.
This statement of Jesus is a clarification by which the meaning of all other applications of the word to a person or people can be better understood as the actual, truly figurative uses of the word. Thus, we know it must mean the person to whom the word is applied is being measured against other people because Jesus said none are good but God.
"You are looking at the text and missing the context, it seems to me."
Well, if it "seem to you" then it must be True. What an incredibly stupid, narcissistic, arrogant, thing to say.
My literal entire point is that the context doesn't support your unproven claims, and that all you have to "support" your claims is "I think" and "There's figurative language elsewhere", and unproven fanciful hunches.
"But regardless of whether you find this CLEAR case I'm making compelling, I and others like me DO find it compelling. It's textually and contextually consistent with what we know of Jesus, who DID believe there were good people as he literally affirmed."
Well, these little arguments from numbers are always compelling even though they're also always logical fallacies. Who cares what you and some tiny coterie of people you claim to know and represent believe? How is that proof of the Truth of your claims? How is a few anonymous randos in KY more compelling than centuries of experts that disagree with you? You demand objective "proof" and "hard data", and this anecdotal, logical fallacy, bullshit is all you offer. The double standard is getting old.
"You, on the other hand, in spite of the literal context and text, you want to lean into your understanding of the human traditions you and I were raised in. Which is fine, as far as it goes, but you should not confuse your human traditions with God's Word or with sound reason."
I guess when you have nothing concrete, provable, objective, or True, all you have left is to lie.
"How am I mistaken?"
As I've pointed out yoru mistakes multiple times, and you haven't dealt with any of those, I fail to see how repeating that information will help. You've clearly committed to your hunch, regardless of your inability to prove your hunch to be True, and me pointing out your mistakes once more seems futile.
"Where is the textual support to make one think Jesus was not engaging in hyperbole here as he did so often, especially when addressing the Pharisees?"
You're the one making the fact claim that Jesus absolutely WAS using "figurative language" in the text in question. It's on you to prove your claim, objectively and without basing your entire hunch on yourself. You can't, haven't, and won't, but you'll demand that I do what you won't.
"IF you're suggesting, "Well, the text says that Jesus says no one is good... therefore, that must be what Jesus literally meant" that is begging the question. The question IS, did Jesus make that claim (in contrast to other places where he acknowledges good people) figuratively or literally? Saying, "the text says what it says" is begging the question."
Circular arguments, based on some bullshit you've made up are rarely compelling or worth my time.
The text says what it says. YOU are the one demanding that the text MUST mean something other than it's plain meaning. YOU haven't demonstrated that your hunch is correct, or that it is even more likely to be correct. You literally haven't discussed the text in question, but instead argue from other texts that you claim (without proof) are "figurative.
You can keep ranting, but until you solve the huge problem with your hunch, I see no reason keep pointing out the fatal flaw while you ignore it.
Still Art...
""Just to be clear: Dan is fixated on having an accurate understanding of God, "sin," morality and goodness.""
How sad Dan has so miserably failed in that endeavor.
"Dan is noting that "failing to be perfect" is not the same as being an evil tyrant or having a "rebellious heart" or having a "sin nature.""
This quote would've been better placed with Dan's paraphrase in my previous comment, as it's clearly in conflict with what He tries to insist Jesus means: "YOU ALL are sinners, as well... NO ONE is perfect, don't forget that!" "ALL are sinners", "NO ONE is perfect" but "sin nature" is a "non Biblical human tradition"?
Art,
The fact that Dan's entire "case" for Jesus' claim being definitively "figurative" is based on "I (Dan) think", taking random snippets out of context and insisting that the questioned text must be "figurative" because there are other "figurative" texts, and on the anecdotal claims about what those he represents believe. In other words, nothing that specifically pertains to the text in question. That he then has to jam this text into his "but the Pharisees" paradigm, just points out the weakness of his eisegesis.
he's gone so far beyond foolish, that his lack of humility is more and more evident, along with his commitment to the double standard.
Craig...
Luke 18 has literally no bearing on the text in question,
It's literally the passage in question. It may be the case that you've referenced Matthew's telling of the same story and quote, but it's literally the story where Jesus said, No one is good.
Dan
Mark 10:17-27
"17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do so that I may inherit eternal life?” 18 But Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not give false testimony, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus showed love to him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But he [a]was deeply dismayed by [b]these words, and he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
23 And Jesus, looking around, *said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus responded again and *said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were even more astonished, and said to Him, “[c]Then who can be saved?” 27 Looking at them, Jesus *said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”"
Matthew 19: 16-22
"16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good[a] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, [b]“Why do you call Me good? [c]No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept [d]from my youth. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."
Luke 18:18-21
"18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’[a]”
21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy."
This story is found in all three of the synoptic gospels, and in none of them is it made clear whether or not there was anyone near Him but His disciples. It might be possible to infer that the man was himself a Pharisee because of the term "ruler", but that's certainly not demanded by the text. He could have been a Sadducee as well, or had a role in the Roman government, the text just doesn't tell us. So a look at the actual text, not Dan's self serving paraphrases of the text doesn't support Dan's claims.
Further, the (IMO) most important line of the entire text gets ignored by Dan.
"It's literally the passage in question. It may be the case that you've referenced Matthew's telling of the same story and quote, but it's literally the story where Jesus said, No one is good."
My mistake, I was in a hurry and did not double check. My bad.
As I did just post the actual text, not your paraphrase, of all three instances of this story, I'm not sure the actual text helps you at all. As you literally add things that are not in the textural record, which I seem to recall is frowned upon.
But again, I apologize for my haste.
Of course, my hasty error, doesn't mitigate Dan's inability to state categorically that the claim of Jesus was absolutely "figurative", the text itself gives absolutely no indication that it is "figurative".
So, I went back and re-read Luke 18 from the beginning to the story of the rich ruler and the only reference to any Pharisee was in the parable. Dan inserts Pharisees into the crowd because of the verse which says: "To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else..." because as everyone knows, only Pharisees are confident in their own righteousness and look down on others! Dan, confident in his own righteousness, takes lots of liberties in referencing the Luke passages. His description of the rich dude as "arrogant" is ironic given the arrogance of Dan's over confidence in his own righteousness. Neither Luke nor Mark speaks of the kid as arrogant. They don't even describe him as boastful or prideful, either of which work better if one should choose to presume anything. But I would think "embracing grace" would preclude judging this book by his rich cover.
"Indeed, for those humble poor and marginalized folks, THIS response of Jesus WAS good news. "He's taking on the man! He's bringing down the arrogant and powerful rich ones!""
There's nothing whatsoever which suggests anything like this. Dan just makes this crap up because he likes how well stroked he feels to do so. Which Bible version does he study? The New Karl Marx International Version?
Art,
I did the same with all three passages in the synoptic. The best one can do is to infer based on the earliest part of the chapter that there were Pharisees that stayed through the entire interaction, until this final conversation. It's certainly possible, but doesn't seem central to Jesus interaction with the young man.
It seems impossible to ignore adherence to the law was what all Jews were expected to do, it's not that he was being extraordinarily proud of his accomplishments. Further, Jesus never questioned his obedience. Jesus did point out that there was one thing that the young man valued more than obedience to the law, money.
What I find interesting is that according to Dan's "You can tell good people by their good deeds" theory, Dan would likely argue that this guy was a "good person", yet Jesus did not seem to agree that he was "good". Which doesn't seem to help his claims.
As for the rest, Dan just adds it in because it fits his worldview on what Jesus should have been.
He's just making shit up and pretending like it's part of the text.
Craig...
according to Dan's "You can tell good people by their good deeds" theory, Dan would likely argue that this guy was a "good person",..
My position is you can tell a good person by their actions, as Jesus said and noted... and as in what's reasonable.
I'm not saying all people are good. Just that some people are good and we can recognize that. As Jesus noted.
The bad news implied in this story, at least for the wealthier of us, is that Jesus thinks that the attachment to wealth makes it nigh unto impossible to be saved. Even though (if the rich man's assessment of himself is accurate), he was basically good, he thought, because he followed the basics of the ten commandments... he hadn't killed, stolen or lied... BUT he also was unwilling to share what he had with the poor and actually follow Jesus.
Wealth is a trap, as we repeatedly find in the Bible.
At any rate, no, according to I think, I'm not saying this man was good, simply by not committing any crimes.
Dan
Craig...
"He's just making shit up and pretending like it's part of the text."
This, of course, is contrary to reality.
The problem appears to be that you all are unaware or unwilling to acknowledge the central role of the rich and powerful, especially the Pharisees, are in Jesus' story. They're the pivotal antagonists throughout the Gospels, always watching and listening to Jesus, always getting angry enough to literally plot to kill him, always asking questions to try to catch him in a gotcha moment... from early on, they were out to get him because they perceived he and his gospel message were a threat to them.
That is throughout the text and context of Jesus' story. Failing to get that, you're missing a large part of the point of the story.
Dan
"My position is you can tell a good person by their actions, as Jesus said and noted... and as in what's reasonable."
Therefore you almost certainly would have characterized the young man as a "good person" based on his actions. "
So?
'The bad news implied in this story, at least for the wealthier of us, is that Jesus thinks that the attachment to wealth makes it nigh unto impossible to be saved."
Well, that's one hunch. Thankfully we have the text to compare your hunch too.
You note that his attachment to his wealth (not his wealth in and of itself, but his attachment to it) was the impediment. Yet, Jesus is quite clear that it is not "nigh impossible", quite the opposite He insists that with YHWH "all things are possible". Again, if forced to choose between Dan and Jesus, Dan loses 100% of the time.
"Even though (if the rich man's assessment of himself is accurate), he was basically good, he thought, because he followed the basics of the ten commandments... he hadn't killed, stolen or lied... BUT he also was unwilling to share what he had with the poor and actually follow Jesus."
So close, yet so far. The problem is that he wouldn't put Jesus above everything else. Making giving all of one's wealth to the poor a requirement to be "saved" is simply works righteousness. Strangely enough, Jesus seems to have taken him at his word regarding the deeds he'd done to demonstrate his "goodness".
"Wealth is a trap, as we repeatedly find in the Bible."
It can be, although that's irrelevant for this discussion. Which is why you bring it up.
"At any rate, no, according to I think, I'm not saying this man was good, simply by not committing any crimes."
Well, that's not what was said, but I appreciate your bias against the rich being so openly displayed.
"This, of course, is contrary to reality."
The great thing about having this discussion here is that "reality" can be preserved. When you paraphrase and add in all sorts of made up, extraneous, crap, which is not in the text, the reality is pretty clear.
"The problem appears to be that you all are unaware or unwilling to acknowledge the central role of the rich and powerful, especially the Pharisees, are in Jesus' story. They're the pivotal antagonists throughout the Gospels, always watching and listening to Jesus, always getting angry enough to literally plot to kill him, always asking questions to try to catch him in a gotcha moment... from early on, they were out to get him because they perceived he and his gospel message were a threat to them."
No, the problem is that I don't acknowledge your hunches about those things as being factually correct.
But excellent job of avoiding dealing with the massive hole in your hunch.
"That is throughout the text and context of Jesus' story. Failing to get that, you're missing a large part of the point of the story."
Again, I choose to follow the text, not Dan's hunches about the text.
Art here....
Dan said:
"BUT he also was unwilling to share what he had with the poor and actually follow Jesus."
Actually, there's no mention of his willingness to give to poor. We're only told that the thought of selling all he had made him sad/dismayed. There's no mention of greed on his part, nor that he was uncharitable. The only thing we can rightly infer...if we're grace embracing Christians...is that he did not expect that he would be encouraged to part with all his stuff. An honest person can easily imagine the shock of it. The marxist sees greed.
"Actually, there's no mention of his willingness to give to poor. We're only told that the thought of selling all he had made him sad/dismayed. "
Excellent point. If he was a Jew who observed the Law as scrupulously as he claimed, then it is highly likely that he gave away at least 10% of his wealth/income already. There is no reason to conclude that he objected to selling some of his stuff to give to the poor, but that selling it all was the problem. This points to the common view that his problem wasn't wealth per se, but his lack of trust in YHWH and his trust in his wealth. That, in effect, wealth was his god. This position is reinforced by the disciples reaction is "But we've left everything to follow You.". The implication being that if the disciples could do it, why couldn't this guy. This is what happens when you look for the easy, shallow, interpretation that aligns with your worldview instead of letting the text speak for itself.
"There's no mention of greed on his part, nor that he was uncharitable. The only thing we can rightly infer...if we're grace embracing Christians...is that he did not expect that he would be encouraged to part with all his stuff. An honest person can easily imagine the shock of it. The marxist sees greed."
Again, excellent point. We have no idea what happened after the shock of this encounter, and how he reacted. When one's default position is to impute greed, that seems to be the complete opposite of embracing grace.
Of course, let's not forget how Jesus ends this passage.
" 29 Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30 [l]but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in [m]the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”"
1. Jesus clearly promises that what is given up for His sake will be received back at some point in the future. That doesn't necessarily mean in Heaven.
2. He is also clear that the whole last first thing is not all but "many".
Post a Comment