"1. Do you believe that some sins deserve eternal torment?"
No.
"2. What specific crimes or misdeeds warrant eternal torment?"
See answer above.
"3. Do you believe/theorize that even one sin, one single lie to your mother, justifies eternal torment?"
See #1.
"4. But how is that consistent with justice or ideas of justice as justice is normally understood?"
This is impossible to answer. Without a universal, objective, standard for "justice", this is just asking for an opinion. define "normally understood" when "justice? for theft runs from amputation of limbs, to probation?
"5. Do you believe in the perfectly loving and perfectly just God? "
Yes, I believe that those of two of YHWH's immutable attributes.
"6. How do you define perfectly loving and perfectly just? Based on what?"
Based on what has been revealed to us about YHWH, the following is a good start. Having said that demanding an exhaustive, complete definition of something or someone that is completely beyond our ability to comprehend is ridiculous.
"Perfect means being entirely without flaws, completely correct, or satisfying all requirements to the highest possible degree. It describes something so complete and excellent that it cannot be improved upon."
" In the Bible, "perfect" rarely means flawless or sinless. It typically translates from the Hebrew word tamim and the Greek word teleios, which mean complete, mature, whole, or having reached one's intended purpose."
" The Bible defines love as a selfless, sacrificial, and unconditional commitment to the well-being of others. Rather than just an emotion, biblical love (agape) is an active choice to show grace, seek the best for someone else, and put their needs above your own."
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."
"The biblical concept of justice is primarily built on two foundational Hebrew words found in the Old Testament, which are often paired together:
[1]- Mishpat (מִשְׁפָּט): Primarily translated as "justice" or "judgment." It refers to rendering to each person what is due them, punishing evil, and actively protecting the rights of the marginalized—specifically the "quartet of the vulnerable": the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the immigrant.
- Tzedakah (צְדָקָה): Translated as "righteousness." While this involves personal moral uprightness, it also heavily implies acting ethically and fairly in all of your relationships and giving to those in need.
- Dikaiosyne (δικαιοσύνη): The New Testament Greek equivalent, carrying the same dual meaning of personal moral integrity and a lifestyle that seeks fairness and equity for others."
"7. Do you believe that it is God's will that none should perish or be tortured, not one human?"
"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but
is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all
should reach repentance."
Let's start with accurately quoting the scripture you are adding to. Let's also consider that these are not the words of Jesus from one of His public sermons, Further, let's look at some of the context.
" 2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles"
The author is appealing to Scripture and encouraging the readers to recall both the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the teachings of both Jesus AND the "apostles". "3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."
The author grounds his position in the reality of YHWH creating the heavens and the earth, as well as noting the coming judgement and "destruction of the ungodly"
"8 But
do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like
a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
The phrase you take out of context is focusing on YHWH's patience in giving ample time before the judgement referred to.
"10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells."
Note the call to holiness and godliness as we wait for the ultimate destruction, judgement, and restoration.
"14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He
writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these
matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand,
which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
Interesting that the author speaks so highly of Paul and of the message Paul was preaching. While the author does point out that YHWH's patience does allow for salvation, he does not state unequivocally that salvation is universal.
When you take a snippet of a verse out of context, add your own editorial spin to it, and pretend like you're actually quoting scripture, it's hard to take you seriously. As your question is based on your own perversion of scripture, I see no reason to dignify it with any more of an answer.
"8.
Why would you take a verse that says something about eternal hell
literally but not the verse that clearly says God is not willing that
any should perish?"
I take both seriously. One wonders why you don't. Of course, I take the actual verse and it's context into account rather than pulling a snippet out of context and editing it.
"9. What is your rubric for deciding which verses should be taken literally and which figuratively?"
I take all verses literally.
"10.
Can you clarify that you can't objectively know which passages should
be taken figuratively and which literally OR do you think that you DO
have that power to understand perfectly the literal and figurative
verses?"
See above.
"And other questions like these..."
Now that I've answered these simplistic, weak attempts at gotcha questions to the extent that time, space, and scripture twisting allow. I want to note a couple of things.
First, questions 1, 2, and 3, are simply asking the same thing in slightly different ways. Effectively making them one question.
Second, likewise 4,5, and 6, are also simply minor variations of the same question.
Third, questions 7 and 8 are based on a false premise which renders then pointless and irrelevant.
Fourth, questions 9 and 10 are (again) examples of asking the same question in slightly different ways.
Which leaves us with 4 questions, instead of 10. All of which have been answered, responded to elsewhere.
Leaving us with the "And other questions like these..." phrase. Which is idiotic and meaningless.
It's easy to be a mighty keyboard warrior when your opponents are all straw men.
134 comments:
AI Overview.
"In Scripture, "sin" (singular) refers to the internal root or nature of rebellion against God, while "sins" (plural) refer to the outward actions and transgressions that stem from that nature.1. Sin (Singular): The Root and StateIn the singular, sin is described as a governing principle or spiritual disease. It is the condition of humanity inherited from the Fall, characterized by unbelief and independence from God.Romans 5:12: Explains that "sin entered the world through one man," showing how sin became a universal, indwelling power rather than just a single action.Romans 6:6: Refers to humanity's "body of sin," highlighting that our very nature outside of Christ is enslaved to this power.1 John 1:8: States, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves," acknowledging that the sin nature remains present in believers, even if they are no longer enslaved to it.2. Sins (Plural): The Fruit and ActionsIn the plural, sins are the individual thoughts, words, and deeds that violate God’s holy standard. These are the visible symptoms of the invisible sin nature.Matthew 15:19: Jesus details these outward expressions, saying, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander."Ephesians 2:1: Paul describes believers as having been "dead in your transgressions and sins," pointing to the active ways people conduct their lives in rebellion.3. The Scriptural Remedy: The Cross and CleansingBecause the Bible distinguishes between the two, the New Testament offers distinct remedies for both aspects of the problem.Deliverance from Sin: Through the death of Christ, the power of the "sin nature" is broken so that believers are no longer its slaves. As detailed in Romans 6:11, believers are to "count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus."Forgiveness of Sins: Our actual transgressions require active forgiveness and cleansing, made possible entirely by the blood of Christ. 1 John 1:9 provides the actionable pathway for this daily restoration: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness".While "sin" is the underlying condition of our fallen state, "sins" are the daily manifestations of it that are washed away through ongoing confession and reliance on God's grace."
https://holdingtotruth.com/2012/03/03/the-difference-between-sin-and-sins-two-problems-two-solutions/
https://kingdomoftheheavens.net/the-distinction-between-sin-singular-and-sins-plural-part-1/
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/what-is-sin-the-essence-and-root-of-all-sinning
https://seedbed.com/the-difference-between-our-sins-and-our-sin/
Dan pretending that no one, ever, has answered his questions or dealt with his objections is absurd.
Dan refusing to make a positive case for what he actually believes to be True, as opposed to attacking straw man caricatures of what others have said is ridiculous.
So you do NOT think that some sins deserve eternal punishment? That is your position?
Do you think that some sins do merit eternal punishment and other sins do not?
If so which ones do not and which ones do and what do you base that upon?
As I've been clear you all answer some of the questions but don't follow the rational conclusions your answers bring. It's the total that you're collectively dodging not any one question. As you can see here, you sort of answer some of the questions but ignore the larger implications and are not clarifying but here's your chance.
I had asked:
"But how is that consistent with justice or ideas of justice as justice is normally understood?"
You responded:
"This is impossible to answer. Without a universal, objective, standard for "justice", this is just asking for an opinion."
As the question was literally asked, it is, of course, not impossible to answer. My question was, AS JUSTICE IS NORMALLY UNDERSTOOD... Not, "according to some objectively perfect understanding of justice..."
The point I'm getting to is if some or any sins are punished for an eternity, even the slightest offenses, how is that consistent with justice as we normally understand it in adult conversations? Given that our normal understanding of justice requires proportionate punishment and that crazily disproportionate punishment is no longer just.., you understand that's how justice is normally understood, right?
It's where your responses lead to that you all are collectively failing to address and answer. But again here's your chance.
Craig...
"Dan refusing to make a positive case for what he actually believes to be True..."
I do this all the time. I'm not sure what you're missing.
As to the nature of humanity, I believe it is obvious that humans are imperfect human beings. We regularly do good, kind, loving, and just things for one another and for the world AND at the same time we mess up, we make mistakes, and on some occasions we may even engage in atrocious and evil behavior. Not all of us but some of us.
That is my positive case for what I believe, based on observable evidence. Do you disagree with it?
As to this theoretical sin nature, I see no objective evidence to believe it is anything other than a rhetorical reference to our imperfect nature. I do not think it means that we are totally depraved, or evil, or deserving of eternal torment. Do you?
What precisely do you think I have not argued a positive case for?
Craig...
"Dan pretending that no one, ever, has answered his questions or dealt with his objections is absurd..."
I looked at your first and last source. Neither of them is addressing my questions. I'm totally fine with providing links to someone who IS answering the questions so you don't even have to do it yourself... but those aren't it. Do you think they do address the holes pointed out in my questions?
Re: "strawman..." You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I'm asking reasonable questions for people who believe in a perfectly loving and perfectly just God who, nonetheless, is willing to see many perish, who thinks that it is just to punish someone for an eternity for temporal misdeeds. The typical position of many conservative religionists is deeply problematic from a rational, moral, and justice point of view.
But asking reasonable questions is not raising up a straw man.
Looking at your second link (kingdom of the heavens.net), we see the writer offer his opinions about "sin" and "sins," and beginning with Romans 14, in which Paul opines about the distinction between a fellow follower who believes X is wrong and whether or not X is actually wrong. That is, whether "eating meat" is wrong or not (it's not, he opines) BUT, he offers that for a "weaker brother" who THINKS it is wrong, it IS wrong for him... The main point that I draw from that whole lovely passage is one of Grace - not to have quarrels over unproven opinions.
The author, on the other hand, replies with this:
In this passage, the usage of the word “sin” (singular) is ambivalent–it may refer either to a discrete wrong act or omission, or to the underlying state of the person’s heart–and most likely refers to both. On any specific occasion, eating something I consider doubtful under the circumstances–or doing anything I consider questionable under the circumstances–because I am aware of the possibility that my act may cause offense and division, performing that act is certainly a sin–a discrete wrong act. But it also shows that I am motivated by inward sin–an inward attitude of rebellion–because I am “no longer walking in accordance with love” and am not pursuing “the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.” In this sense, “faith,” which always walks in accordance with love, is the opposite of “sin.”
In other words, he finds a source for his theory about the difference between "sin" and "sins..." (as is true for at least two other of your sources. )
In yet other words, he is offering his opinion which is fine, as long as he/you/y'all recognize it AS an opinion. As soon as that humble grace is removed and you all start trying to force this personal human opinion as "God's Word, from me to you..." then the grace has gone and it would seem, to me, to be missing the point of Paul's words altogether.
From there, he rambles on a long time offering his takes on Paul's words in other chapters and books (never once citing Jesus, mind you). In his later posts in this tedious series, he does get around to citing Jesus. Some.
I believe his eventual point is what many conservative religionists theorize: That the "sin" we're guilty of is deliberately rebelling against God. If so, THAT is part of the problem.
1. We humans are objectively imperfect. Of course, that is observable and not in question. We don't need human theories of biblical texts to see that.
2. We humans - SOME of us - do indeed, in our imperfection, commit atrocities... genuinely evil acts of harm. Rape, abusing children, cheating charities, hedonism and self-enrichment at the expense of the common person, etc. Not all of us, but observably, some of us.
3. And perhaps it's true that some humans (not all of us, but some of us) deliberately choose to say things like "I reject God and goodness, grace, love and kindness! I will have nothing to do with it as a deliberate act of rebellion against God!"
4. AND YET, where this theory fails (if that is indeed the theory) is in anyway proving that all of humanity chooses to deliberately reject God and goodness and grace. We don't live up to it perfectly, of course, but I know few if any people who choose to openly reject God and goodness. WHERE is the evidence to support this particular human interpretation of some passages in the Bible (or other holy texts)?
Can you admit there IS no such evidence?
Can you further admit that there is no such evidence because it's observably just not a common reality?
At any rate, all of that to say that I'm reading your sources and not finding the answers to the questions that point to the holes in your human theories. Hell, I'm not even finding some basic humility to admit these ARE your human theories.
Stan, at his blog, rebuked me for calling his human theories a human theory.
Do YOU recognize these as imperfect, unproven human theories?
Thank you ever so much for demonstrating exactly the point I had made in the post. I answered your question as clearly and directly as possible, so you ask virtually the same question again in the comments.
No. Yes.
No.
The problem that you seem to be having here is not that your questions aren't being answered. It's that you don't like the answers or the fact that I've answered some of them simply and directly. You ask a question with a yes/no answer, then complain when I answer the question asked.
Thank you for confirming that your original complaint was BS, and moving the goal posts to continue to bitch.
FYI, from a quick perusal of Dan's comments, I see no reason to go through and parse everyone of them or answer every question. So far, I see nothing new or nothing that isn't simply a repeat of his unproven hunches.
The fact that he couldn't acknowledge that I quickly and easily falsified his claim that no one ever answers these questions, and had to move the goal posts, tells me all I need to know.
Further, the fact that Dan hasn't (so far as I can tell) actually made a positive case for his position based on scripture (while demanding that I do what he won't) tells me that he's just interested in complaining about his caricature of what others say/believe.
If you can't won't define your terms, don't complain when I point out that "justice as normally understood" allows for vastly different punishments for the same crime.
If you define the term in question, I'll be happy to answer this one as well. I didn't use some vague, nonspecific, undefined, subjective, made up standard.
It's on you to ask questions that can be answered, not on me to guess what your terms mean.
I would say that the only understanding of justice that really matters in a conversation about Sin/sins, is YHWH's understanding of justice. Not whatever you consider subjectively normal.
Given your complete and total lack of objective evidence for your "case", while you demand "objective evidence" from others, I think you've made my point. You stating your unsupported opinion, with a complete lack of "objective evidence" (no, you making claims about what you say you've observed, isn't "objective evidence"), isn't a "positive case". "I believe it's obvious" isn't an objective standard, nor is it evidence/DATA/proof. Grounding your "positive case" entirely in yourself, is hardly "objective", let alone "evidence".
"Not all of us but some of us."
You seem to be claiming that there is "objective evidence" that "not all of us" "make mistakes" or "engage in atrocious and evil behavior". Please prove this claim, and please prove that there are only two categories ("mistakes" and "atrocious and evil behavior").
Excellent, it is so refreshing when you demonstrate the points I make so well.
1. You admit that you didn't look at ALL of the things I provided, yet draw conclusions about ALL by only looking at two.
2. Your insistence that someone must only answer your 3/4 specific questions, is absurd.
3. The links I posted deal with the larger context around the 3/4 specific questions you asked.
4. Your specific claim was that no one ever answers your questions, or deals with your objections. I answered your questions (or noted that one question could not be answered due to lack of clarity and specificity), and provided you with plenty of information to ignore. My work is done here. If you want to define your terms in such a way as to make the one question answerable, I'll gladly answer it too.
If you say so. That your "reasonable questions" (reasonable not being an objective measure) are based on straw men or misrepresentations of others, I think that straw men is an appropriate enough term.
I'm not wasting my time with this rambling, mess of you imposing your opinions on others. I will note that the proof text you so proudly mischaracterized, was in the context of the author of the actual text you rewrote commending Paul for exactly what you dismiss as "opinion".
If I remember correctly, Stan rebuked you for the fact that you continue to comment on his posts.
Dan,
It's not surprising that you have misunderstood the intent of this post.
So, let me be clear, the intent of this post is to simply put the lie to your claims that your 3-4 specific questions have never been answered or dealt with. That they have previously, seems irrelevant to you so I've answered this most recent bunch (with the exception of the one which suffers from inadequate definition of terms, which I'll gladly answer once you fix the problem) to prove you wrong.
Having clarified that which should have been obvious, I see no real reason to continue to entertain every single bit of nonsense you spew.
If you define your term to the point I can answer your question, I will. If you say something original, as opposed to simply regurgitating the same old foolishness, I might address it.
But, I've made my point, provided you with much more information that was necessary to answer your questions, and I see no need to indulge your much more.
"When they say, "Make america great again," they are too often intending to say, "make the US like it was 50 years ago, when white conservative religiosity wasn't questioned...""
Please provide specific, objective proof that you are accurately representing exactly what "they" really mean.
I'll also note the ridiculousness of you addressing Stan and his blog specifically in your posts. You've been told repeatedly why your comments are not allowed, yet you continue to comment. Whether it's stupidity or hubris that drives you, who knows.
You could absolutely address the topics you address without specifically bringing Stan or any commenters into your posts. You choose not to.
Craig:
Thank you ever so much for demonstrating exactly the point I had made in the post. I answered your question as clearly and directly as possible, so you ask virtually the same question again in the comments.
So, SINS don't deserve eternal punishment, according to Craig.
AND YET, you believe in eternal punishment. So, if SINS don't deserve eternal punishment, what does?
I'm guessing, given your links, that you don't think any sins committed by humans merit eternal punishment, but having a "sinful nature" or "sin nature" DOES? Is that the point of your vague answers which absolutely failed to answer the question/point being addressed?
Because if "sin nature" is what is deserving of eternal punishment, that is STILL the same rational problem that answering "our sins" are what demand eternal punishment. Sin or SINS, it's STILL the same problem.
WHO SAYS we have an objective "sin nature..."? Where is the proof of this wild theory OR are you glad to admit it can't be objectively proven?
WHO SAYS that having this theoretical "sin nature" is somehow deserving of eternal punishment? That sounds morally insane and unjust as hell, on the face of it. Where is the proof of this wild theory OR are you glad to admit it can't be objectively proven?
Is the notion, "Humans have a sin nature" somehow different than saying, the obvious and observable, "Humans are imperfect..."? If so (in your head), how? Why? Do you have any objective proof for this rather wild theory?
(IF, indeed, that is your theory...)
Sigh. How do YOU define justice? Just punishment? Do you THINK I mean something other than the standard definition/understanding of Justice?
Is it the case that you don't recognize what people at least in the west mean by Justice and that there are some basic ideals we recognize as just and unjusts?
By justice, I mean just how it's normally defined in the English speaking world (and other languages that share this same philosophy, which I believe is fairly universal - WITH the exception of some extremist outlier philosophies).
Justice is the ethical and philosophical principle that
all individuals should be
treated fairly, impartially, and given what they are due.
It forms the moral and legal foundation of society, dictating how rights, benefits, and punishments are distributed.
The Core Pillars of Justice:
Fairness: Treating individuals without bias or prejudice.
Equality: Ensuring everyone receives the same respect, rights, and opportunities.
Due Process: A transparent and consistent legal process where all rules apply equally.
Or, as you rightly note, the Jewish/Hebrew word/concept of Justice:
Primarily translated as "justice" or "judgment."
It refers to rendering to each person
what is due them,
punishing evil, and
actively protecting the rights of the marginalized
You know, Justice.
Do YOU mean something different by Justice?
Craig:
Given your complete and total lack of objective evidence for your "case", while you demand "objective evidence" from others, I think you've made my point.
Once again, some of the points of "my case" as it relates to this conversation:
1. Humans are objectively, observably imperfect human beings who make mistakes. THAT is an objective fact.
2. Most humans don't engage in what would typically be called evil atrocities - genocide, rape, child abuse, murder, etc. This is objectively the case. Do you disagree?
3. While SOME religionists like to reference a broader and unsupported "definition" or vague "meaning" to the notion of "evil," those are just subjective opinions with no support. As evil is typically defined, most humans aren't actively evil. Objectively so.
4. While SOME religionists like to imagine that we have a sin nature, there is no objective proof for this theory. Especially if they're trying to define their vague "sin nature" idea as something other than "merely imperfect." Because, again, objectively humanity IS imperfect, that we can see with our eyes. But a "sin nature..."? There is no proof of it. Objectively so.
5. Likewise for the notion of "inheriting a sin nature." Objectively, no proof for this theory.
And so on. My case is generally objectively noting that you all have no objective proof for your theories, and THAT is an objective fact (ie, the lack of proof of your theories on this issue.)
I'm not sure where you think I'm not objectively proving anything in this conversation.
This is amazing, it’s just an endless demand for more and more from Dan. I appreciate the effort you’ve gone to in making up this caricature.
1. If you aren’t going to read the actual post, don’t expect me to play your games.
2. You’re the one who refuses to define the specific term you used, why would you demand that I define your term.
3. The goal post move was abrupt and poorly executed. You clearly can’t make the case that your hunch about some mythical normal justice extends to Islamic justice so you backpedal to some vague Western justice.
Nice try, but your lack or reading or understanding is showing. B
Because you repeat your unproven hunches, doesn’t magically make those hunches objectively proven. Anything grounded entirely in yourself and your subjective observation is hardly objective.
Maybe you don’t understand what objective proof is.
Dan,
I’ve seen people do things that I personally, subjectively, think are good therefore I feel like I can extrapolate that small sample size judged subjectivity grounded in my subjective hunches about good into making objective claims about the ontological goodness of all of humanity. Arrogance on display.
I asked reasonable questions - the very questions that I noted were going unanswered by conservative religionists - and Craig responded...
This is amazing, it’s just an endless demand for more and more from Dan...
and
1. If you aren’t going to read the actual post, don’t expect me to play your games.
2. You’re the one who refuses to define the specific term you used, why would you demand that I define your term.
3. The goal post move was abrupt and poorly executed. You clearly can’t make the case that your hunch about some mythical normal justice extends to Islamic justice so you backpedal to some vague Western justice.
and...
So, let me be clear, the intent of this post is to simply put the lie to your claims that your 3-4 specific questions have never been answered or dealt with. That they have previously, seems irrelevant to you so I've answered this most recent bunch (with the exception of the one which suffers from inadequate definition of terms, which I'll gladly answer once you fix the problem) to prove you wrong.
Having clarified that which should have been obvious, I see no real reason to continue to entertain every single bit of nonsense you spew.
In short, he opted NOT to answer the questions being put to him, even though they are reasonable and arise from good faith conversations with people who promote human theories about "sin natures" and "righteous punishment for an eternity..."
Thus proving my point exactly. AND demonstrating to all who aren't blinded by human religionist traditions that perhaps Craig et al don't even understand that they're not answering the line of questions that point to obvious, deeply problematic holes in their irrational arguments and "theories..."
Craig, having failed to answer Dan's reasonable questions, resorts to a rather ridiculous ad hom attack...
I'll also note the ridiculousness of you addressing Stan and his blog specifically in your posts. You've been told repeatedly why your comments are not allowed, yet you continue to comment. Whether it's stupidity or hubris that drives you, who knows.
1. I often use Stan's posts because he regularly expresses so very well words that point to obvious holes in the conservative religionists' arguments. I'd rather deal with actual words than just make up a generic "some conservatives say..."
2. Indeed, anytime I DO note the reality that "some conservatives say..." you often criticize me for not citing an actual example.
3. He's openly expressing ideas. IF his ideas are solid and worthy of stating, then surely they can withstand some reasonable questions. Why WOULDN'T I use a specific example from Stan's (or his commenters') words to deal with problematic human theories from conservative religionists? What's wrong with using his words as examples, NOT to make fun of Stan, but to address the very holes his words and theories expose?
4. Beyond that, even when Stan doesn't address my questions directly, his posts are often attempts to answer the very reasonable questions I raise. Today is an example. I raised many reasonable, moral and biblical problems with the human theories of "hell" as espoused by conservative religionists such as Stan (and you, I believe). While he didn't address them in the post where I raised the question, he did go on eventually to deal with the questions raised.
Thus, from someone such as myself who DOES want to engage in good faith discussions such as conservative religionists' views of "sin" "sin nature" "SINS" "eternal punishment for temporal misdeeds," etc, then I'm succeeding in getting him to at least give a half-hearted effort to respond to my actual questions. AND, at the same time, because he doesn't really address the foundational holes in his arguments but merely regurgitates the human traditions he's comfortable with, his non-answers help to expose the holes in the traditionalists' theories.
In short, I ask reasonable questions dealing with actual people's theories because they are reasonable good faith questions to ask AND because (in Stan's case) he clearly reads the questions and TRIES to deal with them AND because he fails so tremendously in his non-answers that it serves to further expose the lack of rational, just, biblical support for that particular set of human traditions.
Why wouldn't I ask questions then?
I'm not being cruel by asking questions.
I'm not "attacking" anyone by asking questions.
I'm just pushing for (and to some degree, receiving) answers to reasonable questions. Even if the answers are not actual reasonable/moral answers... that TOO, is an answer.
Craig irrationally said:
Dan,
I’ve seen people do things that I personally, subjectively, think are good therefore I feel like I can extrapolate that small sample size judged subjectivity grounded in my subjective hunches about good into making objective claims about the ontological goodness of all of humanity.
What I've actually done is note the reality that of course, people do good things. I have seen them do good things. YOU have seen them do good things.
In noting the observable reality of actual good behaviors by normal humans, I'm noting observable reality. Why is that a problem?
In noting that I'm seeing people do good things (actually good things, great things, in fact - adopting orphans, helping people find jobs, helping people find housing, helping people escaping violence in another nation, etc), I'm just noting the reality of good behavior as good is defined. Why is that a problem?
Beyond that, I've made no extrapolation in any universal manner. I'm not saying all people do good things. I'm not saying that all good things done are done with perfect motivations. I'm not saying that all people are "basically good."
I'm just noting observable reality. Why is that a problem?
Further, in noting reality (which is a good thing to do, I posit - do you disagree?), I'm providing some data with which to deal with various theories espoused by some conservative religionists - people who would say that there are no good people, for instance. I'm noting that, of course, there are good people out there, we see them and their lives. AND, in noting that observable reality, I'm not saying that they are perfectly good (such people would be called "perfect," not "good."). I'm just noting the reality of actual good people.
Why is any of that a problem? Because it hurts your feelings? Because you want to try to force a literal reading of some text regardless of reality because you hold theories that such texts should be taken 100% literally and not as a figurative or hyperbolic point? Why should people bend to your personal opinions about such texts and human interpretations?
Humility is a great and reasonable thing, good man.
Posted to Stan today, after he offered his theories about hell. Just fyi:
If it helps, I'd like to suggest it comes down to this (for those in my belief system vs those in yours):
The Bible literally and regularly describes God as just and loving, a perfectly loving parent. Beyond the Bible, for those of us who rationally affirm the notion of a creator God who loves the universe, this is a reasonable starting point. You affirm this, I assume and we affirm it. We're not in disagreement there.
For us in my camp, then, those are GIVENS. God IS perfectly loving, not willing for ANY of God's children to perish. AND, God is perfectly just and will not act in any unjust way. Those are given biblical and rational points, a starting place. From there, ANY opinions that other humans hold, any human traditions and theories that say that at least sometimes, God DOES act in an unloving and unjust way, that's a deal breaker because we believe it devalues and slanders God and the notions of love and justice.
So, if some humans take some biblical texts and say, "ah! But it's speaking of a hell, here - of eternal punishment... But also, we acknowledge the biblical passages that affirm a perfectly loving and perfectly just God... and in OUR human tradition, we choose to redefine the notions of love and justice to say that sometimes God IS willing to see God's beloved children be punished for an eternity, even for lesser misdeeds... treating those lesser misdeeds as if they are equally evil to genocide, rape and murder of children.
Now, keeping in mind that the BIBLE doesn't have teachings that affirm that, nor has God told you that. It's what your camp has reasoned out so that the two sorts of passages (God is loving/just VS the mentions of eternal punishment) can make sense... to you.
Whereas for us, we value both sorts of passages (God is loving/just VS the mentions of eternal punishment) but we BEGIN with the notions of love and justice being sacrosanct - they are easily-enough understood concepts innately understood by humanity for just how they're typically defined (even if we don't perfectly live them out!) and so, we look at the eternal punishment passages (rarely if ever stated that way or speaking of a Dantean Hell) and recognize that nearly ALL of those passages are not speaking of some universal condition of humanity (ie, that we all hate and rebel against God, as humans - which is an unproven human theory, not supported by any data) but rather, they tend to be speaking of the wealthy oppressors who would cause harm to the poor and marginalized... and the point is that WE in God's beloved community are to be allies with the poor and marginalized, and to emphasize just how strongly God is opposed to rich oppressors and those who'd fail to ally with or who would cause harm to the poor and marginalized... The points of the eternal punishment passages is to emphasize God's just and loving nature and how VERY strongly important it is to ally with the poor and marginalized and generally, not be a harmful oppressor. It's hyperbole, which is a whole lot easier to reconcile the passages with as opposed to completely dismantling and undermining and redefining the notions of justice and love. AND it has the benefit of not slandering God and crossing over into blasphemy.
Because we love God and the biblical texts, we must disagree with your human theories on eternal punishment. And because we love reason and think this is not an impossible thing to understand and that sheer reason argues against your unproven theory which, in our estimation, is hellishly irrational and morally problematic.
Can you at least acknowledge that we who disagree with your theories do so for good and rational reasons, even if you think our reasoning is flawed?
This goal post move is impressive. It's like a double goal post move or something.
I'll note that my proving your original claim "no one answers any of my questions" (or words to that effect) was wrong, by answering the 3-4 specific questions you asked. (Inflated to 19 by asking the same question multiple times). I literally completed the assignment. Now, one of your questions did contain an undefined term (still mostly undefined although you've substituted a completely different term to cover your inability to define the original term) and I didn't answer that, in the original post but will happily do so when you define your term specifically. FYI, I did "answer" this question in part in answers to one of the other questions.
What I've chosen not to do is to indulge your penchant to ask endless questions by answering every single one specifically at this time. As time permits, I'm a finite human and don't have unlimited time to play your games, I'll probably answer some in more detail. But for now, I'm prioritizing what I need to do rather than trying to keep up with your demands.
Of course your "reasonable" and "good faith" claim is a subjective claim based on your subjective guesses about what those terms mean. That those questions have been dealt with elsewhere, by people much smarter than I, Dan chooses to pretend otherwise. I suspect that the links I posted probably deal with many, if not most, of Dan's questions.
I appreciate the hubris and arrogance contained in the last paragraph, although the very fact that I answered the list of questions Dan claimed were never answered makes this recent claim questionable at best. Likewise, Dan choosing to ignore the answers I provided, and what I've written up to this point raises questions about the "good faith" nature of the questions.
The ultimate problem is that Dan chooses to believe that whatever "problems" or "holes" he believes exist are actual/objective problems or holes. That he further believes that he, and only he, have identified these problems/holes and that no one in the 2,000 year plus history of Christianity has ever dealt with these problems/holes seems narcissistic at best. The problem seems to be that Dan believes that if he hasn't seen something, or if he doesn't like an answer, that it doesn't exist.
Lots of self serving, self promotion here. But nothing worth wasting time on.
You can absolutely ask questions. Although posting at Stan's seems a bit stupid. You can absolutely ask questions without directly referencing Stan, while still exploring the topics.
No one said you were being cruel. Stupid or arrogant perhaps, but not cruel. Likewise, no one said you are "attacking" anyone by asking questions.
You asked 3-4 questions, I answered the ones that could be answered given the information I had available.
I'll simply note that if you are going to claim that Stan "fails", you should probably be prepared to prove your claim objectively and to provide the counter argument that succeeds. Simply announcing that an argument "fails" isn't adequate.
Craig...
"I'll note that my proving your original claim "no one answers any of my questions" (or words to that effect) was wrong, by answering the 3-4 specific questions you asked."
You keep bringing this up, apparently thinking you're making a real point instead of actually proving my point, precisely. I'll remind you of what my original post ACTUALLY said.
I'll note that while they are glad to
answer these questions in part,
It's only in part...
never fully filling out a rational basis for the larger questions. Yes, they may say they believe in a hell of eternal torment and separation from God, but WHAT is it that deserves that sort of punishment?
This is literally what you're doing. Answering the first part of the LINE of questions but not getting to the larger point at the end of the line of questions.
I'm wondering if you're just truly not understanding that you are not debunking my point but exactly proving it. Weird.
Dan claims that my example was irrational, then proceeds to virtually say the same thing that I said.
The problems with your hunch are twofold.
1. You make a huge logical leap from observing a relatively few actions that your believe are "good" by some subjective measure, to stating objectively that these "good" actions make those who do them "good" people. As noted elsewhere, and never really addressed, you simply don't have the objective data to justify that leap.
2. Your sample size is too small, your metric is too subjective, and you simply don't have the information available to you to support your leap from "good" actions to "good" person.
"I'm not saying that all people are "basically good.""
You've been very clear that you believe (without providing objective proof) that all humans are born intrinsically "good", and that all people have the capacity to live a perfectly "good" life. But whatever.
"there are good people out there, "
You appear to be making this claim, based on the fact that you've observed them doing some things that you believe are "good". Explain how you make the leap from some "good" actions, to "good" people. What objectively makes one who engages in "good" actions a "good" person? Does a "good" action done for a not "good" reason still make someone a "good" person?
If you would just be accurate and say that you observe people engaging in actions that you believe are "good", then no one would have an argument with you. This should be obvious, because we've all said as much.
The problem with your "conservative religionists" slur, is that it ignores the fact that Scripture clearly states multiple times in multiple ways that no one is "good" but YHWH. Until you can provide an alternate explanation based in something beyond your incomplete observations of a small sample size of people, you have a problem with Scripture, not with us.
It's not a problem if you choose to believe things based solely on your confidence in yourself, as long as you don't pretend that your hunches are anything other than what they are.
You are incapable of hurting my feelings, feelings aren't part of the equation for me.
No, I do not.
I've never suggested that anyone should "bend" to anything I've said and for you to insinuate that I have is simply false. It's strange that you engage in the very thing you accuse others of as you demand that your subjective hunches must be taken as more than that, and "interpret" Scripture by editing and adding your own personal slant to scripture because it doesn't say what you want.
Too bad you lack this great and reasonable thing.
Thank you for providing evidence of your arrogant stupidity in commenting at Stan's where you know that your comment will not be posted. As this is addressed to Stan, it's unlikely that I'll waste much time with it. But your insistence in doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is very revealing.
You're irrationally assuming I only post to get Stan to post my questions. I post to get Stan to ADDRESS my questions and he does. What's wrong with that? I don't need any public acknowledgement that he's answering my specific questions. I just want to see people try to answer them.
And when you all utterly fail to answer the points, you help undermine your, in my opinion, irrational, unbiblical, immoral, and unjust opinions and theories. Win, win.
Also I keep hoping and praying that when you all see you are not answering questions and dealing with holes in your argument, you will start to realize, "Hey maybe this is not the best human theory." Time will tell.
??
Craig...
"You've been very clear that you believe (without providing objective proof) that all humans are born intrinsically "good", and that all people have the capacity to live a perfectly "good" life. But whatever."
Does it not matter to you how many times I've corrected this false claim, your theory about what I believe versus what I actually believe?
I've stated multiple times that I believe humans are born as humans, fallible, imperfect human beings who will not live a perfect life. I've been abundantly clear on this and I've stated it clearly just like that multiple times. Do you now understand that I believe that humans are born as imperfect humans? It's very easy. I'm telling you this is what I believe: humans are imperfect. Now do you understand that my belief is that humans are imperfect?
Further there's nowhere where I have stated that I believe that all humans are intrinsically good. Rather I state the obvious objective reality that all humans are born humans, imperfect humans. Do you understand that now??
What I have said is that newborn babies have not committed a sin because of course they haven't. They can't commit a sin. You have to have the capacity of thought to intentionally do a wrong thing. That too is objective reality.
Do you posit that a newborn baby is capable somehow of committing a sin? Do you know how crazy that sounds on the face of it? How irrational?
And I say that not because I believe that newborn babies are intrinsically good but they are intrinsically human, imperfect humans, and that babies when they are born they do not have the capacity to intentionally do a wrong thing. I feel like on some level surely you can agree with this incredibly obvious point but you tell me.
Finally I have never said that all humans or any humans have the capacity to live a perfectly good life. Again humans are imperfect human beings and will not live a perfectly good life. What are you not getting?
Craig...
"You make a huge logical leap from observing a relatively few actions that your believe are "good" by some subjective measure, to stating objectively that these "good" actions make those who do them "good" people."
I'm stating quite clearly that there are good people out there. People, who, based on all observable evidence, generally tend to be good people, doing kind acts, loving friends and even strangers, and helping them out. I don't think you disagree, given what you've said in the past but feel free to try to stake a claim that there are not any good people. Is that what you want to theorize? If so do you recognize it's a rather incredible and unsupported claim given observable reality?
I've made no claim as to any specific numbers, whether or not it's the majority of humans, just that there are observably good people out there in the world. Do you wish to disagree?
If so I hope you can see how it appears you live in a sad and graceless world, void of goodness and decency. I know many very good people. I know them well enough to know that they're not secretly out there killing babies or something but just indeed are generally good people doing good things out of a good heart. If you want to make yourself out to be the judge and jury of such people, that's on you. Perhaps it's just the case that you're not a good person and thus you're projecting that on others? Something worth having a discussion with your therapist about.
Craig...
"The problem with your "conservative religionists" slur, is that it ignores the fact that Scripture clearly states multiple times in multiple ways that no one is "good" but YHWH."
The problem with this claim here is that scripture also says there ARE good people out there. The various texts in the Bible then say BOTH things: that there is no one who is good but God AND that there are good people out there and we are expected by God to be good people.
Do you understand and agree with that observable and objective reality?
So the problem with you making that claim is that you're ignoring scripture and ignoring reality both. That is, we can see in the Bible where God says the rain falls on the just and the unjust, the good and the bad, where various people are called a good person. And we can see in reality that there are people who are what we would normally regard as good people... Based on typical understanding of the notion of a good person. That is, definitionally good.
Again you are free to theorize that there are no good people in your graceless world but we can see that's not observably, factually correct unless you try to redefine good till it loses all meaning. But why? To try to defend a human interpretation of a text or two in spite of other texts and in spite of reality? Why?
Whatever, the fact that you continue to try to post at Stan's and whine about it, isn't a good look.
The problems isn't that we "utterly fail to answer the points", it's that you don't like the answers we give. It's not like you've addressed the specifics of any of the answers I've given you here, or even acknowledge the answers I've given. Just these sorts of attacks, with no proof.
If the above is an accurate representation of what you believe, then I apologize for responding based on your previously expressed position.
Your bizarre tactic of repeating yourself, is immature, irrational, and annoying.
In the absence of anything new, or questions I haven't answered and because my time is valuable, I'll pass on the nonsense.
I'll note that your standard is that babies haven't "committed a sin", are you telling me that it impossible for a baby to go through it's entire life and never "commit a sin"?
Thank you for acknowledging the leap of logic that you are making. That you leap from "people do things I think are good" to "they are good people".
I've been quite clear that we all refer to people as "good people", but that the term is not an objective, ontological, category but merely a subjective label based on comparison with others.
That there seems to be a contradiction between your claim that people are not "intrinsically good" while insisting that there are "good people, but I have no hope that you can explain that. Unless you are suggesting some sort of "works righteousness" arrangement. That doing enough "good works" makes you an (objectively?) "good person".
So what? Are you suggesting that the answer to your dilemma (and it's only your dilemma) is to ignore/minimize/explain away the clear concept of "There is no one good but YHWY" as Jesus Himself taught?
Again, the problem is not a claim that I have not made. It is you assuming that I've made a claim when I have not. But feel free to quote the claim that you think I've made, in my own words. Not one of your paraphrases with quotation marks around it.
I keep bring up this reality because proving the claim you made at your blog was the one and only goal of this post.
That you've given yourself some weasel words, must make you very proud.
What would be more helpful is for you to specifically quote the answers that you claim are somehow lacking, and what specifically they lack.
Look, you can pretend that no one ever has addressed your questions and alleged holes if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy. The reality is that Stan, Art, Marshall, Neil, Bubba, and I have written extensively on this topic, and have provided even more material written by others. Perhaps the problem isn't that we've failed to answer your questions, but that you are a victim of the same biases and commitment to a religious tradition which blinds you to anything that doesn't fit in your box.
I've answered those of your original questions, that I can, and you've not engaged with one single answer. I see no reason to go much further given that reality.
Craig...
"I'll note that your standard is that babies haven't "committed a sin", are you telling me that it impossible for a baby to go through it's entire life and never "commit a sin"?"
A newborn infant is only a newborn for a matter of weeks or months. During that time they're incapable of choosing to sin. Of course.
Do you actually disagree?
A baby is only a baby for a few years. Researchers say that at some point, maybe around age one or two, babies reach the ability to choose to do wrong, to ignore a parent's request, for example. At that point you might choose to say that in your religious tradition you think that baby is "sinning." Seems silly to me but you could do that if you want.
I would suggest that no baby who has pushed his parents or said no rudely to his parents is deserving of going to hell for an eternity. How about you?
Now if that baby grows up to be an adult, that imperfect human who was a baby will be an imperfect human later on as an adult. They WILL do wrong things. We humans make mistakes, we do wrong things. Most of us will objectively never commit an atrocity like murder or rape or genocide but they will do a range of lesser misdeeds. You do recognize that there is a huge distinction between lying to your wife and committing genocide, right? You do agree that the punishments for both misdeeds should not be the same in a just world, right?
These are reasonable questions. If you theorize a world where God thinks that all of humanity should be punished for an eternity for having this theoretical "sin nature", you should be prepared to defend that with some kind of reasonable response at the least and admitting that you can't prove that theory that you have in your human tradition. Are you willing to acknowledge that?
I'm going to note something that I just noticed from Stan's posts that have Dan's panties all wadded.
Stan's the posts in question have been taking a straightforward look at what Scripture and the early Church said about "No one is good." and a look at some of the abjections to Hell as well as answers to those objections.
In all of Dan's responses to these posts, I can't recall Dan actually pointing out anything specific which was factually wrong. Stan quoted Scripture and people, and Dan didn't dispute any of the actual quotes, nor has he offered any alternative interpretation for any of the quoted material. Instead he's opted for a greatest hits collection of all of his stock shtick on the subject. It's almost like it doesn't matter what Stan or I actually say, because Dan's response isn't going to address anything specific anyway. Stan references Scripture, Dan references Dan.
So, your standard is that babies haven't "committed a sin" exactly as I said. I appreciate you conforming that I'd accurately captured your hunch.
Your suggestions carry zero weight, so I don't particularly care what you suggest. I fail to see why I should answer this question again, after answering it many times previously.
So, you are choosing not to answer the question that I asked, but instead circle back to the same sorts of questions I've answered numerous times before.
At one point these might have been "reasonable" questions, and obviously based on your subjective and self referential hunch about "reasonable" still are. What is not "reasonable" is asking the same questions over and over while never taking note of the answers. Your failure to remember or pay attention to my answers, doesn't obligate me to continue to answer the same questions over and over. I'm not refusing to answer, just pointing out that I've already answered.
I'm curious. You insist that a "sin nature" is "theoretical", yet also insist that humans are born "imperfect" and that our imperfection makes sure that we "WILL do wrong things". If our "imperfection" "WILL" (your emphasis, not mine) guarantee that we "WILL do wrong things", how is this "imperfection that "WILL" lead us to do wrong things (sin), significantly or functionally different from a sin nature? The end result is the same either way, we "WILL do wrong things", this "imperfection" you talk about seems to clearly be part of our nature, in that we are born "imperfect", and the end result is exactly the same regardless of what you call it. Of course, the "imperfection" thing is also theoretical as well.
I suspect that what you take refuge in is the fact that if it's just an imperfection which we are born with and carry throughout our entire lives, then you can pass things of as mistakes rather than sin. Somehow in inherited, imperfection that guarantees we'll make "mistakes" is less bad than a "sin nature".
Potato, potahto.
I addressed Dan's questions and he deleted my responses on the routinely false pretext that I was not acting honorably. That's hard to do when a fake Christian like Dan insists homosexuality is holy and saintly and beyond criticism.
Dan's questions are based on a false understanding God. If one's understanding is so clearly childish, biased toward immorality and self-serving as Dan's, one has no basis for disparaging the position of those Dan's insulting writes off as "conservative religionists", nor does one possess a truly "rational, moral, and justice point of view."
I firmly believe that Dan hasn't asked a genuinely new question in years. It's just repackaging the same old BS based on the same old false premises.
Dan's inability to deal with a source that doesn't directly answer the specific question he asked, regardless of how relevant the material is, is astounding.
Dan's quick trigger pull to delete comments and falsely characterize them is legendary.
Yes they are. More so they are based in Dan's conviction that he and his hunches are all that is necessary for validation. His attempt to ground objective fact in self reference is hilarious. That he could well be referred to a "Progressive religionist" has probably never occurred to him.
Dan's sense of justice seems to be on par with a small child. Whatever is good for him, or those he favors, is justice and anything else in injustice.
Well, in Dan's defense, he never does address the actual specific comments...and certainly not with direct passages or verses which he believes informs his superficial, pollyanish self-satisfying "interpretation" of Scripture.
If you don't mind, I wish to post here my last response to Dan at his blog after he deleted my comment there and then lied about it:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again you lie rather than address the responses that are beyond your ability to do so honestly and come out on top. Not a single thing in my comments were in any way "vulgar, misogynistic, homophobic and just crude". That's a flat out, intentional lie intended to provide you with a way out from addressing them...because you truly can't.
"The woman who has been abused? The woman who has been raped by her husband? The father whose wife abused their children and could not be trusted to be around them?"
Now you raised the bar from what point A said, which was:
"They liked for parents to not get divorced"
I gave a general response to a general question and in typical fake Christian tradition, you dredge of the worst scenarios to suggest that's what conservatives have in mind when desiring parents stay married. The reality is that most divorces aren't based on those extreme examples you so desperately need to have considered as the ONLY reasons parents separate in order to further disparage people better than you'll ever be.
My responses to the rest also reflected the reality you ignore in favor of your fantasies about what conservatives mean when speaking of "Making America Great Again" or expressing a desire for "the good old days". You've done this before and stinks now as it did the last time your ran with this dishonesty. Thus, you alleged question: "DO YOU recognize the reality that many conservatives would like to see things return to a time when people who thought like them were in control?" is dishonest if you and totally lacking the grace about which you speak though clearly demonstrating again you know not what it means, suggest your points A-I indicate a desire for the worst of the past rather than a rejection of the "progressives'" corruption of the present. The policies YOUR kind sets are destructive and have done no good that you can describe which doesn't have immoral, disordered people of all kinds as the beneficiaries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig:
I can't recall Dan actually pointing out anything specific which was factually wrong.
IF Stan, et al, are only saying, "There are many religious people throughout the years who have affirmed the human theories of
A. Humanity has a "Sin nature"
B. Humanity has "inherited" this "sin nature" from "Adam,"
C. These human traditions theorize that BECAUSE of this "sin nature" all of humanity is so unfit to be in God's presence that they "deserve" an eternal punishment
D. This is because, they theorize, that humans are not only imperfect, not only have this theoretical "sin nature," but that "sin nature" means that their ultimate "sin" is rebellion against God and a rejection of all God wants.
E. Now, these human theorists can't and never have proven this "sin nature" or this "rebellion" or that this "Sin" is rationally, morally or biblically deserving of eternal punishment, but it IS what they theorize..."
IF that was all they were saying/making claims about - that there have long been many humans who have these theories (or something very like them), those are ALL fact claims. Indeed, many people HAVE had these theories, crazy and unsupported as they are.
No one would object to those objective facts.
What we/I object to is the claim that these theories are reality.
We I object to is the notion of a "god" who can't abide to be in the presence of sin or who thinks that we are all deserving of eternal punishment for the "crime" of being imperfect (or having an unproven, theoretical "sin" problem - HOWEVER you're defining that today)
I object to these theories because
A. They are not rational, moral or just, GIVEN normally understood meanings to those words - that is, it is NOT just to have a wildly disproportionate punishment, it is NOT just or loving or moral for a loving parent to punish a child for a lifetime, much less an eternity, for relatively minor misdeeds;
B. They are slanderous towards God/the notion of a loving and just God... they are blasphemous and depict God as petty and pathetic;
Now, I can't prove in an objective sense that these human theories are blasphemous or hateful or irrational or unjust, any more than YOU all can prove (somehow) that they ARE just, loving and rational.
But, what I CAN do is demonstrate how, GIVEN typical understandings of love and justice, that these human theories are profoundly irrational, given those understandings. That is, a loving parent does NOT punish a child for a lifetime for relatively minor misdeeds, that isn't love as love is understood. And a just person doesn't punish someone for a lifetime for relatively minor misdeeds (ie, not actual evil atrocities like rape, murder, genocide).
Definitionally, those theories are irrational and counter to basic decency and reason.
It's almost like it doesn't matter what Stan or I actually say, because Dan's response isn't going to address anything specific anyway. Stan references Scripture, Dan references Dan.
Dan is addressing REASON, common sense, basic decency. YOU ALL are the ones who believe in/affirm irrational atrocities committed by a pathetic god based upon your human traditions and interpretations. Appealing to reason is a good thing and it's where you all collectively fail.
Again: For a punishment to be just, it can't be wildly disproportionate to the misdeed/crime. Your traditions and opinions of "hell" fail right there unless you all can explain WHAT CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. You all don't, not in ANY objectively proven manner.
Stan doesn't address what "the Bible" says. He takes some verses from the bible and offers his personal human opinions about how they should be understood, without regard to OTHER things that the Bible "says," like the notion of a just and loving God.
And when I cite the notion of a just and loving God, I AM referencing basic Biblical teachings. That I don't bother playing a "I can cite a verse" game doesn't make it any less biblical.
You all are the ones promoting irrational atrocities. The burden of proof is on you all. And you all don't even TRY to prove it beyond saying, "Here's what I personally think some verses in the bible mean..." No one cares about your personal unproven opinions, especially on wild-eyed crazy theories.
"Dan is addressing REASON, common sense, basic decency."
Again, thank you for making my point so well. I appreciate that you are acknowledging that you are not responding to what any of us actually say, but instead just plowing ahead with the same old crap that you spew regularly. This especially shows in the fact that you ask endless questions, and demand answers, then ignore the very answers you demand.
I understand that you address things that are subjective and grounded in your personal, subjective hunches. Stan quotes Scripture, extensively and in context. You quote you, and sprinkle an occasional proof text on top.
You do the same thing you accuse Stan of doing, except you use less Scripture and more of yourself and you sometimes rewrite Scripture to fit your narrative.
This notion that you are exempt from proving your claims is absurd, the notion that we haven't offered plenty of "proof" is even more absurd.
So, you can't actually point to anything factually wrong, but you simply "object" to certain things because they don't fit your subjective, personal hunches about what is moral or just.
For someone who demands objective proof of virtually everything, you inability to actually provide objective proof is concerning. That you make statements phrased as factual, objective claims (these human theories are blasphemous) then quickly point out that you can't objectively prove the claim you just made, says pretty much everything I need to know about you and your interest in holding yourself to the standards you demand of others.
"They are not rational, moral or just"
If you can't provide a universal, objective, consistent, definition for these words, then you have no basis to make these sorts of unproven claims.
I'm not sure how that fact is a defense of Dan, but it is accurate. He demands answers, proof, support, and DATA, then simply ignores what is provided.
You always have the freedom to post these comments here. It is important to document the comments that Dan deletes so that others can form their own conclusions about them. Because, based on my experience with Dan deleting and lying about my comments, it is important for the evidence to be accessible.
THIS is why I ask reasonable questions about wildly unsupported claims like this...
Stan...
"They are assaults on the infinite worth of the Most High God (Psalm 51:4). The seriousness of sin is measured not by the size of the act but by the dignity of the One sinned against (cf. Hebrews 10:29)."
PROVE IT. SAYS WHO?
You're making a sweeping outrageous claim and the ONLY support you offer is, "look... here's a verse or three..." AS IF that was enough.
You're portraying a god who is petty and pathetic and so easily offended. You're doing the Almighty God of perfect love and justice no favor with these blasphemous.
It's rationally insufficient to make such a strong affirmation as if it were a given, with no acknowledgement that this is a human theory, not a proven fact. And on such a wildly irrational theory with such harmful implications.
So, until y'all can offer some rational support, you have to expect you'll get questions.
Craig...
"thank you for making my point so well. I appreciate that you are acknowledging that you are not responding to what any of us actually say, but instead just plowing ahead with the same old crap..."
I point out that I'm relying upon reason and data and you respond by suggesting I'm throwing out the same old crap. As if reason was crap. Again as long as y'all are relying on superstitions and wild human theories, I do not respond to that other than to say that's crazy, man. That y'all don't understand your complete failure to address the holes in these crazy unjust unbiblical, irrational and immoral claims, that's on y'all. I've tried to help by asking you questions that you then don't follow through with. That's on you.
Let me ask this polite, reasonable question...
Set aside your human traditions for a moment, as much as you can.
Suppose someone approached you and told you they believe in a perfectly loving and perfectly just God named Ralph.
Ralph teaches that all humans are corrupt and SO full of sin, that loving and just Ralph thought they were guilty of the crime of being a sinner. And that these misdeeds - the whole range of them, from stealing a cookie to rape and murder - were offensive to Ralph and, Ralph said, the ONLY suitable punishment for the crime of being a sinner, was to be tortured for an eternity...
Can you see that most people would consider Ralph doctrine to be crazy, immoral, irrational and unjust? Can you understand how people who DON'T have an allegiance to Ralph would be appalled at such a god? And find Ralph's true believers were not making sense?
"And when I cite the notion of a just and loving God,"
You cite a vague generality which doesn't do more than present a premise. There's nothing about it which supports your notion that those like Stan, Craig, myself or others you oppose are mistaken in any way. It's like saying "babies are cute". It only goes so far, and not very far at all in these discussions and as such does not stand as evidence of anything. A premise is not evidence of that premise being true, nor of what it means or how, in this case, it manifests. Your constant default to this premise absolutely suggests universalism, or worse, God's justice according to Dan's criteria, which is a puny god indeed!
Absent a clear, unambiguous, specific, universal definition of those terms, this "citation" is one of the vague generalization with no actual meaning.
Good point.
"PROVE IT. SAYS WHO?"
Well, for starters, at least two Scriptural references. But, I want to digress.
From here on out, when you make a broad, vague, sweeping generalized claim be prepared to answer your own question, and be prepared that any answer that originates or is grounded in yourself will not be sufficient.
1. Your objection is that only two scriptural references are insufficient to support the claim. The obvious, reasonable, question would be how many Scriptural references are sufficient for you? Please be specific.
2. Stan's quote literally contains the phrase the "infinite worth of the Most High God", how in the world is that phrase describing a God who is "petty and pathetic"?
3. You do realize that your claim that 2 citations is insufficient (to satisfy you), contradicts your claim that Stan's claim is "unsupported".
I'll note, finally, that you were is such a hurry to make your point, that you didn't even bother to check the references.
Thank you for repeating more of the same old crap. You've offered precisely zero objective "data", and your subjective "reason" is hardly impressive to anyone but yourself.
It's strange that you so badly misinterpreted my characterization of your trotting out the "same old crap" to be something other than pointing out your endless repetition of the same old tired, yet unsupported with objective proof, narrative.
That you can repeat yourself, doesn't make what you say True.
Leaving aside the unanswered questions that you've avoided so that you can demand more answers, and the fairly extensive responses (both the original post) and comments, which you haven't acknowledged or responded to, please allow me to answer your ridiculous hypothetical.
I'll note that your hypothetical god, Ralph, has no history or back story. No direct communication from Him, just the hearsay from some random guy on the street. Given that, it seems unlikely that anyone would take this nonsense seriously. Especially when compared with the Hebrew and Cristian scriptures as well as the various apocryphal writings. Thousands of years of history, scholarship, and teaching as well as conformation from non Biblical sources and science, also go into the process of considering the reliability of the source.
"Can you see that most people would consider Ralph doctrine to be crazy, immoral, irrational and unjust?"
1. Yes.
2. Just because some people would consider him "crazy, immoral, irrational, and unjust, doesn't mean that he actually is any of those things.
3. I was unaware that the True test of YHWH's veracity and worth was how He is judged by those who don't agree with Him.
4. In the absence of universal, objective, external, definitions for "crazy, immoral, irrational, and unjust" how can be be absolutely sure that those who drew those conclusions can prove those conclusions accurate.
"Can you understand how people who DON'T have an allegiance to Ralph would be appalled at such a god?"
I can, but why would I care? Similarly, why would I care if a "flat earther" was appalled at the notion that the earth was spherical? Similarly, why would I care if a "Holocaust denier" was appalled when confronted with the gas chambers at Auschwitz? Are you suggesting that Truth is somehow determined by those who "don't have an allegiance" to someone or something?
"And find Ralph's true believers were not making sense?"
See above. If the information that Ralph's followers believed to be True was actually True, then wouldn't the doubters be the ones who have the problem?
You have been clear for a long time. You find certain things contained in Scripture, and taught by Jesus to be distasteful and believe that those things diminish YHWH in your personal/subjective view. The problem you have is that you haven't objectively proven, or even really offered an alternative based in something objective, your alternative to be True or even plausible.
Craig...
"If the information that Ralph's followers believed to be True was actually True, then wouldn't the doubters be the ones who have the problem?"
Well, yeah. AND, IF unicorns, who can fly, were amassing on the dark side of the moon and were fixing to swoop in and gore all of humanity to death, the people who advocate THAT superstition would be the correct ones and any doubters would be mistaken and have a problem.
But until those Death Unicorns arrive, There's no reason for we who are rational to buy into that superstition or conspiracy theory, is there?
The point, which you sound like maybe you can agree with, is this superstition is ridiculous sounding and irrational on the face of it. If anybody who advocates such a crazy sounding theory wants to be taken seriously , they'll have to do something better than say, "but I found three verses in the Bible that make me think this."
Can you see how that is rational if one is not beholden to your particular set of superstitions?
Craig...
"You have been clear for a long time. You find certain things contained in Scripture, and taught by Jesus to be distasteful and believe that those things diminish YHWH in your personal/subjective view."
This is stupidly false. You're conflating what you think with God's word. I disagree with YOU all and YOUR personal human opinions and YOUR crazy superstitions. Disagreeing with you all and finding your theories and your interpretations in your human traditions to be ghastly, irrational, and hellish is not disagreeing with God. You all are not God and your opinions are not God's word.
" The problem you have is that you haven't objectively proven, or even really offered an alternative based in something objective, your alternative to be True or even plausible."
Of course I have. I've been doing precisely that with you for over 20 years, Craig. That you either fail to understand or personally disagree with my explanations is not evidence that I haven't explained my position.
Craig...
"The problem you have is that you haven't objectively proven, or even really offered an alternative based in something objective, your alternative to be True or even plausible...."
That you don't understand that this is precisely what I'm doing in these kinds of conversations is part of the problem.
We COULD believe that all humanity is infected with a "sin nature" or we could just recognize reality that humanity is imperfect, which is more reasonable?
We COULD believe that humans were "infected by sin" and inherited sin from Adam, who was a real man who was made from dust 6,000 years ago, or we could just recognize that humans are observably imperfect. Which is more rational? Which one is not an insane theory from a bronze age superstition based upon a clear myth?
Saying that I don't think there was an actual Adam but that that story was clearly a myth is a rational alternative. How can you not see that? Saying that of course we don't inherit sin or a sin nature or being a sinner or SIN from a literal Adam is a rational alternative explanation. How do you not see that?
Etc
"In 1 John"
Two citations, in a post full of citations isn't enough to demonstrate a point, but one citation is apparently plenty when you're Dan.
When you don't have anything of substance you resort to bizarre hypotheticals, when those don't work you resort to this sort of childish ridicule.
But excellent job of missing the point.
As noted, a spherical earth is not rational to a "flat earther" nor are the gas chambers at Auschwitz rational to an Holocaust denier.
I agree with the whole of Scripture, not with your bizarre caricature.
What is more rational? Believing in something that sounds extraordinary, but is True? Or believing in something that sounds rational, but is false?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, same old crap.
I'm not sure you understand the concept of objectively proven. Objectively True isn't determined by your subjective hunches.
This is you idea of objective proof? "could"? That's it.
As noted earlier, and ignored by you, there seems to be no practical difference between a "sin nature" which inevitably leads every human to sin, and your "imperfect nature" which inevitably leads every human to sin.
By all means, provide the objective proof that "humanity is imperfect". I'll wait so you can come up with something besides "Because I say so, based on my subjective observation of a small sample size of people and small sample size of the behavior of that small sample size of humanity. I'll wait.
The problem isn't which one meets your subjective standard of "rational" (especially as both roads lead to the same destination), the problem is which option represents reality. By all means, prove that your hunch is objectively True and represents reality perfectly.
Again, objectively prove your "myth" hunch. Again, your claim is that humans were infected by imperfection which inevitably leads to sin.
I know your obsessed with things that you subjectively find rational, but simply asserting your subjective hunches about what you personally find rational, is a far cry from objectively proving your claims. I was unaware that appealing to your subjective hunches about what is rational is how Truth was determined.
Your fairy tale is an alternative, that is correct. You personally by applying your subjective standard of what's rational, claim to find your story rational. That is a far cry from objectively proving your hunch or from your hunch being True. It's even further from being a compelling alternative for anyone who isn't you.
"PROVE IT. SAYS WHO?"
I'll wait.
Craig:
This is you idea of objective proof? "could"? That's it.
No, that's YOUR support for your personal human superstitions. That's all you can say is "Maybe, once upon a time, these things happened, and that's how tigers got stripes, how giraffes got long necks and how humans inherited a sin nature..."
What I'M saying is the observable: Humans ARE imperfect. It's observable in that we've never seen any perfect humans, any more than we've seen your mythical sin nature, your mythical "Adam," your superstitious beliefs in a mythical "hell." THOSE are the things that you're guessing COULD be, without proof.
Again, I don't think you see your problem.
Do you think we CAN'T see, observe, note the reality of imperfect humans?? Of course, we can.
Do you think you can prove your superstitious traditions and myths? Of course, you can't. Additionally, a mythical "Adam" a mythical "sin nature," a mythical "hell..." THESE are all the outlier, irrational views, just like unicorns scheming to take over the world. The onus is on you to prove such outlandish claims, not me for pointing out the obvious "humans are imperfect."
I mean, YOU don't think humans are perfect, do you? Why not? Because there is a line in the Bible or because you can observe it with your own eyes?
Craig:
your claim is that humans were infected by imperfection which inevitably leads to sin.
This is, of course, not my "belief." I never said that, those are your words. I'm simply noting (once again) the observable reality that humans are not perfect. (PERFECT: being entirely without fault or defect).
Of course, humans have faults and defects, he said as he responded with his glasses on and his hearing aids in and with sore bones from age and exercise. WHAT are you arguing against in my claims about the reality of imperfect humans? Do you have a theory that there ARE perfect humans? Cool, tell me more, I could be convinced with actual evidence. Do you have theories that all humans are evil and deserving of eternal torture? Not cool, but prove it if you can.
You can't. It's a superstition from your human tradition, a way of explaining beginnings in a mythic sort of way, even if you don't care for the term or notion of myth when it comes to your personal mythic stories and theories.
MYTH: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the worldview of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
The story of how the tiger got his stripes is a mythic story to explain why actual tigers (a real world animal) got its stripes. It's an "explaining WHY story" not actually a literal history.
The story of Adam's "fall" from the "Garden of Eden" is a mythic story to explain how actual humans (a real world animal) came to be imperfect and commit "sins." It's an "explaining WHY story" not actually a literal history.
So, still no objective proof. No attempt at objective proof. Not holding yourself to the standards you demand of others. Just repeating the same old crap as if that makes it True.
Let's say that you observe someone engaging in behavior you think is not good behavior. Let's say someone steals a car while you are watching. How do you objectively determine whether that theft was a result of their imperfect nature or their sin nature?
But you keep on making claims without even attempting to offer proof, you clearly think it helps. Your excuse for not holding yourself to the standard you demand of others, is pretty weak as well.
"PROVE IT. SAYS WHO?"
So, you copy/paste my summary of what you have been claiming, then you say "This is, of course, not my "belief."". How, with your vaunted skills at reading for understanding, you can't even quote me accurately from the line right above the quote.
So, you note the "reality" which you cannot objectively prove to be "reality", without bothering to explain where this imperfection came from. How could humans born with absolutely zero sins magically become imperfect? Why are humans born imperfect? What caused this imperfection.
It's hilarious to see you simply regurgitating the same old unproven claims instead of dealing with the things I've pointed out and the questions I've asked.
You choose to believe a myth that humans are imperfect with no objective evidence, no explanation, nothing, just your claiming that your myth is "reality".
By all means, provide objective proof of the multitude of claims you make. Simply asserting that your claims represent "reality" is not objective proof, but rather one more claim for you to provide objective proof of.
"PROVE IT. SAYS WHO?"
Earlier Dan was bitching that Stan had only offered two Scriptural citations to support a point he'd made, I pointed out that Stan offered twice as many as Dan in his pathetic attempt to refute Stan's point.
In today's post about Sin, I believe that I counted approx 27 Scriptural references that were direct and specific examples of Stan's alignment with Scripture.
If 2 is inadequate (then one is even more inadequate) how many citations of Scripture are adequate?
How many times has Dan dealt specifically with the specifics of the Scriptural references and demonstrated conclusively that Stan is incorrect or that they mean something other than what the plain meaning of the text indicates.
Uh...by my count, none.
You're probably being a bit generous.
I've spent decades doing precisely this.
Stan: "I REALLY think this verse means this. I think that because I think these other verses mean this. I TRULY, really, lotsa stuff think that's true. In fact, I am so sure that I really think it that I'm going to say it's a proven fact."
Dan: "It's not a proven fact. It's your opinion on how to take that verse and what your collection of verses mean about Topic A and you can't prove it. I REALLY think you're mistaken, although I can't prove it either. The difference between you and I, then, is I'm glad to admit that neither of us can objectively prove it. HERE is why I think your reasoning is bad: Because Justice means something, because Love means something, because you have no proof of your literal Adam and Apple are a literal story meaning humanity inherited sin, because your theories of sin and hell are, in fact, hellish, as hell is normally understood. Etc, etc. I can and have offered dozens and hundreds of reasons why I think your personal human traditions and interpretations are not rational and don't hold up to sound moral reasoning. I think you're mistaken because I don't think the context of the whole of biblical texts support your theories (for instance, here, here and here...) and because I don't think the Bible is a rulings book in the way you're seeking to use/abuse/misuse it. I think THAT because the Bible nowhere CLAIMS to be a rulings book because "the Bible" doesn't claim ANYTHING, but its human authors certainly have offered opinions and NONE of those human authors are saying what you are interpreting them to say. Literally none."
Like that, over and over and over for decades now.
Look, I'm fine with having differences of opinions where you all say, "We REALLY think this interpretation makes sense to us and those in our tradition..." But it's when you start claiming that you can't be mistaken or that your interpretation MUST be disproven or otherwise, it IS God's word.
People wouldn't find conservative religionists so emotionally shrill and off-putting if they would just abandon their arrogance and presumption, mind their own business about other people's affairs, remove the planks from their own eyes and just got about the business of loving God and loving this world.
That you all are suggesting that I've never defended my positions or explained why you all are wrong in my opinion just boggles the mind and is an example of that emotionally shrill, arrogant bullying nature. What Jesus might have called a Pharisee.
Look at the topic of gay marriage. I have been talking about that and how I use to believe the biblical authors taught that God thought as you all do. I have spent decades describing my position, my understanding of the Biblical texts and just plain Godliness on the topic. Decades and tens of thousands of words, do doubt.
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=gay+marriage
Now, you all can say, "Ultimately, I don't think Dan makes a good, rational, loving and/or biblical case for his position," (You'd be wrong, but you could rationally say that, based upon your own opinions and traditions). What you CAN'T rationally say is that Dan has not spent MUCH effort and time walking through his position on these topics and went through the (relative hand-full) of texts that might be talking about gay relationships as it relates to the bible and to just plain moral reasoning.
Same for topics of "sin" and "hell," or the human theories and superstitions you all have about them.
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=sin
On and on. You all are welcome to disagree with my opinions as I disagree with yours. But you can't say, Dan hasn't spent a lot of time making his rational and biblical case for these ideas.
Reality matters, men.
Also, fyi, I've started taking (wasting) the time to wade through Stan's opinions on verses that he personally chooses to interpret a certain way, and then add it to other verses he chooses to interpret a certain way and then reach some conclusions that the text literally does not say... I'm playing Bible ping pong with Stan and his list of random verses that you apparently find compelling. I've started walking through them to show how grade-school the reasoning is and how the passages literally don't say what he extrapolates them to mean, in his personal, fallible human opinion.
I've just started, but more to come.
In the end, I'm hoping that I'm not wasting my time and you'll be able to agree that, NO, those verses literally do not say what Stan is extrapolating them to mean, at a guess, with no support... even if you ultimately agree with his hunches and superstitions, I hope you'll have the integrity to acknowledge that the verses he's selected (whether it's 2 or 30) literally aren't saying what he's extrapolating.
If you were really “fine” with “differences of opinion” then why do you continue to insist that your opinions are correct while everyone else’s are incorrect? Why not simply accept the difference and live and let live? Why the years of vitriol and misrepresentation?
“(You'd be wrong, but you could rationally say that, based upon your own opinions and traditions)”
1. If you truly believed that BS about being “fine” with “differences of opinion “, you wouldn’t say things like this.
2. Because our “opinions are traditions” are objectively wrong based on your “opinions and traditions”.
The problem is that I’ve never seen you make your “gay marriage” argument in a way that deals with what Scripture specifically says about homosexuality and marriage, nor have you provided one specific example of any evidence from the Hebrew or Christian Scripture, Hebrew or Christian non scriptural texts, nor any of the leaders of the early Church which specifically and directly supports your hunch. You’ve engaged in eisegesus, added to unrelated texts, and filled in the blanks with your hunches.
Even if you believe your gobbledygook to be persuasive for you personally, that’s a pretty low bar.
You’ve had years to do this and haven’t, I’ll believe these claims when I see evidence of exegesis and interpretation that align with the plain reading of the text.
FYI, Stan generally presents scripture based on the obvious, plain meaning of the text.
FWIW, if you approached your hunches the way Stan approaches Scripture it’d probably be a much more worthwhile endeavor. Simply complaining about someone else’s work, instead of making a positive/Biblical case for your hunches is the easier path, yet you regularly choose that path.
This comment of Dan's is hilarious, though not in the way he'd like his bad sarcasm to be. The hilarity comes from his arrogant attempt to convince anyone that he's done no different than those like Stan, you, me or other conservative Christians in explaining our positions. His "Stan" quote doesn't in any way reflect the reality of Stan's argumentation, though it does sound like every other attempt Dan's made to disparage others with whom he is unable to honestly and graciously contend...because his positions aren't Biblical at all, but only in an incredibly superficial sense.
Dan likes to default to meaningless assertions like "justice means something" and "love means something" while presuming to address those things from his kumbaya, Pollyanna, hippie perspective and imposing them on God. He speaks of that which comes from Scripture without letting Scripture define it...from God without regard for how God defines it. Yet, all of our understanding of justice and love flows from God and any discrepancies between how we view them and how Scripture relates them to us is left to Dan to be our arbiter, not Scripture.
We can see that when Dan constantly speaks of God's "perfect love and justice" as if those are His only attributes, while God's described as "slow to anger". That phrase alone, while actually a manifestation of His love and justice, also shows Him to be wrathful, vengeful and capable of severe punishment. Just not to Dan, who demands that God be limited to Dan's criteria for what constitutes a just and loving God. It's one thing to pine for mercy. It's quite another to insist one isn't in need because one has assumed authority one doesn't have to decide for what one might be punished.
There is science which raises the probability of a single set of parents for all of humanity, from mere "myth". Not conclusive, but is evidence nonetheless. Thus, it would be wise to set aside the argument that Adam and Eve didn't exist just as Scripture describes it and accept it enough to note that they were not written off so cavalierly by those who would know, such as Jesus and Paul.
Our "theories" of sin and hell are normally understood by the influence of Scripture, which is the source of that information. With that in mind, it's actually Dan's "theories"...otherwise know as Dan's desperate attempt to corrupt reality...which stray from normal understanding.
"I can and have offered dozens and hundreds of reasons why I think your personal human traditions and interpretations are not rational and don't hold up to sound moral reasoning."
Dan can and has offered dozens and hundreds of variations on the same lame objections to better understanding of Christian teaching, never rising to a level of rationality or sound moral reasoning, particularly as he spends a lot of times defending immorality.
Dan has never produced the rule which mandates that a book with rules in it much refer to itself as a rule book in order to be a rule book, whether exclusively so or merely in part. The issue is truly that Dan doesn't like all the rules. So for decades now, Dan has whined over and over and over without actually defending his position with any actual facts, nor has he proven our positions in error by the presentation of facts to that end. He simply, over and over and over again, insists he has. He's the epitome of "let's not and say we did".
I'm fine with my positions being exposed as flawed were Dan able to actually do that. But instead he defaults to simply and petulantly< like a whiny little girl< insisting that we can't be convicted despite his inability to show our positions are flawed. Could my position be wrong? I suppose. But just because Dan doesn't like my position, I'm under no obligation to bow to that supposition. Why would I with no compelling and fact-based counter argument to dissuade me from my conviction? It's certainly not stubbornness on my part, save for stubbornly refusing to play by Dan's self-serving rules.
Jesus would NOT refer to us as Pharisees because we don't do what the Pharisees did. But even they were not as bad as Dan. The Pharisees added to the Law. Dan perverts it, preferring to reject that which he doesn't like, pretending somehow it was changed without ever providing evidence to support that lie. People like Dan find conservative Christians "emotionally shrill and off-putting" because people like Dan love their fake god more than they love God. It's just that simple.
Dan's explanation for why he no longer abides God's Will regarding homosexuality is akin to throwing crap against the wall and hoping some sticks. What does is still crap, but to Dan it accounts for a legitimate biblical case. In this comment, he again repeats the lie that because there are only a few verses which are completely in opposition to homosexual behavior, that some how those verses only "might be" talking about pervert relationships. What Dan provides isn't by any stretch of the imagination "moral" reasoning, because it is in defense of abject immorality.
So it's just a case of Dan deciding his cases are rational and biblical when readers can plainly see they are neither. It's just Dan Babbitt saying, "I'm an excellent driver".
Craig opined...
FYI, Stan generally presents scripture based on the obvious, plain meaning of the text.
I get that you are saying that and may even think that, but just look at Stan's opening salvo and consider my rational, biblical response (and fyi: Noting that "Um... that text does NOT say that" IS a biblical response. of course.)
Stan:
Sin is not small because God is not small. Our culture measures sin by the size of the act; Scripture measures sin by the worth of the One sinned against. David understood this when he prayed, “Against You, You only, have I sinned” (Psalm 51:4)
Stan begins with an unsupported assertion: "Sin is not small because God is not small."
To which I respond, as always, says who? In this case, it's Stan who says this. Jesus didn't say anything like this nor is there a text anywhere in the Bible that says this. NOR IS IT IN THE VERY TEXT THAT HE CITES after making that unsupported claim.
It's Stan's personal human take as he starts building his personal human case for his personal human theories about "sin," "Sin nature," "SIN," "Inheriting a 'sin nature' from Adam," and related topics.
It's not at all a given that "sin is not small because God is not small." and the text he cited literally doesn't say that. It's NOT in the "plain meaning" of the text. At all.
Can you agree with that much?
And before you go there, NOR is it in any of the texts that he offers afterwards. It's not only not the plain meaning of the many texts he offers, it's not even close to anything in those texts. It's literally him reading something INTO the text that isn't there.
Can't you see that?
If not, WHERE in the "plain meaning" of the text is Stan's unsupported claim that:
Sin is not small because God is not small.
OR:
Scripture measures sin by the worth of the One sinned against.
OR:
David understood this when he prayed, “Against You, You only, have I sinned”
THREE claims he made and NONE of them are in the plain meaning of the texts.
Demonstrate objectively that I'm wrong.
Craig...
"if you approached your hunches the way Stan approaches Scripture it’d probably be a much more worthwhile endeavor."
You mean, making crazy, irrational claims...
Then saying, Here are some verses
Then citing verses that have NOTHING to do with my crazy claims I made with no support in the first place?
No thanks. I prefer more rational, data driven reasoning.
Well, since that pretty much describes what I’ve seen from you over the years, maybe not.
As long as the “data” supports, can be twisted to support, or comes from you, maybe.
Is your claim then that YHWH is small, or that Scripture doesn’t support the idea that we sin against YHWH?
Your ability to take things out of context is impressive though. As is your ability to impose your proof text, snippet of Scripture tactics on others.
The suggestion that Stan hasn’t laid the Scriptural groundwork for a God that is “not small”, or that we sin against YHWH is absurd.
Demonstrate objectivity that you’re right.
It's so sad that Dan must resort to dishonest representations of Stan's work in order to pretend Dan has something better to offer...as if he has anything to offer at all.
Stan makes no "crazy, irrational claims". He cites what Scripture says and then offers examples of Scripture saying it. That is, Scripture spoke first and Stan presents what is said.
Dan also plays this "no support" game when Scripture IS the support for Stan's positions...as It is for ours. Dan does NOT do this. Dan seeks ways to make Scripture support his many false notions of what constitutes Christian teaching, such as his completely heretical position on SSM. There's NOTHING in Scripture which supports it, and Dan can only insert meaning into what Scripture DOES say. Again, Stan does not do this. Neither does Craig nor I...nor Bubba, Glenn nor the late Neil Simpson.
It works this way:
We're all beginning with a blank slate. We look to Scripture to see what It teaches us (God's Will/Christ's teachings) and adjust our beliefs and actions accordingly.
Dan, OTOH, wants to rationalize and legitimize that which he's already decided to champion and perverts the Word to do so, but must also crap on those who take the Word as presented and reject Dan's perverting of it to legitimize sin.
As such, Scripture is all the data we need to confirm the truth of what we say and Dan can't have that, so he plays the game of "that's just your opinion".
Craig...
"Is your claim then that YHWH is small, or that Scripture doesn’t support the idea that we sin against YHWH?"
My claim is precisely what I said.
Here it is again:
"Sin is not small because God is not small."
To which I respond, as always, says who? In this case, it's Stan who says this. Jesus didn't say anything like this nor is there a text anywhere in the Bible that says this. NOR IS IT IN THE VERY TEXT THAT HE CITES after making that unsupported claim.
...
My claim is the observably factual note that the passage he cited literally does not say what he claimed. It doesn't hint at it. As an observable fact.
As to the "meat" (If you'll excuse the exaggeration) of his wholly, entirely unsupported theory,
..."sin is not small because God is not small..."
The observable reality is that misdeeds, what you all call sin, have a range of impact and harm. Some sin IS smaller in nature than other sin. There's not a one-size-fits-all weight to sin. The Bible makes no such suggestions and reality rejects it as ridiculous on the face of it.
If you would just answer rational questions, you could lend support. You do not think that rape is the same as stealing a cookie in terms of harm done. One is smaller in weight than the other. Surely you can agree to this obvious reality? If not, what is wrong with you?
That I believe in and affirm an almighty, omniscient God does not translate to, therefore all sin must be really big or infinite. It's a nonsense claim on the face of it and, once again, it's just not supported by reality or the Bible.
And the text that Stan cited to support that claim literally says nothing of the sort. That's observable. Do you agree with that very basic observable reality?
The Unsupported Claim, "God is infinitely huge, therefore any sin must be committed against God and also be considered infinitely huge," Is akin to a nonsense claim like "NFL linebackers are very large men, therefore all sports players must be very large men." One thing does not rationally follow the other thing.
But, Your ability to take things out of context is impressive though... your ability to totally misunderstand a clear statement is impressive.
Logical fallacies at play here include...
A non sequitur fallacy is a statement or conclusion that does not follow logically from what preceded it. Non sequiturs can be responses that have nothing to do with the conversation or flawed conclusions “based” on what preceded them.
Non sequitur fallacy example
Premise 1: All birds have wings.
Premise 2: That creature has wings.
Conclusion: Therefore, that creature is a bird.
Stan:
God is a large God
All sins are sins against God
Therefore, all sins are large.
Fallacy of taking ideas out of context
Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context per se (as all quotes are), but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words.
Psalm 51 quotes king David as saying (after committing horrific crimes)...
"Against You, You only, have I sinned"
All other people engage in sin
Therefore, all misdeeds are committed against God alone
AND, thus, are infinite in awfulness
It does not follow and is not what is being said in the text and context.
As a starting point, these fallacies rationally undermine his set of personal premises he's guessing about.
Logical fallacies only seem to be a problem when you can accuse others.
In this case, you’ve misrepresented Stan’s position and are arguing against a straw man.
Your inability to make clear statements, deal with arguments made, or answer questions is just as impressive as your ability to take things out of context.
In this case you chose to take snippets of one blog post from a series of blog posts which are all interconnected, and out of the context of years of Stan posting on this topic and complain that Stan didn’t summarize every single argument he’s offered, and all of his Scriptural support, in the snippet you clipped.
Same old, unsupported, unproven, crap. Nothing new here.
Last time, because this is truly a waste of time.
Tell me what you think Stan is arguing when he offers the unsupported opinion...
"Sin is not small because God is not small."
What is Stan's meaning there?
Where in the text that he cited does it say that?
Can you admit that the text that he cited - not me, him - does not have support for the claim that he made?
It’s confusing that someone who seems so proud of being able to read for understanding has so much problem with this simple concept.
The starting place is YHWH, He who crested all that exists, He who is beyond time and space. He who is Holy, Holy, Holy, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, He who is called simply “I Am”, He who is so set apart that they will not even say His name. YHWH, is beyond our comprehension and experience. This is who sin is ultimately against. Obviously our sin harms others, but just like our legal system (civilian and military) the offense is always against the State (not the victim).
So, Sin is against both YHWH and others, therefore to exclude the sun against YHWH, understates sin.
As noted, taking one snippet out of context is your problem here, not lack of information.
But, by all means, if you’re not going to answer questions, deal with the responses you’ve been given, and stop repeating your narrative it is a waste of time.
Craig offered opinions, without support, beginning with this one:
The starting place is YHWH, He who crested all that exists, He who is beyond time and space.
The starting place for what? Figuring out the nature of wrongdoings - things you vaguely call "sin..."? But continuing...
He who is Holy, Holy, Holy, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, He who is called simply “I Am”, He who is so set apart that they will not even say His name. YHWH, is beyond our comprehension and experience. This is who sin is ultimately against.
Craig opines that an almighty God is Other than us. That such a God is "holy holy holy" (which Hebrew word means "set apart"). Okay. But what does that have to do with all sin being "infinite" or "only against God" or that all "sin is not small because God is not small..."? Anything? What? Where's the proof?
Craig continues, maybe thinking he's answering this question...
Obviously our sin harms others, but just like our legal system (civilian and military) the offense is always against the State (not the victim).
That's some claim. I would disagree. The man who rapes a woman, who beats a child, who enslaves another is causing great evil and offense to another human being, because of course, it is. It is ALSO a crime/offense/human rights abuse against the state (and a perfectly just God, if one affirms such), but that doesn't mean it isn't a crime against the people most directly involved. You appear to both agree and equivocate.
So, Sin is against both YHWH and others, therefore to exclude the sin against YHWH, understates sin.
1. WHO is excluding the sin against God? I haven't.
2. WHO says that if one does not believe in God and just strongly condemns rape and child abuse and genocide, that it's understating sin?
3. Where is the proof of that?
You see? You make claims that raise questions but don't answer the full line of questions raised by your questionable theories and superstitions.
But show me I'm wrong. Answer these reasonable questions. From where I stand, it seems like you all are making assumptions, assuming that everyone agrees with your presumptions, and then acting amazed when we don't agree with your personal human opinions AND when we note that the text you're offering to defend that human theory does NOT say what you are claiming.
Just as Stan's assertion of Psalm 51 (and others) does not support this claim, literally, those words and ideas are not in the texts.
That's an objective reality, man. IF it were actually literally in the text, then ALL you would have to do is show me, "HERE, Dan, when David says X, he is literally saying what Stan claimed..."
That you don't even try to do that much shows that even YOU recognize it's not there.
Great job of keeping your promise that you were done.
The starting place for everything. The starting place for creation, in the Creator.
You asked specifically for my opinions, now you seem to be complaining that I gave them to you.
Exactly were else, other that YHWH, should we start?
If you aren’t going to prove your claims, stop demanding that others do so.
Yes, I’m aware of what Holy means, and that meaning is exactly why I started with YHWH.
My comparison to the US legal system is exactly on point. Look at criminal case names. It’s always “The state of X v, Dan Trabue or The USA v. Dan Trabue”. It’s literally exactly how it works. Civil court is where individuals seek redress against other individuals.
Likewise, YHWH (who established the His law) is the one who is sinned against (as well as the victim).
1. Reallly? You’re the one arguing against the concept. Or at least pushing back and demanding proof.
2. No one. But please continue to bitch about something no one said.
3. Scripture, to start.
It’s not my job to preempt every single random question you might conjure up.
How about you show me, using objective proof, that I’m wrong. Instead of making demands. It how about you show me that you’re objectively correct?
Prove your claim that the Scripture provided doesn’t support his “claim”.
I didn’t do that for two reasons. 1. You didn’t demand that I do that.
2. I was responding on my phone.
It’s easier to bitch about everyone else., rather than simply prove that your claims are objectively True.
What’s funny about this whole thing is that your past actions have prevented you from asking Stan these questions directly and you somehow expect that I have some responsibility to answer for Stan. So you bitch, moan, and complain because of the consequences of your own behavior.
This is so insane.
Prove your claim that the Scripture provided doesn’t support his “claim”.
I'm stating, as a point of fact, that the claim Stan made about "infinite sin" is NOT in the text he cited as supporting it, or at least after making the claim. It's not in ANY of the texts.
IF you all want to play a Bible-proof-text game, as you demonstrate yourself, then at the very least, be prepared to show WHERE the text is supporting your claim. Stan has failed to do that. YOU are failing to do that. And, of course, you literally can't.
Psalm 51 (and Stan's other texts around this) do NOT say or suggest, "Sin is not small because God is not small."
If you and Stan want to say, "because David was taking his penance so seriously, that SUGGESTS to me that it must mean all sin is infinite..." that's fine. It's literally not in the text, but if you want to own up that you READ INTO the text that idea, that's fine. But to state it as if it's a fact, that is the problem.
My proof is observable and indisputable. It's the the literal observable absence of those words and ideas in the texts he cites. It's literally not there. That it's literally not there IS PROOF that it's not there.
If someone says "My cat is ten feet tall and has 13 tails," ALL I have to do to dispute that claim is LOOK at his cat and note that it's not ten feet tall and does not have 13 tails. Same with proof texts. IF someone makes Claim X and says, Psalm 51 is why I think Claim X AND if Psalm 51 does not say or suggest Claim X, then all I have to do to dispute it is say, "It ain't there." And that is an objective fact, observably indisputable.
What is wrong with you all? Do you not understand how deeply weird this is?
Do you think, Craig, that even one actually small (not infinite) sin - one time stealing a cookie from the cookie jar - has everlasting implications and is deserving of eternal punishment? Do you think that one time stolen cookie is an infinite sin with infinite implications? Do you think that God thinks that stolen cookie is worthy of having eternal punishment?
Or, conversely, do you think that having that imperfect moral reasoning (your theoretical "sin nature") that would LEAD to taking that one cookie is worthy of eternal punishment?
If so, can you admit that the Bible literally nowhere says that in any direct way? That those who reach such conclusions do so by extrapolating OUT of the Bible/reading INTO the text what is literally not there?
Craig, without knowing what he's talking about, said:
What’s funny about this whole thing is that your past actions have prevented you from asking Stan these questions directly and you somehow expect that I have some responsibility to answer for Stan.
1. I'm asking reasonable questions to any people who affirm the conservative religionists' opinions and superstitions about "sin," "SIN," "Sins," hell and Adam, his rib and his defective gene he passed on to humanity. Any of you can choose to answer this line of reasonable questions or not (you won't, if 20 years of history is any judge). I really would LOVE to see any conservatives try to offer rational support for their theories OR admit that their theories are not provable/proven, and so I ask.
2. I was banned from Stan's for asking just these sorts of questions in a manner that he found offensive. I didn't engage in the vulgar, misogynistic attacks on innocent people like some of you engage in. I didn't say he wasn't a Christian or dismiss his faith. I simply have consistently asked reasonable questions. That Stan takes offense of that or of "harsh language," is on Stan (especially when he engages in equally harsh language).
As always, I stand ready to be convinced by moral, rational, biblical SUPPORTED responses. You all really need to get over this delusion that you are above having to deal with reasonable questions.
Well, you see, Craig. To Dan, God's just one of the guys and to act contrary to what God wants/expects is no different than not putting your dirty dish in the sink.
Dan pretends to worship God, but his every attempt to rebuke Scriptural teaching is clear evidence of posturing, not devotion. And while he criticizes Christian doctrine regarding man's sin nature, his own sinfulness prods him further to expose his lack of reverence for God and His Holiness.
Apparently Dan doesn’t have the self control to follow through on his promises, or prove his claims.
Also doesn’t seem interested in accepting responsibility for his own actions.
There he goes...back to the lame "cookie theft" example. No one makes their case on so moronic an argument. Dan doesn't even understand the argument, anymore than he understands the faith he claims to have seriously and prayerfully studied all his life.
Dan's marxist liberation theology means he's the victim of our oppression. Thus, nothing is ever his fault, and any push back against his heresies can be labeled an attack.
Obviously. I must have oppressed him in my lengthy and detailed response in the original post to the point that he was unable to respond to any of the specifics. Let alone answer recent questions.
I think Dan’s cookie example makes a good point about how he sees Sin. It’s all about actions, and being able to control one’s actions. If only we can master this mythical imperfection by doing more good deeds, everything will be just fine.
I've been reading and re-reading Stan's posts which has gotten Dan's panties in such a twist. I can't really find any of the faults Dan imagine exist within any of them. Stan's scriptural citations back up that to which they're attached quite well, and we have yet another case of Dan failing/refusing to provide a better understanding of those citations if they are somehow contextually misapplied to Stan's posts. I guess from this point on we must realize that it's perfectly reasonable to simply criticize and leave it at that, for Dan's done no better.
As far as I'm concerned, none of us are required to prove anything. After all the years on the blogs, it's up to Dan to provide solid objective evidence to show the error of our positions and at the same time provide the same in defense of whatever alternative understanding of Scripture he regards as a more accurate understanding. We need to see both, and particularly his arguments for his understanding. I know he claims to have done this, but even with his own examples from his blog (particularly his series of hilarious arguments in defense of his favored perversions), but he's never filled the holes we've so easily spotted at the time, and none of it matters going forward.
As long as you take Stan's recent series in context I agree.
What Dan seems to be doing is taking a sentence or two out of the larger context of this series (let alone the context of Stan’s history) and bitching because Stan doesn’t cram 5-6 posts worth of context into every sentence. Stan is building an argument post by post and they can’t totally be taken out of that context. Dan IS doing exactly that.
What Dan is doing is looking at the totality of Stan's posts recently (or, EVER) on sin and whatnot and saying that the claims that Stan is making are not supported by the texts he's citing. Those claims are NOT in those texts.
Now, all ANY of you will have to do to prove me wrong is show where ANY of his claims are in ANY of his texts. You're not doing that because they simply aren't there. His literal theories are literally not in the literal text. He's reading INTO the texts what isn't there, literally.
Don't whine or make up ridiculous false claims. Show me the texts that support any of his claims literally. Once again as always, I'm not saying the exact words he is using have to be in the text but the idea he's promoting has to be there if he's claiming it's found in the text.
It's not.
If you say so.
I'm not doing what you demand because it's not my role. All you need to do is to prove that you have a better alternative, which I haven't seen, or prove objectively that you are correct.
No whining here, just amusement.
"Stan is building an argument post by post and they can’t totally be taken out of that context. Dan IS doing exactly that."
Prove it.
Sigh.
Does it never bother y'all how completely y'all confirm what I'm saying? I'm saying what he's saying is not in that text and that y'all don't answer the questions - the full line of reasonable questions - related to your superstitions. You are proving that right here by saying, in effect,
"But! But, but, but...but if you just read everything that Stan's ever written, then somewhere in all that, I'm guessing there's a case being made. Therefore we know Stan is objectively right."
I'm just embarrassed for y'all.
"Okay, some points, right off the bat. John is clearly speaking metaphorically or figuratively, here."
Objectively, prove this claim. Specifically prove that he's speaking metaphorically throughout the whole passage or where the metaphor begins and ends.
Who cares what you are saying, these fact that you are saying something means nothing in terms of objectively proving your point.
That you regularly take a sentence out of context and bitch that Stan hasn’t included something he established in a previous post is the problem.
Dan, then Craig:
"Okay, some points, right off the bat. John is clearly speaking metaphorically or figuratively, here."
Objectively, prove this claim. Specifically prove that he's speaking metaphorically throughout the whole passage...
Well, much like how you rip things out of context for your human traditions and superstitions, you've ripped this quote literally from out of the context of this conversation. You'd have to provide SOME context so I know what's being referred to here. It's not in THIS thread anywhere.
Be rational. When you use unknown acronyms and throw out/cite quotes without context, I won't know what in the name of all that is holy you're speaking about.
I don't have a perfect memory, good man. This may well be a quote of mine (sounds like it) but I don't know the context.
Conversation doesn't have to be this complicated, fellas.
As I'm unwelcome at Dan's, I'm not going to waste time with his self serving nonsense. From what I can see, the entire thing is Dan making assertions without proving that his assertions are True, and complaining that Stan doesn't do things the way Dan demands. Art foolishly got involved at the tar pit, I'll pass.
Well, when you start with an unproven claim, that doesn't seem particularly auspicious. In this case, as I was addressing you (who wrote the whole thing) I presumed that you were aware of the entire context, and further that anyone else was smart enough to find the context at your cesspool. Given the fact that you literally wrote this quote last Saturday, and can't remember it on Tuesday, is a distressing comment on your inability to remember. If you can't remember what you wrote 3 days ago, why would anyone think you'd have the capacity to remember what I wrote weeks or months ago?
This is a new excuse for not proving your claim, I'll grant you that. But "I'm unable to remember what I wrote 3 days ago" isn't quite the flex you seem to think it is.
My bad, I assumed that you had the capability to remember what you recently wrote.
My "assertions" are statements of objective reality. When Stan says "sin blahdy bloaty boogie boo... and God is blorp japfy... and we know it because here are some verses from the Bible..." IF those verses don't support his nonsense claim, that is, IF that claim is literally NOT in the text he's citing, then the "assertion" that "It's not in the text" is just noting reality.
And I'm noting, once again, that rather than actually even TRY to defend Stan/your little human superstitions, you are choosing to engage in irrational ad hom attacks that have nothing to do with reality.
I'm citing reality - observable, objective reality - and ASKING you to defend these silly little opinions if you can, and you all opt to NOT answer rational questions and instead, engage in repeated ad hom attacks.
It's a bad look for conservative religionists.
I could be wrong, but I think that at least many of the moderate to conservative Christians I grew up around would be glad to say, "Yes, that's not in there literally, I just personally THINK we can assume it's correct because..." But they'd acknowledge if an idea was not literally in the text if it wasn't literally in the text. That, I can respect and deal with.
But this cowardly running away from the questions and attempting to bully your way to "victory," well it's a shame for the conservatives I used to know.
As we have versions of these conversations happening in multiple places and threads, you'll have to pardon me if I don't recall all of them. Unlike you, I do not have a perfect recall. ALL you had to do is say, "I got that quote from your second most recent post..."
[rolls eyes - conversations don't need to be this difficult and you all don't need to be this obtuse or such would-be bullies.]
Taking what I said IN CONTEXT, then:
Looking at [Stan's] proof texts, then, 1 John 3...
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin.
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.
No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
Okay, some points, right off the bat. John is clearly speaking metaphorically or figuratively, here. Even the conservative religionists are glad to acknowledge that even THEY "continue to sin" after coming to "know" Jesus.
You, Craig, responded:
"Objectively, prove this claim."
Do you think that Jesus "takes away" our sin? Removes them from our lives entirely? AND YET, we continue to "sin," and do wrong. So observably, literally, Jesus did NOT "take away our sin" in a literal manner. It's a figurative claim that John is making.
Now, if you want to theorize that John was being literal when reality says otherwise, by all means, support YOUR claim. My objective support is that none of us have sin "removed" from our lives or our world.
Also, I suspect/know that conservative religionists would gladly testify that they "know" God, AND YET, they continue in sin. But John just said that NO ONE who knows God continues to sin.
Do you "know" God in the sense that John is speaking of?
Do you continue to sin?
Answer those questions and you'll demonstrate how I'm objectively right.
Now, you can apply all sorts of spin to these words, like, "John didn't mean we would never sin once were saved... he was suggesting, something... else..." But that would be just an acknowledgement that the words aren't to be taken literally.
Done and done.
"My "assertions" are statements of objective reality."
Then your assertions should be incredibly easy to prove objectively, yet you don't.
I've written two fairly extensive posts and who knows how many comments in response to you whining about Stan's posts. Strangely enough, you've barely responded to the original post, let alone the majority of the comments. Answering questions, heaven forbid.
I'm asking you to prove your claims, and simply asserting that you are "citing objective reality", is not proving your claims.
Your central claim seems to be that humans are imperfect, and that this must simply be accepted as unquestioned fact. Yet you haven't proven this claim. You haven't proven that it's this magical, mysterious, inherent imperfection (as opposed to the "Sin" construct from historic Christianity or the "Evolutionary benefit" theory expressed by Materialist/Naturalist?Darwinian types) is the 100% accurate answer to the question. You haven't even attempted to explain the cause of this "imperfection" ("It just is." isn't a serious explanation), just demand that we accept your assertion. Just to mention a few of the holes in your myth.
It's telling that you resort to "name calling" as if a made up label somehow renders disagreement with your hunches irrelevant.
Coming from someone who's run away from questions for the majority of this post/thread as well as two others, this is hilarious.
Choosing not to answer the same question for the umpteenth time because you can't remember what you wrote 3 days ago, let alone what I wrote months or years ago, is frustration with your inability to remember. Nothing else.
So you can't objectively prove your claim. All you can do is ask more questions, and pretend like those questions, some suspicion, and assumptions somehow magically prove that your claim is objectively True.
Pathetic.
Dan's doing his usual "Show me were it distinctly says exactly 'XYZ' or you can't say the Bible teaches it." This is where he throws out "God-given reason" which results in the clear inferences obvious to so many over the centuries. That which Stan has presented is such a "Christianity 101" level reality that it's not any of us who must provide even more evidence, but Dan who is defending a "progressive tradition" for which HE needs objective evidence drawn from Scripture to show Stan is wrong. He's again criticizing without providing an alternative more to his liking and proving why it might be a more accurate interpretation. He never feels obligated.
"John is clearly speaking metaphorically or figuratively, here."
What's the "metaphor"? What's the "figurative" word(s)? One might say he's speaking in hyperbole, but he's speaking accurately. The "conservative religionists" would rightly say that John speaks to one's changed state, which is to live a righteous life, as Christ-like a life as possible. He is speaking of the difference between an actual Christian who falls short of the Glory of God versus the "progressive" "Christian" who continues indulging in sexual perversion while pretending there's some Biblical loophole which makes it OK. The former strives to walk the righteous path always. The latter doesn't care about the righteous path if it means forsaking one's gratification.
"Do you think that Jesus "takes away" our sin?"
Yes. John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world!" And thus, literally, Jesus took away our sins by His sacrificial death on the cross. Feel free to continue clinging to yours.
It's not the specific words which are to be taken literally. It's the message the words convey as has been explained since He put them to parchment. The message is what is taken literally by the typical Christian, not the specific words as you "progressives" point to them to pervert to your liking.
Dan's comment, I think, points out the largest difference between his hunches about sins, and what Scripture teaches about Sin. Dan seems to be focused on managing sins, on keeping track of how few "minor" sins one can commit and still be considered a "good person". Further, he's committed to his imperfection myth, because if we're all simply born imperfect then how can we be held accountable for simply how we were born. Further, Dan clearly has some mystery point where the nature of one's sins, or the accumulation of one's sins, render one not a "good person". Those people he refers to as evil or other terms. Yet I can't recall him ever explain where the line is between "good person" who accidentally commits a few minor sins, and evil.
I've written about this before, but the language used by Jesus and the NT writers in regards to Sin is virtually always "dead/alive". Jesus and the NT writers don't portray Sin and a minor illness, they portray it as being dead. Jesus tells the woman to "go and sin no more", yet under Dan's myth, Jesus is sending her out to do the impossible. Under Dan's myth, there is no salvation. No life. Simply an onerous score keeping and guessing whether or not your sins are "minor" enough.
Jesus came, as you note from John, to "take away the sins of the world". The very name Jesus means "The name Jesus literally translates to "Yahweh saves" or "God is salvation." It reflects both the identity and the core mission of Jesus Christ to deliver humanity from sin.". So, it's clear that Dan likely assigns some arbitrary metaphor to these Scriptures.
The way I've heard it described is that because of the work of Christ we are "positionally righteous", while not being "practically righteous". That our position as it relates to YHWH is fully righteous due to the imputation of Jesus' righteousness to us, yet this imputed righteousness is a gradual process which results in our continued commission of sins until we are finally fully redeemed.
Dan's myth, seems to offer no sure hope. Nothing but counting sins (much like Islam and Judaism) and trying to guess where the line is. Or it is simply Universalism dressed up as something else. Dan's "cosmic justice" seems to be based on whether or not Dan (or some imaginary majority of humans) have decided how bad each individual sin really is, yet Dan won't provide his rubric so that people might know for sure if they've only committed a "few minor sins". Dan wants "justice" on his terms, "justice" that makes sense to his fallen, imperfect, limited, Reason.
Yeah, unless something is presented in exactly the way Dan would like, Dan seemingly refuses to connect the dots. Strangely enough, Jesus' very reason for coming to earth is encapsulated in the words of Gabriel when He was named Jesus, and John "take away the Sin of the world", yet those are not clear enough for Dan.
I just re read the first of Dan's over promise and under deliver posts and noticed that (for someone who claimed that he was going to provide Biblical support for his myth and hunches) he literally provided zero Biblical support for his positions. Doesn't seem like a good start.
Oh, you noticed that, too?
Post a Comment