https://x.com/nancyrpearcey/status/1995277952259645825?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Somehow the ASPL has foisted the narrative on us the slavery is uniquely a sin of the US, yet history tells a different story.
https://x.com/alexduncantx/status/1995247833428160809?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"The West didn’t reject Jesus — it rebranded Him.
We’ve turned the Lion of Judah into a soft, inoffensive, hippie mascot who never confronts sin, never speaks hard truth, and never offends anyone. That Jesus doesn’t exist.
The real Jesus was strong, bold, fearless, and unapologetic.
He spoke with authority, not approval.
He flipped tables.
He rebuked corruption.
He called men to repent, deny themselves, and follow Him — not to be comfortable, but to be transformed.
Christ was not weak.
He didn’t beg for acceptance.
He didn’t silence truth to keep the peace.
The West didn’t lose Jesus — it watered Him down to justify cowardice and compromise.
If your version of Jesus never convicts you, never offends your pride, and never demands obedience — it’s not Jesus.
It’s an idol."
https://x.com/michaelarothman/status/1994932046339477737?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐀𝐓𝐀 𝐖𝐀𝐒 𝐒𝐎 𝐁𝐀𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐑𝐎𝐎𝐌 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐒𝐈𝐋𝐄𝐍𝐓
I watched this video clip of a Christian–Muslim debate and the single most jaw-dropping moment wasn’t an argument — it was a 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜.
Nobody shouted.
Nobody stormed off.
Nobody even had a comeback.
Because when the Christian speaker put the numbers on the screen, the whole place froze.
𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭-𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦-𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐭.
These aren’t opinions.
These aren’t insults.
These are the published consanguinity rates paired with average national IQs:
𝐏𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧 — 𝟔𝟓% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟏
𝐒𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐚 — 𝟓𝟖% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟕𝟔
𝐔𝐀𝐄 — 𝟓𝟒% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟐
𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 — 𝟒𝟎% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟎
𝐘𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧 — 𝟒𝟓% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟔𝟑
𝐐𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐫 — 𝟑𝟎% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟏
𝐎𝐦𝐚𝐧 — 𝟑𝟔% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟕𝟗
𝐒𝐲𝐫𝐢𝐚 — 𝟑𝟗% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟕𝟒
𝐓𝐮𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐲 — 𝟐𝟓% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟕
𝐉𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐚𝐧 — 𝟑𝟐% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟎
𝐄𝐠𝐲𝐩𝐭 — 𝟑𝟐% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟕𝟔
𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐨 — 𝟐𝟔% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟔𝟕
𝐌𝐚𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚 — 𝟒𝟑% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟔𝟎
𝐒𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐧 — 𝟑𝟎% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟕𝟗
𝐀𝐟𝐠𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧 — 𝟒𝟔% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟖𝟐
𝐀𝐥𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚 — 𝟑𝟗% — 𝐈𝐐 ~𝟕𝟔
And here’s the part that makes it even more staggering:
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭-𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 — 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝.
In some places, it’s considered preferred.
In others, it’s pushed as a way to “keep wealth in the family.”
But the biological cost is massive, generational, and measurable.
By contrast?
𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧-𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝟏% — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧, 𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞.
There’s no mystery here.
No conspiracy.
Just biology and math.
𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞.
𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐭, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.
It’s not “hate.”
It’s not “phobia.”
It’s the cold reality of what cousin-marriage norms do to nations over centuries.
https://x.com/whitehouse/status/1994894494064676974?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
I keep asking Dan for specific examples of laws being broken when he makes his outlandish claims, yet he can't provide specific examples.
https://x.com/swipewright/status/1993704793345343526?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
The sex/gender "debate" is simply absurd at this point if you are actually interested in "DATA".
https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1992827530718663101?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Insanity, yet the DFL sheep will vote for her.
92 comments:
---This first offering is golden. But clearly, none of it matters to those who wish to denigrate this nation. They're not concerned about who the worst perpetrators have been, but only that people here had slaves.
Interesting point about castrating slaves, which I heard or read in another piece recently. That point, one would think, would compel more attention by the race-baiting left.
Another point I heard in a discussion about slavery is the refusal to pay any attention on from whom the slaves in this country was purchased, or more distinctly, who was selling them to Europeans. The answer of course is black people and muslims.
---I really love this second link, as it nails it completely. We can call what the author describes as "The DAN TRABUE Jesus".
---This third link presents Andrew Wilson, a guy I stumbled upon only about a week or so ago on YouTube and have been greatly impressed by his logic and debating ability. He doesn't present as a scholar, but more like just a regular guy who isn't a moron about the topics he covers. I must have seen close to a dozen different debates since that first stumbling, and one thing most impressive, and what we also need to model, is how laser focused he is in getting his opponent to answer the question he posed. They'll Dan their way around it, and he keeps repeating the question as he initially posed it until he gets either an answer, or a way to push in their faces how they're avoiding it. One to keep an eye on, for sure.
More later. Gotta stop procrastinating here.
The twisted narrative that the ASPL pushes is intended as a cudgel to bludgeon the US and push a political narrative, not present actual history. The castration thing tells us that the owners were convinced that slaves would be plentiful enough that they didn't need their slaves to have children. Obviously ignoring the black and Muslim slave sellers is necessary to move the narrative.
All of this is a smoke screen to ignore the inconvenient fact that white Christians ended the slave trade, and that slavery in 2025 is concentrated in places where black folk and Muslims are in control (and China).
Yeah, Dan would definitely be a fan of that impotent Jesus.
I have yet to see a conservative/liberal debate where the liberal made a coherent case. It's important that the right continue to develop those who can make a compelling case for conservative values and point out the flaws of the left.
Craig...
Somehow the ASPL has foisted the narrative on us the slavery is uniquely a sin of the US, yet history tells a different story.
? Says who? I've never heard a single person dispute the reality of slavery throughout history or propose our original sin was any greater than other slaving cultures in the past.
I mean, someone might reasonably make the case that, for a free Republic, slavery is especially contrary to that idea, but of course, slavery has always existed and has always been a great evil.
From you second article:
We’ve turned the Lion of Judah into a soft, inoffensive, hippie mascot who never confronts sin, never speaks hard truth, and never offends anyone. That Jesus doesn’t exist.
The real Jesus was strong, bold, fearless, and unapologetic.
He spoke with authority, not approval.
He flipped tables.
He rebuked corruption.
He called men to repent, deny themselves, and follow Him — not to be comfortable, but to be transformed.
First of all, AMEN. OF COURSE, that's how Jesus was and is. He stood UP to the wicked oppressors, the wealthy abusers. He came to preach a fearsome good news to the poor, marginalized and oppressed. THAT IS the message you hear from modern progressive followers of Jesus.
Your mistake is in thinking that we're soft and quiet on sin even though reality speaks a very different message.
Your problem isn't that we're "soft on sin..." Your problem is that YOU ALL feel like we're too hard on you all, you modern defenders of the wealthy, powerful oppressors. You hear us calling out sin and you feel "attacked." "But, there's a war on Christmas!" you all collectively whine.
There ARE religions that preach an impotent, vapid Jesus... a Jesus who is USELESS to the least of these. But it's not the progressive church, at least not when we're living up to the message of the Jesus who came to welcome the poor and marginalized.
You're living in the upside down.
At the very least, can you acknowledge that we DO have strong words of rebuke... that you're just uncomfortable with the targets of our words of rebuke, as it's too close to home.
Well, if you've "never heard" anyone do or say something that must be proof that it doesn't exist.
But, to indulge you a bit, where are the folx clamoring for reparations from the Islamic and African countries that sold slaves? Where are the folx clamoring for reparations from any country other than the US? Why the obsession with slavery hundreds of years ago, and not in 2025?
1. Who is this "we're" (we) you speak of? Are you really claiming to speak for some large group of people?
2. Given your own statements on "sin" in general, I can't see how it's possible to characterize you as anything but "soft on sin". That you have some pet "sins" that you rail against is meaningless if you encourage or excuse other sins, of the notion of Sin, entirely.
3. Yes there are, and progressive christianity is (beyond you) is definitely one of those.
4. You claim to be "living the message of Jesus", while focusing on only one aspect of His larger message.
5. Yes, you do have "strong words" of vitriol, hatred, and attack, against those who you engage in your pet sins, while ignoring others who don't.
FYI, when you make shit up, argue against straw men, and flat out lie about others, you are nowhere "close to home".
Craig:
1. Who is this "we're" (we) you speak of? Are you really claiming to speak for some large group of people?
We who are progressive Christians. The dozens in my church, the hundreds that are in our city associations, the tens of thousands that are in our various associations and connections. ALL of us in the Progressive (and sometimes, even moderate) "West" the author speaks of, even beyond the various church groups and associations. We are not a monolith, but neither is it impossible to recognize many clear patterns of beliefs. And, as someone in a great cloud of witnesses of that movement, I can speak with some authority about what "we" believe.
Craig:
Given your own statements on "sin" in general, I can't see how it's possible to characterize you as anything but "soft on sin".
"Pet sins..."?? You mean that I'm (and the many like me) are strongly, vociferously against rape, abuse, sexual abuse, oppression of anyone, and especially the poor and marginalized, child abuse, abuse of wealth to get wealthier, abuse of God's good earth, the abandonment of orphans, the disabled, women, of other people living on the margins... that we're angry about and opposed to those who'd cut funding to help homeless, disabled and/or addicted veterans, men, women, children... that we're opposed to slavery and the abuse of the poor at the hands of the rich... are you calling those "pet sins..." as if they can be just whiffed at as a literal personal preference?
These ARE the sins that are raged against in the Bible, consistently, throughout the books of the Bible. Additionally, these are the sins of the abuse or neglect of human rights... of we humans, created in the very image of God. These are not minor nothings. I appeal to your moral reasoning and am confident that you don't think this list of so-called "pet sins" are in any way trivial or minor, right? Can you see how calling them "pet sins" can be seen as dismissive? Perhaps you could have chosen some better phrasing?
That you have some pet "sins" that you rail against is meaningless if you encourage or excuse other sins
As a point of reality, I do NOT encourage or excuse "other" sins (ie, YOUR personal list of "pet sins" that are more rightly called such). I may and do disagree with YOUR personal human opinions and human traditions that call some actions and attitudes "sinful..." I don't agree with your human traditions that it is "sinful" for gay folk to commit together in a loving marriage, for instance. I don't agree with your human traditions that sometimes, bombing places where you know children and other innocents will be killed and opposing that is "sinful." etc.
Disagreeing with your personal opinions on some behaviors is not the same as "encouraging sin." Right?
I am consistently opposed to any and all human rights abuses, any actions that abuse or oppress the poor and marginalized, as is morally rational (right?) and as is clearly spoken against in the Bible.
You claim to be "living the message of Jesus", while focusing on only one aspect of His larger message.
Well, I didn't make that claim here, but it's certainly a goal of mine... one I do not live up to fully or perfectly, of course. But I disagree with your personal opinion that I am focusing on "only one aspect of his larger message." I think
1. Preaching good news to the poor and marginalized;
2. Allying with the poor and marginalized;
3. Welcoming and embracing the poor and marginalized;
4. Standing in opposition to warring factions and encouraging peacemaking;
5. Loving and defending God's good earth and the people who are part of it;
6. Standing in opposition to the slavers, the polluters, the rapists, the abusers, the religious abusers and hypocrites;
7. And embracing and encouraging grace and justice, love and forgiveness;
That these ARE the central thrusts of Jesus' teachings... of Christ-ian teachings. I don't agree with your opinion (if that's what it is) that this is only "one aspect" of Jesus' message. I'm not sure what is "made up" or a straw man about any of that, much less a "lie."
Let me ask you this, you ARE willing to admit that, of course, we DO have strong words of rebuke for the rapists, predators, abusers, molesters, cheaters and oppressors and do so in the name of Jesus, right?
And if so, then you can surely admit that to try to apply the claim that we progressives are promoting a soft, inoffensive Jesus is not literally correct. Our opposition to warring madness, our opposition to actions that harm the poor, women, immigrants, LGBTQ folk and the marginalized... these positions ARE often offensive to those who disagree with us, right?
Isn't it fairer for this author to proclaim something like "While they DO strongly rage against violence, slavery, rape, oppression and in support of the poor and marginalized, on OTHER points, they are too "soft" and "inoffensive..." at least to MY (the author's) tastes. For instance, they refuse to join people like us who oppose normalizing homosexuality or opposing some of our other preferred "sins that should be opposed..." according to US..."?
Isn't that a more accurate way of framing things, just to be fair?
One other question: What IS the list of ideas and actions that you and this author think we're too "soft" and "inoffensive" on?
I'm coming back to this, just because it's so astounding and confounding...
That you have some pet "sins" that
you rail against is meaningless if you encourage or excuse other sins, of the notion of Sin, entirely....
you do have "strong words" of vitriol, hatred, and attack, against those who you engage in your pet sins, while ignoring others who don't.
Again, when I'm talking about moral wrongs, I'm generally talking about wrongs done against human rights, against humanity.
YES, I strongly condemn
rape
slavery
sexual abuse
abuse/misuse of power and wealth
war crimes
sexual harassment
oppression of the poor and marginalized
murder
harsh/harmful attitudes/actions especially towards the poor, the un-housed, immigrants, those seeking safety, those with disabilities, LGBTQ folks and other traditionally oppressed groups...
I am STRONGLY opposed to all of these and will use strong language in denouncing those who engage in these acts.
...but then, so do you, do you not?
Do you not always stand opposed to slavery (well, except in some biblical cases??)? To rape, child abuse, oppression, harming innocent people?
Do you not agree that strong words of rebuke are justified in each of these cases?
Why would you refer to these clearly egregious wrongs as "pet sins..."? Do you not consider them universally a great evil?
And, "while ignoring those who don't..." Do you mean what it sounds like you mean? That, for other actions (say two gay guys getting married or two lesbians adopting a child or a church standing opposed to war) - actions I don't consider wrong or "sinful" at all, that I'm quiet towards these actions that I don't consider sinful? Well, no. But why WOULD I denounce those who engage in actions I don't consider "sinful..."?
I imagine you can agree that we humans don't generally condemn actions we don't consider bad or harmful. I mean, I'm guessing you don't do that, do you?
If we can agree on that, then we're faced with me strongly denouncing obviously bad/harmful actions... abuses of human rights - something you presumably agree with - and neither of us denouncing actions we don't consider wrong. Right?
Then the point I was making in response to your quote - that of course, modern progressives take strong stands against that which causes harm and do NOT pretend to follow a timid little Jesus, meek and bland. We denounce that which Jesus denounced - oppressors, wealthy oppressors, those who cause harm, those who don't embrace "the least of these," the arrogant religious hypocrites. His words don't apply to us, by and large.
1. It's amazing that this massive number of progressive christians has allowed you to speak for all of them. That is quite the honor.
I mean that you have certain pet sins that you get worked up about, while you ignore or minimize other sins.
If you say so, but you have too much of a written legacy for me to believe you at this point.
No, as I've never offered myself, my Reason, or my opinions as "reality" or as being the measure of anything your disagreement with me means nothing.
Opposed, maybe. Selectively vocal about your opposition, absolutely.
More self serving, self aggrandizing, repetitious, meaningless, nonsense.
Craig:
More self serving, self aggrandizing, repetitious, meaningless, nonsense.
Again, quite strange. Do you think me (and hopefully you) being actively opposed to rape, slavery, oppression, etc, is somehow "self serving, self aggrandizing, repetitious and meaningless nonsense??
And I'll note you did not answer reasonable questions asked of you... you just responded with a very strange and unspecific set of charges of me being self-serving, etc... for opposing harmful oppression.
I mean that you have certain pet sins that you get worked up about, while you ignore or minimize other sins.
What "other sins" am I ignoring or minimizing? This is quite a charge and yet, with zero support. If this is the case, please help me by being clear, as I don't want to "ignore or minimize" any "sins..." especially if they're as serious as the human rights violations I AM opposed to clearly.
Since the only sort of answers you gave were vague and with no clear reference as to what you were answering, some questions I still wonder about. I'll number them as to make them easier to see and reply to:
1. I appeal to your moral reasoning and am confident that you don't think this list of so-called "pet sins" are in any way trivial or minor, right?
2. Can you see how calling them "pet sins" can be seen as dismissive?
3. Perhaps you could have chosen some better phrasing?
4. Do you not always stand opposed to slavery (well, except in some biblical cases??)? To rape, child abuse, oppression, harming innocent people?
5. Do you not agree that strong words of rebuke are justified in each of these cases?
6. Why would you refer to these clearly egregious wrongs as "pet sins..."? Do you not consider them universally a great evil?
7. I imagine you can agree that we humans don't generally condemn actions we don't consider bad or harmful. I mean, I'm guessing you don't do that, do you?
8. One other question: What IS the list of ideas and actions that you and this author think we're too "soft" and "inoffensive" on?
9. Let me ask you this, you ARE willing to admit that, of course, we DO have strong words of rebuke for the rapists, predators, abusers, molesters, cheaters and oppressors and do so in the name of Jesus, right?
10. And if so, then you can surely admit that to try to apply the claim that we progressives are promoting a soft, inoffensive Jesus is not literally correct. Our opposition to warring madness, our opposition to actions that harm the poor, women, immigrants, LGBTQ folk and the marginalized... these positions ARE often offensive to those who disagree with us, right?
No, I think that you being selectively vocal about your outrage and you bragging about yourself is self serving.
I've pointed out your inconsistency in responding to several of your "pet sins" often enough. I'm sorry that your memory is so poor.
I'll note that your repeated reference to "minor sins" (which you've never actually enumerated) as being of little or no consequence is example enough.
I think that you being selectively vocal about your outrage and you bragging about yourself is self serving.
I'm sorry. Are you under the delusion that you think I AND I ALONE am opposed to rape, oppression, abuse and crimes against human rights? Because, dear man, this is NOT about me. There are vast swaths of humanity opposed to human rights violations. INCLUDING YOU, presumably!
This has nothing to do with me bragging. I mean, come on. Do you REALLY think it is some kind of "brag" to say: I'm opposed to rape, slavery and beating children...?? That is kind of a VERY low bar and I, for one, don't think it is unusual or specific to me to be opposed to human rights violations!
Come on. You can do better than that, sir. Why waste time with that sort of ridiculous nothing?
I'll note that your repeated reference to "minor sins" (which you've never actually enumerated) as being of little or no consequence is example enough.
Well, yes, I DO consider some actions being worse than others. But again, that's sort of an obvious reality, my dude.
RAPE is a huge and grossly evil atrocity.
Stealing a cookie from your aunt's cookie jar is a relative minor nothing.
Of course, there are minor misdeeds. To try to suggest that all misdeeds - rapes and taking a cookie - are EQUAL in their great horror and wrong is to abuse the notion of "wrong" of sin and evil.
It is a great evil to commit human rights abuses, a crime against humanity and God almighty.
It's a failure of human respect to take a cookie that isn't yours, but in no way is that comparable to human rights abuses.
Do you think they are the same or are you willing to allow that not all misdeeds are great and atrocious evils?
I get that you lean all calvinist and "totally depraved" and human religious whatnot, but still, that's a rather hard to accept moral theory, if that's what you want to theorize.
1. No, I simply observe that your level of expressed outrage of your "pet sins" varies in volume and vehemence depending on who is committing them.
2. I can't control your over sensitivity to things others say.
3. I could, but I'm happy with the phrasing I chose.
4. I don't limit myself to just those few, but sure.
5. No. If they are "required" then the rebuke should be equal to all who engage in those sins, and should be done in such a way as to point the person toward repentance. The rebuke should also be accurate. For example, to rebuke one person loudly, publicly, and vehemently for an alleged sin, while sitting silently by while others do the same seems problematic to say the least. If Matthew is to be taken seriously, any rebuke should be first done in the context of a local church, engaged in in person (one on one), then escalated within the context of a church structure. What possible value is there to rebuke one who is not a Christian for sins which are simply a part of their nature?
6. It's less about the seriousness of the sins, and more about your inconsistency in rebuking them.
7. Interesting question. I guess I struggle with your premise. That one individual finding the actions of another to be "bad or harmful" demands a rebuke. For example, you clearly find slavery "bad or harmful", yet others do not agree with your individual hunch on the matter. Is your individual, personal, feeling on slavery enough to give to the authority to simply rebuke anyone, anywhere, at any time?
8. Again, if you can't figure it out, it raises questions about your vaunted Reason and intelligence.
9. No.
10. No, they are pretty much correct. Saying that your "positions" are "offensive" to those who "disagree" is essentially a tautology. Although, unlike you apparently, I can disagree with someone's positions without those positions necessarily being offensive. The Jesus y'all posit would fit right into a 21st century white, progressive, liberal, political gathering, which is kind of the point.
Jesus isn't a 21st century political progressive any more than he's a 21st century political conservative. Y'all just want Him to be.
Before you spout off, I have never suggested that Jesus is or would be a 21st century political conservative. One of the more consistent things about Jesus was that He came representing the Kingdom of YHWH, and not any specific political/social agenda. He had His own agenda.
No. But excellent job of the faux outrage to deflect from what I actually said.
Because you waste time bragging about your opposition to certain sins.
I was unaware that your definition of "misdeeds" and Sin(sins) were 100% synonymous.
Of course, on a very basic level, all "misdeeds" are equally wrong in that they all violate some law, custom, or standard. That there are "levels" beyond that basic divide between right/wrong, sinful/sinless, legal/illegal is more of a legal concept than a theological concept.
Are you saying that some sin is not a "crime against God almighty"?
I'm not playing your word switching games. Sin is sin.
Again, you accepting something carries no weight or value. What you accept or don't is of no interest to me.
Of course, on a very basic level, all "misdeeds" are equally wrong in that they all violate some law, custom, or standard.
That's a nonsensical claim. RAPE and taking a cookie are NOT equally wrong in ANY sense. At all. Do you really mean to say that rape and taking a cookie are equally wrong in some senses?
That there are "levels" beyond that basic divide between right/wrong, sinful/sinless, legal/illegal is more of a legal concept than a theological concept.
Again, I strongly disagree with this nonsense opinion. Are you suggesting that you, Craig, yourself actually think that GOD thinks that "you know, that guy raping all those girls and that teenager taking his aunt's cookie are essentially the same thing and it's not really a theological matter, only a legal one?"
That would be some sick, pathetic, grossly evil theorizing.
And just to show you how to answer questions directly:
Are you saying that some sin is not a "crime against God almighty"?
I'm saying that SIN, as used in the Bible, means "missing the mark..." as in aiming for a target and not quite hitting it...
And I do not think TRYING to "hit the mark" TRYING to do the right thing and not quite hitting it, that NO, that is not a "crime against God." That is some sickly and immoral Calvinist nonsense, not moral reasoning or Christian.
As to whether "SOME sin" is a crime against God? YES, of course. Rape, human rights abuses, oppression, not welcoming the poor, the immigrant, the marginalized the orphans, the sick... THESE are crimes against God.
But merely taking a cookie from your Auntie's cookie jar IS a crime against God.
Do you theorize that a teenager (or adult) taking a cookie is a "crime against God..."?
Also, what "word switching game" do you think in your head that I'm playing?
I'm using words in a fairly specific manner.
"Sin," as used in the Bible means simply, missing the mark. Shooting for a target and not hitting it.
EVIL, on the other hand, means a great and terrible harm against/abuse of humanity and creation.
You know, just the words, as defined and rightly understood.
How do YOU mean them?
Are you suggesting a theory that EVERY misdeed, every missing of the mark is equal to a great and terrible evil?
Or, are you suggesting that rape and child abuse are equivalent (in God's eyes) to the misdeed of only visiting your mother once this week, instead of the three times she wanted you to visit?
"I am consistently opposed to any and all human rights abuses"
Except infanticide. You're a big supporter of that.
And ignoring the right of all children to be raised by a mother and a father in favor of the homosexuals/lesbians you love so much.
And the rights of American citizens, particularly women and girls, to move abut unmolested by unvetted invaders and repeat criminal offenders released early by judges your party put onto the bench.
"Again, when I'm talking about moral wrongs, I'm generally talking about wrongs done against human rights, against humanity."
Except for infants. You don't give a flying rat's ass about infants.
Dan loves to think that listing the worst behaviors makes him and his kind real Christians for opposing them, yet at the same time he supports infanticide. Somehow, to Dan and his kind, infants are not people and can be oppressed in the most heinous fashion, so long as they insist they oppose rape and war.
"Do you REALLY think it is some kind of "brag" to say: I'm opposed to rape, slavery and beating children...??"
No. It's a lie. You're not opposed to infanticide, so saying you oppose beating children is meaningless. To murder them is to believe they can be owned, so your anti-slavery claim is bullshit, too. And your border policies and defense of islam results in all manner of rape, slavery and brutality against women and children, so stuff the false piety.
I'm asking politely, pick one term and stick with it. You using "sin", "misdeed" and "evil" fairly interchangeably just adds confusion for your readers. Pick one and be consistent.
I don't conflate them or use them interchangeably.
No, I'm not.
No, I'm not.
If you're simply going to reflexively respond without demonstrating an understanding of what I actually said, then don't bother to type. It's a waste of my time.
Again, and the is getting tiresome, that you "disagree" carries no weight, authority, or meaning beyond it being an attempt to pretend that your hunches carry more weight then they do.
When you make something up, and ask if I'm "suggesting" what you made up, you can assume that the answer is no and stop yourself from asking the question.
"I'm saying..." is just you trying to assert that you "saying" something contains some innate authority or weight. As such, when all you have is "I'm saying", I can't take anything that follows that seriously.
You seem to think that every single human that ever lived is "trying" to "hit the mark" of YHWH's perfection and merely missing by mistake.
By all means, explain how a group of men engaging in a decades long, systematic, pattern of raping children are "trying to hit the mark", but missing by mistake. By all means, explain how those who murder, rape, torture, kidnap, and destroy, are "trying to hit the mark" and just mistakenly missing.
I'm arguing that, at it's most fundamental level, theft is theft. I'm saying that YHWH's laws and commandments are grounded in His nature and His love for us.
But you feel free to make assertions that rely solely on you "saying" something for validation.
If given the choice between following what YHWH is purported to have said/commanded and you "saying" something, I'll take my chances with YHWH.
As we've seen from Dan he is intent on insisting that some theft ( or other "minor" sins) is somehow not sinful or sinful enough to get worried about, while focusing on the sins he's decided are the worst, but only being vocal about rebuking people in certain instances. Dan's silence on specific instances of oppression, and his lack of specific rebukes for those that perpetrate oppression, speaks volumes.
I think that the two biggest issues with the reparations crowd is their focus only on making demands of the US, and ignoring every other country involved and the failure to take into account the costs in dead, wounded, and destruction incurred in fighting a war to end slavery.
Of course, war is always bad, even one to end slavery. Which makes perfect sense.
Dan may be "opposed" in some vague general sense, but the fact that he only rebukes and is vehement in regards to certain people seems to indicate that he's not as universally opposed as he claims.
Why in the world would the rights of US citizens to not be murdered or raped be more concerning that the rights of immigrants to "self determine" who to rape and kill?
Or Christians in Africa, not much of a rat's ass given about them either. Or the thousands of victims of rape rings in Europe, again no ass of rat. Really not much interest in the antisemitic violence in the US, AUS, or anywhere else either.
""Sin," as used in the Bible means simply, missing the mark. Shooting for a target and not hitting it."
"Sin", as used in the Bible, means rebelling against God by indulging in behaviors He prohibits. The meaning of ancient languages is determined by how the words are used to convey a message. "Sin", as used in the Bible, means something far more serious than, "Whoopsie! I meant to pour the milk in the glass, not all over the table!"
Worse, there's no "missing the mark" where one chose to ignore the mark altogether, as Dan does with homosexuality and infanticide.
Art,
I think that the problem is not differentiating between Sin, and sin(s). Sin is the condition of humanity after the fall. While sin(s) are the individual actions that go against YHWH's Law/commandments. Dan's position seems to focus exclusively on sin(s), and be filtered through his hunches about humans being intrinsically "good". He seems to be unable to comprehend that not all sin(s) are mistakes. Some/many people choose to sin, knowing that they are going against YHWH's design for humanity. Some choose to ignore, diminish, or dismiss the concept that YHWH has given us boundaries/laws/commandments/rules/guidelines that we are supposed to follow. Without those boundaries, then the idea of Sin/sin(s) becomes moot. It is pretty clear to see Dan's worldview in how he talks about Sin/sin(s).
Ultimately, divorcing law from the law giver, renders the law to be optional at best and merely some suggestions at worst.
The brag enters the picture when your entire shtick is focused around yourself, and your actions.
So many factual mistakes in so few words!
Dan's position seems to focus exclusively on sin(s), and be filtered through his hunches about humans being intrinsically "good". He seems to be unable to comprehend that not all sin(s) are mistakes.
1. I am especially and primarily opposed to human rights violations, that which causes harm... especially to the oppressed and marginalized.
As is rational and incredibly biblical. Presumably even you can agree to most of these acts of actual depravity and oppression. God willing!
2. I disagree with much of your human opinions about a mythical sin nature. The more I read y'all, the more wrong headed it seems. AND thoroughly anti Christian.
3. I do not believe humans are "intrinsically good." I believe that humans are created in the image of God, a little lower than God (as the Bible witnesses) and yet, that humans are intrinsically IMPERFECT. But I don't confuse being imperfect with the mythical "totally depraved." We can observe humanity's imperfection, whereas the human myth/theory of "a totally depraved and with a sin nature" is an unsupported human theory.
4. Of course, not all sins are mistakes. Some bad actions are depraved choices, some are the result of a broken mind and some are simply being imperfect. You can tell I don't think that by the way I never said that and by how I keep correcting you each time you have this misunderstanding. But then, I just write that off to you being an imperfect human with imperfect understanding, rather than assume it's a deliberate lie on your part.
Because, Grace.
Craig...
Dan's position seems to focus exclusively on sin(s),
To be more precise, I've been quite clear that when it comes to wrongdoing, I'm primarily concerned about human rights abuses... the oppression and abuse of the poor and marginalized. This is both morally rational and biblical. You almost certainly agree on that, as far as it goes.
...and be filtered through his hunches about humans being intrinsically "good".
I haven't said and don't believe that humans are intrinsically good. I've said that, biblically, we are created in the image of God, a little lower than God, and yet, we are intrinsically imperfect. That, as opposed to your human theories about being totally depraved.
He seems to be unable to comprehend that not all sin(s) are mistakes.
Of course not all sins are mere mistakes. I've never said that. You continually read and fail to understand.
Some/many people choose to sin, knowing that they are going against YHWH's design for humanity.
Of course, some do. Others mistake their human opinions and traditions for good, when it's not.
Some choose to ignore, diminish, or dismiss the concept that YHWH has given us boundaries/laws/commandments/rules/guidelines that we are supposed to follow.
While other humans think they're in a position to tell others what God's rules are, even when they don't objectively know. Which is probably a sin, itself, don't you think?
Without those boundaries, then the idea of Sin/sin(s) becomes moot. It is pretty clear to see Dan's worldview in how he talks about Sin/sin(s).
And yet, you often fail to understand correctly what I think, as can be seen here. Dan thinks what is fairly obvious to most morally reasoning people, that we ought not commit human rights violations and we should ally with the poor and marginalized, you know, like Jesus taught. And when humans try to minimize abuses of the poor, marginalized, oppressed, immigrants, etc, they DO too often render "sin" moot.
Which is why I love the teachings of Jesus., as he makes it so clear.
And on the common imperfections of humanity, that is where God's grace enters.
Hallelujah, amen!
Craig:
I'm asking politely, pick one term and stick with it. You using "sin", "misdeed" and "evil" fairly interchangeably just adds confusion for your readers.
Misdeed: A wrongful action, a wrong deed. As it is defined.
This could be as in a small misdeed (he lied to his momma saying he didn't have time to visit her when he did, but was just tired...) or a BIG misdeed (Hitler's misdeeds included the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people). Typically, I'd guess, Misdeed is used to refer to smaller infractions, but does not need to be used that way.
Is that not how you understand it?
"Sin:" biblically, "Missing the mark..." shooting for a target and failing to hit it perfectly (or at all). As it's used in the Bible, it could be simply the imperfections of imperfect human people or it could be the great sins of the rich oppressors.
I tend to avoid this because of its religious baggage. When I DO use it, I tend to lean on its literal Greek and Hebrew meaning of failing to achieve perfection/failing to hit the target, which does not insist on evil intent. At all.
Do you disagree?
Evil: GROSS and atrocious misdeeds. Actions of a great and awful harm to human rights and people. Hitler was evil. My little daughter, throwing a fit about wearing socks, was merely imperfect and immature, not in any way rationally considered "Evil" as evil is understood.
What are you having difficulty understanding?
In short, EVIL tends to mean a great an awful/harmful sort of sin and misdeed. That, and not merely the imperfect lives of human beings.
Do you disagree? If so, why?
1. So?
2. So?
3. Again, given the reality that what "you believe" has no evidentiary value, carries no weight, and is totally grounded in you, who cares? FYI, if I'm thinking of the scripture you've "paraphrased", your paraphrase seems to be incorrect.
4. Well, finally something that kind of makes sense.
More unproven claims from Dan, who knew?
This should go without saying, which is why I need to say it, but you are not YHWH trying to compare what you claim you would do to YHWH seems a bit arrogant and narcissistic even for you.
If you are "primarily concerned about human rights abuses" as opposed to Sin/sin(s), why waste your time discussing sin, and insisting that people are "good"? Other than your arrogant and narcissistic assumptions that what you are "primarily concerned about" should be the focus of everyone else, who cares?
"Intrinsically imperfect" sounds like a milquetoast way of expressing something similar to the doctrine of Total Depravity. It's just an attempt to make Sin sound less bad.
That's quite the passive aggressive way to spin your hunches as morally superior. No, I cannot see any instance in which acknowledging YHWH's boundaries/laws/commandments/etc could possibly be sinful. Pointing out that ignoring or violating YHWH's boundaries/laws/commandments/etc in order to prevent negative consequences for others seems perfectly appropriate. Jesus and His closest followers did this, why wouldn't we?
Repetitious, pretentious, self promoting, garbage.
What I don't understand is your bitching about my simple, reasonable, direct request that you pick one term and use it consistently. Your random and frequent interchanging of words as if they are synonyms, makes your already confusing ramblings even more confusing.
If you want to play these semantic games, I can't stop you.
I disagree with your choice to randomly switch terms as if they're synonyms. It's imprecise and sows confusion.
I'm not sure if this is genuine confusion on your part or you choosing to be obtuse. I didn't ask you for your personal definitions, I asked you to be consistent and precise and to stop using words as if they are synonyms when they are not.
Thank you for making my point. I appreciate your repetition of the fact that you focus almost exclusively on "sin(s)". Now as you point point out, your "primary" focus is only on certain behaviors that you believe to be sinful, but that's my point. You focus on external actions, and then only on specific external actions, while not expending much energy at all on what might motivate those actions. Beyond that, your focus seems to be more about stopping the actions by force, coercion, bullying, or other means.
But thanks again.
why waste your time discussing sin, and insisting that people are "good"?
I discuss "sin" in response to conservative religious folks bring it up so regularly.
I point out the reality if the existence of actually good people because, A. They exist, of course, and B. because it is useful, wholesome and wise to point to the good being done, as role models, as a source of hope and inspiration.
Why wouldn't we talk about the good being done in the world and the moral heroes we have?
Other than your arrogant and narcissistic assumptions that what you are "primarily concerned about" should be the focus of everyone else, who cares?
I was just correcting your misunderstanding of my positions. Also, it is an appeal to common ground. Surely we can agree in standing opposed to human rights abuses?
"1. I am especially and primarily opposed to human rights violations, that which causes harm... especially to the oppressed and marginalized."
Except for infants. Murder them little bastards whenever their lives are inconvenient, then pretend there exists a legitimate reason.
Except for girls and women who must endure the presence of perverts in their private spaces in defense of the lie that a man can be a woman despite the biological fact of his body.
Except for Americans who have fallen victim...often with their lives...to foreigners who are here outside of our immigration laws.
Except for the young and the emotionally unstable who are encouraged by the progressives to mutilate themselves because yeah...that'll make their lives better.
Except for citizens who fall victim...often with their lives...to criminals routinely released from custody of law enforcement as if THEY are the victims.
Dan can continue mouthing this claim of his compassion for victims of oppression and human rights violations, but he's a liar.
It's more that Dan and his ilk see this as tiered. The highest priority of human rights protection goes to certain demographic groups based on random criteria. Then other demographic groups human rights might get secondary consideration. The unborn, Christians, Jews, those who can be identified as "White"r "Asian", Women who are victims if crime committed by immigrants, those from whom immigrants steal, to name a few.
Bizarrely, Muslims are somehow considered to be oppressed victims which ignores the reality that Muslims have and are engaged in some of the most oppressive behavior in the past 900 years.
"2. I disagree with much of your human opinions about a mythical sin nature. The more I read y'all, the more wrong headed it seems. AND thoroughly anti Christian."
Very hard to see how this fact can be "mythical" or "wrong headed" or especially "anti-Christian" when affirmed by one of the "founder fathers" of Christianity...Paul. Then there's:
Ecclesiastes 7:20
1 John 1:8
Romans 5:12
Psalm 51:5
Galatians 5:16-17
Ephesians 2:3
Romans 5:8
These are just a few of the verses which speak to the fact of man's sin nature. Dan wants to pretend it's "human tradition", by which he means "human invention". For us it actually is human tradition, by which we mean the clear and true teaching of Scripture. Dan doesn't much care for Scripture, except where he needs to posture.
"I believe that humans are created in the image of God, a little lower than God (as the Bible witnesses)"
This is something Dan says to elevate himself, more than mankind. Psalms 8 says "a little lower than the heavenly beings" and technically follows "the 'son of man' that you care for him", which follows "what is 'man' that you are mindful of him". Two distinct questions with the "son of man" preceding "You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings".
The point here is it is questionable as to whether or not this verse refers to people exclusively, or people with a prophetic nod to Jesus as well. Many regard this among that which does that very nodding. What's more, Hebrews refers to it as well with a distinct reference to Jesus, and of course, Jesus Himself refers to Himself as "the Son o Man".
So here we see Dan's personal "human tradition" as he seeks to inflate himself, rather than to acknowledge the more explicit fact of his sin nature. And if anyone has a sin nature, it is one like Dan who promotes sexual perversions and infanticide and then tries to rationalize them.
"4. Of course, not all sins are mistakes."
This is stupidity. Very few sinful acts are not purposely committed. Even if some jackwagon from Jeff St in Louisville KY wants to say "I didn't know it was a sin!", there still the question of intent to commit the act. If someone knocks a loaded shotgun over and it fires and takes Dan's head off, that could be an accident, and accidents are typically not sinful. But sins are intentional. Always.
If you say so.
Earlier you insisted that all humans were "intrinsically imperfect", yet you now insist that some people are "actually good". What pray tell, is the difference between "intrinsically good" and "actually good"? How do you magically determine which people are "actually good"?
If you want to pass of vague anecdotes, bereft of detail, evidence, or proof go ahead, just don't expect us to take you seriously.
That is an excellent example of the self serving, self congratulatory you so often spew.
Yet my question remains unanswered. Who cares? Why in the world would you demand that others must share your biases, hunches, and concerns? Your "arguments" fail to be compelling, your reliance on your self as "proof" is even less compelling. Your silence or mild condemnation of "human rights abuses" that don't fit your narrative compared to your vehemence for those that fit your narrative raises serious doubts.
"To be more precise, I've been quite clear that when it comes to wrongdoing, I'm primarily concerned about human rights abuses"
Conversely, God's primarily concerned with behaviors which either please or displeases Him. The latter constitutes sin and are those things upon which we will be judged most harshly if we don't repent and turn to Christ, without Whom we cannot come to the Father. Intentionally doing that which displeases Him...and worse, doing it under some self-serving, self-pleasing cheap rationalization (homosexuality, abortion)...are clearly sinful and worth one's concern.
"While other humans think they're in a position to tell others what God's rules are, even when they don't objectively know."
Can't imagine who such people might be, given how clear God's rules for us are revealed in Scripture.
"Which is why I love the teachings of Jesus., as he makes it so clear."
You love only the teachings of Jesus you love...not all of them. To those you add teachings you made up because you love them, too.
"And on the common imperfections of humanity, that is where God's grace enters."
Uh...that's not how it works at all.
"Hallelujah, amen!" ...Dan is jubilant over crap he made up.
Art,
This is pure craziness. Referring to what Scripture says as if it has any place in this discussion is completely unacceptable.
Likewise, how dare you call Dan's gift of paraphrasing into question? How could you possibly believe that Dan would paraphrase Scripture in a manner designed to obscure rather then enlighten.
Obviously his paraphrase is necessary due to his skeptical derision for the supernatural or "angels". Don't you know that angels are merely "messengers"? That they bring messages from YHWH makes no difference, who cares about what messages YHWH might want to send to us, right?
To use Dan's tired and foolish cookie stealing analogy, let's try this.
Theft is theft, it may differ in degree but not in nature.
If, as Dan insists, the thief stole the cookies then the thief knew that they belonged to someone else, yet CHOSE to steal them anyway.
There is a qualitative difference between accidentally picking up that which belongs to someone else, and returning the thing when the mistake is realized, and choosing to take and keep that which belongs to another.
As you mote, accidents are not sinful (although they may be illegal), sins are intentional.
Whoops, I "accidentally" lied in court to get someone else convicted of a crime I committed.
Whoops, I "accidentally" kidnapped and raped a 12 year old because my "culture" told me it was OK.
This intentional conflation between sin and mistake seems to be the problem.
"As it's used in the Bible, it could be simply the imperfections of imperfect human people or it could be the great sins of the rich oppressors."
That's NOT how it's used in the Bible. Get this through your intentionally lying, sinning soul....the ancient languages use a term defined as "missing the mark" to refer to that which displeases God...INTENTIONAL acts displeasing to Him. Not "mistakes".
"Evil: GROSS and atrocious misdeeds."
...such as enabling homosexual behaviors and aborting infants.
"What are you having difficulty understanding?"
How you can pretend your cheap rationalizations are legitimate representations of Biblical teaching and think anyone's fooled by it...especially God Himself.
"Do you disagree? If so, why?"
Because what you're saying is based solely on your subjective, laughable excuse for "reasoning", but on absolutely nothing Biblical.
"I discuss "sin" in response to conservative religious folks bring it up so regularly."
That's a huge problem with so-called "progressive" "Christian" churches, AKA fake Christian churches. They avoid any mention of sin to prevent decreasing membership. Those who attend such Jeff St like churches do not want to be reminded of how sinful they are or worse, that specific sins in which they take pleasure are preventing them from salvation.
Real churches don't do that (at least not to the same extent). Their congregants are the spiritually poor about whom Christ assured are blessed, and they recognize their own brokenness and great need of Him. They're not the Jeff St Kumbaya singers.
Craig:
Earlier you insisted that all humans were "intrinsically imperfect", yet you now insist that some people are "actually good". What pray tell, is the difference between "intrinsically good" and "actually good"? How do you magically determine which people are "actually good"?
What you had said:
...and be filtered through his hunches about humans being intrinsically "good".
How I responded:
I haven't said and don't believe that humans are intrinsically good. I've said that, biblically, we are created in the image of God, a little lower than God, and yet, we are intrinsically imperfect. That, as opposed to your human theories about being totally depraved.
I'm making a distinction between ALL of humanity - all of us being observably intrinsically imperfect - and the observable reality that at least some goodly number of people ARE good... they do good acts, they are loving, kind and compassionate. Observably so. They are NOT perfectly good (see "Humans are intrinsically imperfect"), but they are observably so, as a point of reality. At least as "Good" is typically understood.
HOW do we know at least some people are good? By their actions and way of being and way of life, all of which we can observe.
Now you understand my points?
Do you have a theory that there are literally NO good humans? If so, what do you do with all the evidence opposed to that theory?
And understand: By GOOD humans, I'm not saying PERFECT humans. There is a significant difference between those two words. One need not be perfect to be good. Do you disagree?
So your attempt to "answer" my question begins with ignoring the question and diverting attention to something else entirely.
So your big "proof" of people being "good" is your personal, imperfect, limited, observation of deeds your personally classify as "good", with absolutely zero interest in things like motivation or attitude. Gotcha.
I've always understood your hunches. I just keep waiting for you to objectively prove your hunches.
No. I note the reality that fallen, sinful, imperfect, humans do "good" things sometimes. I don't make the mistake of concluding that because someone who sometimes does some "good" things automatically becomes a "good" person. But remains a fallen, sinful person who sometimes does "good" things.
Why would you demand that I validate your unproven hunches?
I'm confused. Elsewhere Dan insisted that we must engage in rebuking those who sin, and if we follow his example we should do so publicly, loudly, vehemently, and selectively. Now he insists that he only talks about sin in response to "conservatives" who are engaged in doing what he claims is necessary.
That Dan's version of rebuke is loud, vehement, and public with no mention of repentance, or turning to Christ, seems germane. That he draws a direct line between a "conservative" pointing out the fact that we ALL sin and that Christ is the only path to forgiveness, and what he does, is disturbing.
This is what I said the last time Dan tried to speak of others he subjectively regards as good as actual "good". Why this is a problem for him isn't really mysterious, given his penchant for particular grievous sins he routinely defends and enables. Even he, with his decidedly serious sin nature sometimes does good and likely strives to be whatever the hell "good" is to him (putting that most subjective standard to be akin to "Christian"). If we choose to believe a word he says, his field of employment suggests "doing good". But neither that, nor anything else makes him any more than a "good person" as very generally understood by most raised in and living in a majority Christian culture. That culture informs and influences the notions of non-believers living within it, but it doesn't do a thing to make people literally good. It can only make them sinners who do good things, even compelled by the desire to be good.
Craig...
"So your big "proof" of people being "good" is your personal, imperfect, limited, observation of deeds your personally classify as "good", with absolutely zero interest in things like motivation or attitude."
I've addressed this endlessly. Of course, motivations and attitude can matter. And we can reasonably assess those, as well.
Do you have NO friends or colleagues who you recognize as good in acts and attitudes? Are YOU not a good person?
And if you're not a good person, then why should I take what you say as credible?
Craig...
"I note the reality that fallen, sinful, imperfect, humans do "good" things sometimes."
Again, that's not the question. Do you acknowledge the reality of actually good - imperfect and yet good - people?
If not, you need a better class of people to hang out with.
Craig cynically and with no support said...
I just keep waiting for you to objectively prove your hunches.
The proof of good people is people who generally live good lives.
The observable reality is that there ARE people in this world who...
* Generally, if not perfectly, love their families, are faithful to their spouses, nurture their children, help provide for their families, stay in contact with their parents, siblings, etc... and do so over their whole lifetimes. Observably, demonstrably so. My mother and father (conservatives, both) were great examples of this, but it's hardly limited to them...
* Who generally, if not perfectly, devote their lives to good, hard work. They work at reputable jobs and/or taking care of their families and neighbors, babysitting for friends when they need it, cook and deliver food and care packages to family and neighbors in times of sickness, deaths in the families, the birth of a child, etc. They pay their taxes and don't cheat their boss out of work. Again, my parents are great examples of all that, as well as many/most of my church friends both at conservative churches when I was younger and my progressive church circles now.
* whose vocational and vocational work is in service to children, the elderly, the sick and mentally ill and disabled, the homeless, the oppressed, immigrants, etc, etc. And ALL of that, not as isolated one offs, but as a general way of life... with no red flags suggesting, "Oh, this is part of a scam!"
Etc, etc, etc.
The objective proof is in the observable loving lives of huge numbers of people. Again, do you not know hundreds of people with lives like this? Because, I do and suspect most people do.
This is so weird. The only thing that I can think of to explain it is perhaps you thinking that people need to be near perfect to be good people. But, that would be a category error on your part. That, or all your family and friends (and you, yourself) are just bad people. But that defies reason.
You tell me.
Craig...
Why would you demand that I validate your unproven hunches?
Again with your vague sorta accusations. WHERE have I "demanded" you validate WHICH allegedly "unproven hunches?"
We are having a respectful (at least on my end.... I'll let you speak for yourself) conversation on the notion of Good People. I'm telling you I regularly see all sorts of clearly good people, as good is normally understood, and I'm asking you if it's not the case that YOU also see and know many good people in your life? IF that's what you're referencing, it's not a demand. It's an on-topic question. And it's a question relevant to the conversation. Of course, I know I regularly see and know good people. I know it as a lived reality. I'm wondering if MAYBE, you honestly don't know any/many good people. That might explain the difference and confusion between the two of us.
Conversely, MAYBE you're re-defining Good in some atypical manner. You tell me.
In either case, there is no demand... there are just rational questions germaine to the topic at hand.
Craig:
If you are "primarily concerned about human rights abuses" as opposed to Sin/sin(s), why waste your time discussing sin, and insisting that people are "good"? Other than your arrogant and narcissistic assumptions that what you are "primarily concerned about" should be the focus of everyone else, who cares?
Well, human rights abuses ARE sin - in the extreme. I talk about them because that is the primary focus (or one of them) in the Bible and because, of course, I think we should talk about human rights abuses. These actions are the worst of the worst. Why wouldn't I talk about human rights abuses.
And I talk about human rights abuses while talking about sin because conservatives lean so much - in fact, your entire human traditions are primarily based on your theories of "sin" - that I'm trying to get a better balance, more biblical and more moral and more just discussion of sin and rightly understanding and addressing what you all view as "sin..."
You see, it makes sense to many of us to focus on those actions that cause the most actual harm - slavery, rape, sexual harassment, oppression, failing to empower the poor and marginalized - as the "sins" to be concerned about. Then we can rightly balance our discussions about mere human imperfections and smaller failures. THESE day to day areas of sin/missing the mark are the place to focus on the Grace, Love and Welcome side of the gospel story. Is there a family broken apart because of unkind comments and practices reached a boiling point... how do we bring grace and love back to these broken families and relationships.
You see? Two sides of the problems of "sin..."
1. There are the human rights atrocities - Israel repeatedly calling out for God to save them from oppression, God and the prophets repeatedly condemning the nations, wealthy and powerful who abuse the poor and marginalized, the Good News that Jesus preached to the poor and marginalized in opposition to the rich oppressors, etc. THESE actions need strong rebukes and calls for repentance and healing towards the oppressors and solidarity with the oppressed.
2. Then there are the typical, every day failings. The teen who stole a cookie from his aunt or even snuck some beer from his neighbor's refrigerator, is not the same as the rapist/oppressor. That teen needs grace, love, forgiveness and to be brought back in and restored the relationship. I fear that conservative human traditions (not just Christian conservatives, but really, religious conservatives from many religions) treating all of humanity as the totally depraved is mixing up the "typical" failings of humanity with the great atrocities of oppressors... and there is great harm in that sort of treatment of sin. I think the record shows it too often fails to confront and defy the human rights abusers and overly harshly criticizes, demonizes and attacks the typical "sins" and even disagreements about what is and isn't "sin."
It's pretty simple. Dan judges the entirety of a person's character based on whether that person does some number of actions which Dan subjectively labels as "good". That this is a small sample size of the person's life and actions, let alone that it doesn't measure motivation, is immaterial. As long as a person does Dan approved "good deeds",where Dan can see them, Dan will label them a "good person" regardless of their motivation or actions that Dan doesn't see.
Fallen, sinful, humans can absolutely do "good" things. That doesn't magically transform them into "good" people.
"can matter"
What a load of crap. Of course they matter. Christ Himself made this quite clear.
As I've repeated every time you've tried this idiotic tactic. Yes, I know people who do "good" things and have "good" attitudes. That they sometimes do things that are subjectively "good" doesn't magically make them entirely "good".
I'm a fallen, sinful, person who sometimes does "good" things and sometimes does things that are less "good". I sometimes do "good" things from "bad" motivations. I don't measure my worth or value based on whether or not I do a few "good" things.
Because credibility doesn't hinge on one's subjective "goodness".
It would be idiotic to insist that people who don't measure up to your subjective standard of "good" cannot have "credibility" on anything.
I note the reality that fallen, sinful, imperfect humans do "good things sometimes". I note the reality that some of those "good things" are done from impure or "bad" motivation.
If you are suggesting that you and your ilk are a "better class of people", I most definitely will pass on hanging out. I'm happy with the fallen, sinful, imperfect, yet saved through the finished work of Christ, people I hang out with. We're more focused on trying to become more like Christ as opposed to judging people based on their "good works".
So, YOU fellas are NOT good people, by your own testimony... AND, NONE of you family, friends and lived ones are good people??
1. Man, how depressing to be you or any of your friends?
2. Do your friends/family know you view them as "bad people..." (or at best, NOT good people??)
3. IF you're self-confessed NOT Good people, why would anyone take your opinions, especially on moral questions, seriously?
You've lost, gentlemen. Work on becoming actually good people and come back and let's talk.
So you can't prove your original claim, that these "good works" were YHWH acting in these people's lives, so you make a different claim which you also can't prove.
Yes, you have this unproven hunch that these people you allegedly see do some subjectively "good works" are objectively "good people". You continue to demand that I validate this, and other, unproven hunches.
As you cannot prove that these people who's "good works" you "see" are engaging in those "good works" out of a "good" motivation, you seem to have a problem making the leap from subjectively "good works" to objectively "good people".
When you insist that your unproven hunches are "reality" you implicitly demand that I validate your unproven hunches.
If you, as you claim, "focus on those actions that cause the most actual harm - slavery, rape, sexual harassment, oppression, failing to empower the poor and marginalized", why do you only (or primarily) complain about slavery in the US and Ancient Israel? Why are you silent about the massive increases in rape in Europe? Why do you not rebuke the judge who's allowed a 3 time rapist to walk free with no jail time, or the judge who gave the lightest possible sentence to the guy who kidnapped and raped a 12 year old? Why are you silent on the oppression, sexual violence, and genocide occurring in Africa in 2025? Likewise, why are you silent on slavery that continued to occur after the US eliminated it?
I know, you'll occasionally make some vague, milquetoast, half hearted, general condemnation of these things before you go back to bashing Trump and "conservatives", but be a man and stand up for these heinous sins as loudly, vehemently, and specifically as you bash Trump for things he hasn't done.
Cute made up dichotomy. I'm not wasting time with your misrepresentations and fantasies.
Knowing that I'm repeating something I've said multiple times, elsewhere, I'll try again,
I have no desire to be a "good person" based on your subjective, performance based, hunches.
I have no desire to be so consumed with pride that I count my "good deeds" to measure whether or not I'm a "good person".
I have no desire to constantly compare myself and my "good deeds" with others and my opinions about their "good deeds"
I reject the notion of measuring how "good" someone is based on someone else's hunches about their public "good deeds". I see nothing in scripture that would encourage this sort of subjective righteousness based on "good works".
I am content to do my very best to look at myself as honestly as I can, and to be content that whatever "goodness" I possess comes from the finished work of Christ in and through me. Not through anything I have done or do.
From a subjective standpoint, based on a subjective comparison between myself and others, most people would probably call me "good".
As far as my family, friends, etc, I'd say that there is a scale of (subjective/comparative) "goodness" that encompasses a range of subjective "goodness". For those of us who are believers, I'd say that most of of find out "goodness" in the finished work of Christ and not by keeping score of our "good works" or comparing ourselves to the "good works" of others.
I believe Jesus when He said,“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”.
1. Not at all. Again, as Jesus said, "I have come that you might have life and have it to the full.", “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven.", I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.".
2. It gratifying when you are forced to misrepresent/put words in my mouth in order to try to score points.
3. See above. FWIW, I've never even suggested (unlike you) that anyone take my "opinions" as anything but "opinions".
If you mean that we've "lost" because we don't take pride in our subjective "good works" and prate on about what "good people" we are, then sure. As the song says, "I once was lost, and now I'm found", being "lost" to Sin and found in Christ is something I gladly acknowledge.
It's strange that you see this as a contest to be won or "lost" based on limited observation and subjective evaluation of "good works". It fits what you expose of your personality that you see it that way.
Unlike you, I am content to be a sinful, fallen, imperfect, human saved through the grace extended by YHWH, through Jesus finished work alone. I don't seek the approval or accolades of people like you, I hope (one day) to hear "Well done, good and faithful servant." from YHWH. That's all I can hope for.
To answer some questions (just to remind you again of how it's done...)
why do you only (or primarily) complain about slavery in the US and Ancient Israel?
I do not know that it's the case that I "only complain about slavery in the US and ancient Israel." As far as I know, it's NOT the case. I certainly don't think I've ever posted often on those topics on my blog EXCEPT perhaps, when it's been in the news.
For instance, I did a post this year about how the Trump administration is reverting to honoring former slave owners and traitors who engaged in a war to defend slavery. Did YOU comment on that when it was in the news? If not, why not?
Probably, I address those problems when they come up in conversations, whereas, slavery in Uganda doesn't come up.
That's a strange question.
Why are you silent about the massive increases in rape in Europe?
It's not a news story I'm following. Again, I'm a finite person with limited time and, like you, I DO NOT COMMENT ON EVERY WRONG THAT EVER HAPPENS. No one does. Why are you mostly (entirely?) silent on the tens of thousands of killings of innocent people in Gaza? Why do you not comment about the extra-judicial murders of Venezuelans except when I bring it up?
No one comments on everything. I tend to deal with problems where I have the most hope of affecting change, here in the US. There's nothing wrong with or unusual about any of that.
Why do you not rebuke the judge who's allowed a 3 time rapist to walk free with no jail time, or the judge who gave the lightest possible sentence to the guy who kidnapped and raped a 12 year old?
Again, NOT a story I've followed or know anything at all about. I get that maybe YOU have commented on what you think the story is (and indeed, what maybe the story actually is), but I don't hang on your every word. I have NO IDEA what story you're talking about here and when I'm not familiar with a story, I don't comment on it.
Again, there's nothing unusual about that. Has there been a slaughter of purple unicorns on the moon? Because, I've not heard of any such slaughters and thus, have made no comments about it, because I haven't heard about it.
Weird.
Why are you silent on the oppression, sexual violence, and genocide occurring in Africa in 2025?
See my answer above. IF I'm not familiar with a story, I don't comment about that which I don't know.
Likewise, why are you silent on slavery that continued to occur after the US eliminated it?
I'm opposed to all slavery. Unlike you. So, what MORE do you want me to say? Beyond that, I've not been following any particular news stories about slavery, although I know it's still a problem and I fully support stopping it whenever and wherever it happens. You can KNOW that's the case because I am opposed to human rights abuses anywhere and ALL slavery IS a human rights abuse.
Would that you could agree to that very basic premise?
More...
See how easy it is to answer questions? Why don't you try?
Just as a final reminder: While I'm concerned about Albania, Armenia, Afghanistan, Angola, Austria, Aruba, etc, etc... I just won't generally comment on what's happening in other places UNLESS our nation is taking actions there that I either appreciate or am concerned about. Because, like you, I'm a finite person who doesn't comment on everything and everywhere.
I mean, when was the last time you raised a concern for what's happening in Albania or Armenia? Congo (along with the US) is in the top ten list of nations where women are most at risk of sexual assault. Have you commented on the dangers of sexual assault and misogyny in the Congo or the US?
We humans simply don't comment on everything. Of course. Quit asking this inane question. It's a big nothing. NOW, if there were a huge story in the US (or in Kentucky) about some topic that everyone knows about (the extrajudicial murders in Venezuela by the US military, for instance), feel free to ask about that. If I know the details, I may well have some opinions. Although rest assured, if it's a case of human rights abuses (LIKE extrajudicial murders), you can count on me being against it.
You?
Craig, dodging entirely the question of "Are you a good person...?" chose not to answer Yes or No, instead, offered a lot of non-answers like:
I have no desire to be a "good person" based on your subjective, performance based, hunches.
I have no desire to be so consumed with pride that I count my "good deeds" to measure whether or not I'm a "good person".
These are NOT answers to the question I've asked. Look, I GET that in the human tradition of "depraved humanity calvinism," you all are extremely uncomfortable talking about people in terms of "good..." So, forget about answering for yourself.
(I do see that you very grudgingly allow that "most people would probably" call you good. STILL not an answer to my question, but close.)
But setting that aside, you also didn't answer for your friends.
I can EASILY testify that I know many good people. People whose lives are defined by their decency, their kindness, their compassion, the way they help and serve and model love to others. People who do NOT do so for evil reasons, but just because it's how they are.
Do you NOT know any people like that? Your vague answer is not very helpful or direct.
Is human "goodness" relative? To some degree, sure. There IS no perfect scale on which to measure Goodness. But at the same time, a person who does NOT intentionally cause direct harm to others beyond hurt feelings that come from simple human imperfections... AND who also pour out their lives in countless ways of being helpful, loving, kind, welcoming... why is it hard for you to simply say, "YES, those are good people..."?
Put another way: What criteria would some human have to reach for you to consider them Good people? What hoops would they need to jump through? Would they need to be PERFECT before you could call them Good?
Also, what do you do with the many people in the Bible who are called Good and Godly? Noah was a Good Man ("Noah was a righteous man... BLAMELESS in his generation"), according to Genesis (or do you take that to be mythic?)
“Abram believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness”
Was the biblical author wrong to make that "bold" claim?
King Asa's heart was "perfect with God, all his days!"
God almighty calls Job "Perfect and upright!" Was God mistaken, do you think?
In Psalms and Proverbs, we see God referring to people as righteous (good).
"for the Lord knows the way of the righteous..."
"teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning"
And same for the Prophets:
"Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice"
John, in 1 John, said: "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous."
Clearly JOHN thought there were people who were righteous/good.
etc, etc, etc, etc.
There are clearly good people in the Bible, called out as such. What criteria do YOU need to see in place to make you comfortable with saying, "Yessir, that friend of mine was a good woman, loving and kind!"?
Or is there NOTHING short of perfection that would satisfy your judgmental heart?
Not only that, but having performed or indulged in Dan-approved good deeds, it means...to Dan...that any and all bad deeds are of no consequence in determining the "goodness" of the person in question. Of course, that too is contingent on Dan's standard for what constitutes sinful behaviors, which in no way aligns with Christian teaching.
No matter how much it is explained, the distinction between "good" people and people with sinful natures who do good things...and even strive to be good people, and the fact they neither sufficient to label anyone as "good" in the Eyes of God is just another of the many Scriptural teachings Dan rejects as "human tradition". which means understandings of Scripture Dan dislikes.
No one on this side of the divide ignores the good works of others, and while being totally unable to read the hearts of others can make judgements about intentions. Yet, none of it...not a damned thing...makes anyone more than a person with a sin nature. No one is good but God. But many are considered righteous for striving to put God first in all things.
I don't know anyone with whom Dan hangs out (except for feo who's a dick). I can't but believe they're all as evil and warped as Dan, since he refers to them as "people like me". Instead, I focus on the crap Dan spews but can't justify as true, factual or in any way truly Christian. So the "class" of people who surrounds Dan are not at all "better" than any of those with whom I associate. Not by a long shot.
Dan again lists good deeds (none of which can be proven to us, as if it would matter anyway) and by the list insists and asserts the deeds make them good.
God speaks of good deeds as dirty rags. When Dan's friends support sexual perversion, abortion, confiscatory taxation based on higher levels of productivity and a host of other non-Christian behaviors, no amount of good deeds can erase those evils from their ledgers.
Neither Craig nor I have any problem with referring to some people as "good people". But that's totally a relative description based on comparisons to assholes. It includes consideration for how they behave, what they do, how generous they are, etc., but still that which is based on comparing them to those who don't do what they do, or to the extent they do it. In Christian terms, these people we refer to as good are still sinful people who do good things and strive to be as good as possible. It's a truth claim based on Scriptural teaching, not a subjective "I like what this dude does, thus he's 'good'" kind of thing, whose negatives are eliminated by the commission of "good deeds".
Again, Dan works in the employment of the disabled. That's a good deed. But Dan enables sexual perversion and infanticide. Which tilts the scales more? Dan's a scumbag despite his "good deeds".
Dan judges sin or the severity of sin by how bad it seems to him, not to God. God does NOT pretend "minor" sins are minor, nor does He ignore minor breaches of His expectations for human behavior. Does God forbid stealing, lying, hurting others? Where does He speak of stealing millions as opposed to stealing a cookie? Where does He speak of lying about Trump as opposed to "little white lies"? Where does He speak of despotic oppression as opposed to hate when He regards hate as akin to murder?
Dan believes himself possessed of the authority to dictate to God AND man what constitutes behaviors God should condemn.
What's clearest to know and understand is what an evil person Dan has proven himself to be. He supports a variety of abject, unmistakable evils as "good" or morally benign and thinks his good deeds means he won't be held accountable for enabling abomination and infanticide, among his many other evils.
I don't think in terms of how others view my "goodness" or lack thereof. I focus on God, what He expects of me, and how far from being what He expects me to be I am. That distance isn't shortened by any good deed or amount of good deeds I perform. It's shortened by my faith in Christ, that He has sacrificed His body and blood to pay my debt to the Father, and that nothing I could possibly do can make me a "good" person in the Eyes of God. All our righteous acts are like dirty rags.
I'd go further than that, based on the available evidence. Dan would ignore the motivation or attitude which might drive the "good deeds" as he cannot possibly know what those are. He clearly doesn't seem to have a metric for balancing "good/bad deeds", or at least hasn't shared one. Finally, it's clear that there are some people who (in Dan's eyes") are so irredeemable that it doesn't even matter how many "good deeds" they have done, do, or might do. He simply writes off their "good deeds" as not enough.
What I think that he misses is the fact that all people are a balance of "good/bad" deeds, and that "good deeds" are most often done where they can be seen, while "bad deeds" are more often done out of public view. That he bases his subjective hunch only on what he personally can "see" without regard to that which isn't seen, seems problematic at best. Inconsistent at worst.
Dan trots out the same old excuses as to why he's obsessed with attacking two forms of slavery primarily, and why he is essentially silent on any other types of slavery.
For example, there was a news story that got a fair bit of visibility in which a HUMAN RIGHTS judge was busted for OWNING A SLAVE. That isn't enough to get Dan's passion for human rights or hatred of slavery worked up. Now that I've brought it up, he'll make his usual milquetoast, pro forma, vague, bland, and general disclaimer (and bitch that he can't find any information about this story) and move on.
"For instance, I did a post this year about how the Trump administration is reverting to honoring former slave owners and traitors who engaged in a war to defend slavery."
Ohhhhhhhhhh, one whole post bashing Trump. How brave of you. Of course that fits right into my point that you only get worked up about slavery in two contexts, both old/ancient. FYI, I just saw a piece (I'll post it when I find it) which pointed out that several of the leaders of the Confederacy wanted to be tried for their actions, yet were not because there was concern that a court would have ruled that succession was legal, which would have meant that they were not traitors. I'll simply note that history is history and that trying to hide, change, suppress, or ignore history carries it's won risks. You know what is said about those who choose not to remember history...
"Did YOU comment on that when it was in the news? If not, why not?"
Don't know, don't care. As I'm most unwelcome at your blog, I probably didn't waste much time on it.
"Probably, I address those problems when they come up in conversations, whereas, slavery in Uganda doesn't come up."
Strange that for someone who is allegedly so committed to human rights, so passionately against slavery, vehemently against oppression, and stridently outspoken on some rapes, that you are so unaware of and unengaged in instances of those things happening in 2025. I regularly post on all of these issues, yet I can't recall an instance of you commenting vehemently against these evils.
"Why are you mostly (entirely?) silent on the tens of thousands of killings of innocent people in Gaza?"
This might be part of the reason why I "don't answer" your questions. The above question is based on a simply, factually, absurdly false premise. I've written a lot on what has happened in Gaza, and the killings of thousands of innocent Israelis for years. I've also written multiple times on the fact that the numbers of innocent victims in Gaza have continued to drop because people like you simply, blindly, accepted the propaganda and ran with it.
"Why do you not comment about the extra-judicial murders of Venezuelans except when I bring it up?"
Again when you base your questions on lies, why would you think I'm obliged to answer them?
I've addressed this issue quite a bit. Art and I have gone around and around on it at both his and my blogs. As I've gotten and posted more actual information about the actual legal basis (and Chuck Schumer's involvement in writing the law), my position has changed. Strangely enough, you haven't countered any of the actual citations of the legal justification for these actions.
It's strange because I've posted multiple stories (at least one of which you've commented on) about the Judge letting a 3 time rapist walk with no jail time. (despite your insistence that anything more than one rape should result in jail time.) For someone so committed to human rights, justice, and the like, it's surprising that news stories of these kinds of abuses don't motivate you to find out more.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Your "opposed to all slavery", but you only get engaged or vehemently vocal when it's slavery in ancient Israel or the pre 1865 US. 20th/21st century slavery just doesn't elicit your vehemence and anger as muc as slavery from the long past.
I agree that you theoretically "oppose" things like slavery. Yet your outrage and engagement seems to be selective at best. Sure, you'll throw out some vague, general, milquetoast, disclaimer when pressed, but you reserve your strident vehemence for only two instances of slavery. It seems strange for someone who claims such a strong commitment to human rights to ignore or stay mostly silent on human rights abuses happening right now (with a very few exceptions.) . For example, if I was made aware of tens/hundreds of thousands of children being raped in Europe, I'd at least be mildly curious, but clearly not you.
I don't have to "try", I do. Now I've learned that my answering questions has very little impact on the conversation, and that answering the same question the same way over and over again isn't enough to penetrate your memory, and that you're going to bitch about this whether I answer your questions or not. So, I'm not as meticulous as I used to be because it's an exercise in futility for the most part.
I've written multiple times about the situation in Armenia, the plight of the Yazidi, and the genocide on Congo (among other African nations). I've written and commented on the recent rash of those who attack women being released with little or no jail time, and the recent spate of people committing violent crimes with double or triple digit felonies.
The problem is that you can't use "I don't have time to read everything you write or stay current on human rights abuses." and "When was the last time you wrote about..." at the same time. If you read what I write, you'd know how much I've written about these issues over the last couple of years.
That you choose parochialism in your quest to right human rights abuses tells me plenty about how much you really are concerned. That you are unaware of recent events right here in the US (Dude kidnapped and raped a 12 year old, his religious community justified his actions, and the "justice" system let him off with the minimum. 3 rapes, no jail time. FGM in the midwest. Repeat violent offenders on the streets to kill others. Woman who called a guy the "N" word gets more jail time than a rapist. Even in your parochialism you ignore the abuses of the "justice" system against innocents.
Yet you continue to cling to a narrative increasingly undermined by legal precedent, even when that legal precedent was written by one of your DFL heros.
In addition to Dan deciding that he gets to decide what makes a "good" person, he now takes over the responsibility to decide what answers are answers. If he doesn't like them, then he gets to decree them "dodges".
I know this'll crush you, but you don't get to demand that I answer questions exactly how you want me too.
Nothing else you paraphrased is in conflict with anything I've said so I see no reason why I'd waste my time with it.
Craig...
In addition to Dan deciding that he gets to decide what makes a "good" person, he now takes over the responsibility to decide what answers are answers.
1. I didn't say, I alone get to decide who good people are. I said we ALL can do this. Right?
Recognizing that, are you suggesting that we mortals are NOT capable of recognizing good people? (Lord have mercy on you and yours if that's how you operate! What a sad set of blinders those would be to burden yourself with).
2. A question is either directly answered or it's not, objectively so. You simply, objectively did not answer my questions.
Reality matters, seems to me.
1. Which is simply another way of saying that you get to decide. When there is a disagreement over who is a "good person", how is that disagreement resolved? What is the final determination of who is really "good" decided by?
Look, if you want to ignore what we say that's fine, but don't expect us to answer this idiocy over and over again when we've already done so.
2. Given your aversion to directly answering questions exhibited for years, and your annoyance at me when I do directly and succinctly answer your questions, this is amusing. You seem to have this double standard where you get to decide if your answers to my questions are "direct", while also getting to decide the same about my answers to your questions. A double standard at best. My answers are my answers, regardless of your subjective opinion of them. you don't get to make these sweeping subjective claims as pretend as if they are objective.
"Seems to..." simply invalidates the rest of the sentence it is part of. Who cares.
I get that you don't like my answers, I don't expect you to. But the fact that you don't like them doesn't make them not answers.
Likewise, your out of context proof texts don't actually prove anything.
Dan continues to conflate human subjectivity regarding "goodness" or "good behavior"....particularly HIS subjectivity....with "good" as defined by Scripture in multiple places, including the words if Christ.
Neither Craig nor I have any problem referring to specific people people as "good" people. But it simply means they are so as compared to the great number of others who aren't good at all.
Comparing humans to other humans in terms of good and bad isn't at all the issue of concern for us regards the question from a Christian perspective. What's clear to me, however, is how "good" is not an appropriate descriptor of Dan in either sense.
And here's the especially funny part: the Pharisees...those dudes to whom Dan likes to pretend we're somehow comparable...were convinced they were "good people" based on their deeds...just like Dan.
That last should have been signed, "Art".
That does seem to be the case. When we compare "good" there are two possible ways to do so. We can compare ourselves to other people, which usually involves a degree of subjectivity. We can compare ourselves to YHWH.
In either case, we can and do massage our own actions to seem better (to ourselves). The difference is that when we compare ourselves to others, it makes us hopeful that we have the ability to make ourselves "good enough" or at least better than others. When we compare ourselves to YHWH, we realize that our only hope is Jesus and what He did for us. We let go of having to compare ourselves to others, to rest in Jesus' finished work. We don't have to be "good enough", because Jesus makes us "good".
I've come to two conclusions on this topic.
First, the one person who most would consider to the the most "good" human of the last 100 years (Mother Theresa) was quite clear in her 2003 book that she did not consider herself particularly "good".
Second, that I don't find referring to myself as being sinful in the way Dan seems to perceive it. Partly because I cannot refer to myself as sinful or as a sinner, without remembering that I am saved by grace through the finished work of Jesus. That "My sins were as scarlet, but were made white as snow", or that my sins are as far away "as the east is from the west" is my reality.
Dan seems to focus on the sinful part and make that a big deal, while I focus on the redeemed part. Without being sinful, forgiveness has no value.
"Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
For those who live in a world where they only commit a few "minor", "everyday", "normal" sins Jesus seems to say that their love for Him is directly related to their what they've been forgiven for.
It seems to me that insisting that most people are ontologically "good", and only commit a few "minor" sins, leads to minimizing their need for forgiveness.
Yet Jesus seems to be saying otherwise.
I've heard it said that the root of all sins is pride. It's the attitude that I and I alone know what is really sinful and what is not. I cannot see how this insistence on focusing on "good works" as the only True measure of "goodness" can be accomplished without an unhealthy degree of pride.
To be fair, I would suggest that both putting too little emphasis on sin and putting too much emphasis on sin can both lead to a place of pride and to distorting The Gospel message.
Post a Comment