"As if helping a little old lady across the street is not the epitome of good or godly. This need to downplay decent, kind, gracious behavior when it's done by humans is, well, not good."
This need to misrepresent or interpret what I say into something negative or nefarious is honestly kind of the opposite of good.
The simple reality is that the perfection of YHWH is orders of magnitude beyond helping an old woman across the street. This is not to say that helping someone is bad, it's merely to point out the vast difference.
That Dan engages in, and allows others to engage in, this sort of obvious misrepresentation/lire demonstrates his hypocrisy when he bitches about how others do this to him.
FYI, as with pretty much any action motivation matters. If one is helping an old lady across the street to an ATM so they can steal her money, maybe not the epitome of goodness. Likewise, helping an old lady across the street to a a dark alley to kill her, not so nice.
Jesus seemed to think that "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." might be a better epitome of good. But it's not the first time Dan disagrees with Jesus.
" And even if, at the time, this was not considered rape (because these were misogynistic and patriarchal societies where women were more like property/chattel than free humans), doesn't mean it wasn't rape. Perhaps, back then, virgin girls who had their families killed off by invading nations truly DID think, "Well, at least I get a husband out of this" when they were forcibly wed to the invading conquerors who "chose" them... doesn't mean it's moral or rational or just, in the same way that just because enslaving people was considered normative."
Dan seems pretty worked up about this semantic argument about whether Bathsheba was raped or not. He also seems pretty worked up about "forced marriage" thousands of years ago. What he doesn't seem particularly worked up about is the fact that girls as young as 9 are forcibly married to middle aged man in the present day. In 2026 it is legal for a 50 year old man to marry a 9 year old, while Dan bitches about something from thousands of years ago. Families slaughtered and children raped to defile them in the afterlife, or girls raped before being executed for not obeying their parents (again so they won't go to paradise), not something that gets a lot of attention from Dan. But he's all in on lecturing YHWH and ancient Israel about how bad they were.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteThis need to misrepresent or interpret what I say into something negative or nefarious is honestly kind of the opposite of good.
If I've misrepresented you, of course, I apologize. But I don't think I have. I'm saying that YOU have this theory that God's "good" is orders of magnitude different than ours. Is that NOT what you're saying?
Whereas, I theorize that Good is Good, regardless of who may promote it or engage in it. Helping a little old lady safely across the street IS a good thing to do, regardless of who does it or who advocates for it. If God's own Self appeared in human form (say, a homeless person) and walked her across the street OR if you or I do it, it's simply a good thing to do.
What specifically have I misrepresented?
The simple reality is that the perfection of YHWH is orders of magnitude beyond helping an old woman across the street.
That's what I'm saying your theory is. I disagree with your human theory. Is that okay with you?
Now, needless to say, God is PERFECT and an almighty perfectly loving, perfectly just God. Whereas, we're mere mortals, imperfect as we are, only created in God's image. So, we're not as GOOD as God, of course. But, d'uh! God is perfect and we are not.
But the good acts of people (or God), they're just good. I don't know how you'd grade the degrees of goodness.
For instance, you bring up motivation and lead with two awful examples of extreme EVIL (as opposed to Good).
If one is helping an old lady across the street to an ATM so they can steal her money, maybe not the epitome of goodness. Likewise, helping an old lady across the street to a a dark alley to kill her, not so nice
If one is plotting to kill or rob an old lady, there is NO good in that behavior. And HOW do we know that? Because we can recognize Good, in general terms and it's really not that difficult.
As to motivation, what of the actually decent person thinking about doing a good deed and help that old lady across the street. Old Ralph is enjoying a leisurely walk and is heading across the same street as the lady, and kindly offers to help her cross (by the way, far and away almost certainly more common than some human wanting to rob and kill her!). It was a good act that came at no great cost to Ralph. On another day, Louise is out, running late for a meeting, tired and overworked, but noticed the old lady struggling to get across the street and begrudgingly helps her and when the old woman tries talking with her, rudely excuses herself saying she's running late. STILL a good deed.
HOW does one "measure" the goodness there? Ralph had the time and made a pleasant trip across with the woman. Louise may have been rude due to how tired she was and because she was running late (and what for? To help someone else??). Do we have ANY reason to try to "measure" the "goodness..."? Does GOD suggest we should measure the goodness between those two people? Between our good acts and God?
I'm saying it's a rather graceless and pointless endeavor to try to measure the "good" of an action. Suffice it to say, it was a good deed.
The difference, then, that I was distinguishing between your apparent view (correct me if I'm wrong) that
C: God's goodness is "better" than our goodness and our goodness
and my view:
D: Why measure? What is the point? HOW would one even do that? The attempt to classify goodness seems to miss the point. There simply is, as I said, "no need to downplay decent, kind, gracious behavior when it's done by humans..."
Now, IF you want to point out what I said incorrectly about your view, I'd be glad to apologize. That would be the good thing to do. AND, if you were mistaken and I DID correctly quote you and your point, then perhaps you'd want to apologize for getting wrongly offended and casting aspersions on my character.
Also, do YOU think there is some rational or moral reason to downplay decent, kind, gracious behavior when it's done by humans? Do you think it's helpful to note, "Imperfect humans aren't as good as a perfect God..."?
I’ll deal with more later, but you are quite clear that when it comes to YHWH that good=perfect. While humans are by their very nature imperfect. By your own construct there is a vast qualitative difference between YHWH good and human good.
DeleteMore later when I have time and my computer.
"I'm saying that YOU have this theory that God's "good" is orders of magnitude different than ours. Is that NOT what you're saying?"
DeleteYes. I am suggesting that the God who spoke and Creation came into existence, who is omnipresent/omniscient/etc, who is a perfect/sinless/holy being is orders of magnitude different than we are as humans. Are you suggesting that He is not?
"It is the Thugs (like Craig) - brutalizing the Other - who brutalize themselves every day. Which God abhors. They destroy the image and likeness in which they are made. They refuse to accept love as the Divine principle. They want law.
DeleteThat’s why they want the US and Israel to conquer all their enemies.
They believe in a God contained by stone tablets. This is not faith. It’s ideology."
Exhibit #1, of you allowing me to be misrepresented at your blog, which you control, and at which you regularly delete comments. You allow lies you become responsible for those lies.
Exhibit #2, "it means ultimately that a 20-year-old should be punished for an eternity for the "crime" of stealing a cookie"
You regularly repeat this lie and act as if it is True.
Exhibit #3, "Congratulations on actually answering a question."
Again, a lie you regularly repeat.
Exhibit #4, "This need to downplay decent, kind, gracious behavior when it's done by humans is, well, not good."
By all means, prove that this statement accurately reflects what I have actually said.
Exhibit #5, "Thugs want the death that follows law. Because they nihilists, enraged for loss of power."
You allow and agree with these kinds of BS lies.
I love how Dan takes one thing that he hasn't misrepresented, then uses that to ignore the things he has misrepresented. What, then is the likelihood of an apology? I'll put the chances near zero.
Delete"I disagree with your human theory. Is that okay with you?"
You do what you want, I don't care. But as long as you choose not to prove your claims, I won't take you seriously.
"So, we're not as GOOD as God, of course. But, d'uh! God is perfect and we are not.:"
So, you now agree with me. Acknowledging that the point I mads is something so obvious seems like a strange way to disagree.
"But the good acts of people (or God), they're just good. I don't know how you'd grade the degrees of goodness."
1. It's not so much about "grading" (as you do with your "minor sin" grade, although you haven't actually defined "minor sin" with any specificity).
2. Are you seriously telling me that there is no quantifiable or qualitative difference between saving the life of another at the cost of one's own, and helping an old lady across the street?
3. You seem to be saying that actions are good independent of the motivation behind the actions.
"For instance, you bring up motivation and lead with two awful examples of extreme EVIL"
1. I "bring up motivation", because Jesus brought up motivation. Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees engaged in good acts (giving alms, praying fasting, etc) for bad reasons. The motivation behind the giving of alms doesn't negate the good that those alms do for the poor, does is?
"Because we can recognize Good, in general terms"
Can we really, objectively, "recognize good" solely based on the limited observation of a portion of someone's actions?
2. I "bring up motivation" to point out the reality that a "good act" can be tainted by bad motives.
3. I'm pointing out that the ACT (which you laud as some sort of paragon of goodness) doesn't change, but the motive does. Cutting off someone's leg is bad on the street, but good in an OR.
4. How can you possibly divorce action from motivation.
You were quite clear that helping an old woman across the street is "IS a good thing to do, regardless of who does it or who advocates for it. ...it's simply a good thing to do."
You have made a clearly statement that helping an old woman across a street is always (under any circumstances) "a good thing to do" then you reverse course and insist that the same act is "evil" under certain circumstances.
So, if YHWH appeared bodily and helped an old woman across the street that would objectively be a "good thing do do".
DeleteSo, if YHWH (with or without appearing bodily) instead healed the old woman so the she didn't need help getting across the street, would that not be a significantly greater "good"?
"As to motivation,,,,"
DeleteI'm not going to copy/paste the whole paragraph because there's no point. I'll simply note that you are validating my examples when you point out that (under your construct) the ACT of helping is "good" without regard to the motive.
"HOW does one "measure" the goodness there?"
I don't know or care, I have no interest in that sort of keeping score.
"Does GOD suggest we should measure the goodness between those two people?"
Not that I am aware of. Have I suggested otherwise? Is my pointing out that a qualitative and quantitative difference exists between us and YHWH confused you somehow?
"Between our good acts and God?"
I'd argue that the quantitative and qualitative difference between YHWH and the humans He created goes without saying, it's literally baked in. Whether you call it imperfection or something else, there is clearly a difference between the perfect and the imperfect, is there not? Can any of us do any "good acts" out of a perfect motivation?
":I'm saying it's a rather graceless and pointless endeavor to try to measure the "good" of an action. Suffice it to say, it was a good deed."
DeleteIf you say so.
"C: God's goodness is "better" than our goodness and our goodness"
While it appears that your memory problems caused you to forget the end of the sentence, I'll try anyway. I'll start with some clarifying questions.
Where exactly did I use the word "better"?
Is YHWH not qualitatively and quantitatively different than humans?
Is it incorrect to say that "perfect" is "better" than "imperfect"?
Is doing the "good act" out of the best and most pure motivation different from doing a "good act" out of the worst and most impure motivation?
Until you answer, I'll simply note that I've said that YHWH and His actions are qualitatively and quantitatively different than us and our actions. You put words in my mouth when you quoted me as saying "better".
"Why measure?"
Where did I say that we should "measure"?
"What is the point?"
I don't know what your point is.
"HOW would one even do that?"
I don't know, since I've never suggested that we do so.
"The attempt to classify goodness seems to miss the point."
Interesting. Does you attempt to classify sins as "minor" and not "minor" also "miss the point"? Where have I suggested this classification?
Is noting the ontological differences between YHWH and us a problem for you?
"There simply is, as I said, "no need to downplay decent, kind, gracious behavior when it's done by humans...""
1. "as I said" is a ridiculous attempt to give yourself some bizarre authority.
2. I have not attempted to "downplay" anything.
"Now, IF you want to point out what I said incorrectly about your view, I'd be glad to apologize."
Already done. I'm not holding my breath waiting for an apology for what you've said and allowed.
:That would be the good thing to do."
Yet, even with this self aggrandizing, congratulatory, BS, it's unlikely that you will either apologize or prove that you were correct.
"AND, if you were mistaken and I DID correctly quote you and your point, then perhaps you'd want to apologize for getting wrongly offended and casting aspersions on my character."
Interesting. You decided, all on your own, what I was referring to when I said you'd misrepresented (and allowed misrepresentation) picked a quote that makes your point (even though you copy/pasted the quote, you still misrepresented what I said), then pretend that you getting one quote right absolves you of everything else you did.
Tnank you for acknowledging that you aren't going to apologize.
"Also, do YOU think there is some rational or moral reason to downplay decent, kind, gracious behavior when it's done by humans? Do you think it's helpful to note, "Imperfect humans aren't as good as a perfect God..."?:
Noting the reality doesn't "downplay" anything. It simply notes the reality.
To note the reality that you are not as accomplished as an artist as Michelangelo, isn't downplaying what skill you do have, it's merely noting a reality.
Oh, no, Craig. God didn't enact regulations for how one should treat a captive girl with the sake of the captive girl in mind. That's just ancient rubes rationalizing rape!!
ReplyDeleteDan ignores all the scholarly explanations for the "captive girl" meme he likes to trot out in order to further his (literal reading) corruption so that he can pretend his favored sins are not sins at all. But here he uses it to distract from the fact that his "David's rape of Bathsheba" angle...something he had no legitimate reason for even mentioning, as it doesn't in any way relate to the context of the discussion.
Worse, Dan tries to support the "rape of Bathsheba" angle by citing those he refers to as "conservative religionists" as if more people saying something unsupported by the text makes it truer and more likely. While doing this, he doesn't consider two chapters later where another person of status and power has the hots for a chick and sets the table for his opportunity to "woo" her. She turns him down he aggressively insists. She rebukes his wickedness and what does the book's author do? He plainly refers to it as "rape". Why would this episode be described as rape and not the David/Bathsheba affair a mere two chapters prior? Because David didn't rape Bathsheba.
And of course, as to your opening Dan quote, GOD is the epitome of "good"...not some dude helping an old woman across the street, even if his intentions were simply to help he across the street.
Only God is good. The best we can do is model Jesus as best we can and know that because of His atoning sacrificial death on the cross, our sins are washed away if we believe in Him, without Whom there is no path to the Father.
That the explanation for the treatment of women captives and how it was much more humane than any other culture isn't important to Dan and his narrative. Much like the fact that we are literally seeing this behavior and worse (forced marriages to prepubescent children) in 2026 and Dan is much more worked up about the Hebrews behavior thousands of years ago.
DeleteCraig:
ReplyDeleteyou are quite clear that when it comes to YHWH that good=perfect. While humans are by their very nature imperfect. By your own construct there is a vast qualitative difference between YHWH good and human good.
? What? "When it comes to God, that Good = Perfect?
That's not what I've said. At all.
I've said that God IS Good. And God IS perfect. But the words do not have the same meaning.
Human beings can be good, as we can see for ourselves, objectively, demonstrably, observably. You can only get around that if you try to redefine "good," to mean something other than "good" as it is normally defined.
Human beings can't be perfect, because we're not perfect, objectively, demonstrably, observably. You might want to guess as to the reasons "why," (we "inherited" a "sin nature" from "Adam," that "infected" us with "sin..." or some such mythic theory... OR that we just aren't capable of being perfect when it comes to moral questions because, perhaps, there is no way to objectively always know what the perfect moral answer is to a given question or because of just human nature - like being left-handed or right-handed... we just ARE...) but we clearly are not perfect.
So, you'll have to explain what you're trying to say with this quote from you. It doesn't sound like my position or anything I've claimed.
Likewise, Craig:
By your own construct there is a vast qualitative difference between YHWH good and human good.
I just made the exact opposite point. Good is just "good." It's either helpful, kind, gracious and loving (ie, Good) to help a person in need or it's not. I don't see how one would reasonably measure such good works OR a reason why?
To compare imperfect mortals to an almighty God? To what end? Do you imagine your version of "god" as so needy that he needs to point out how he's "the best ever! Every one always says so!"
If so, that might explain your presidential choices, in part.
At any rate, you'll have to explain. It sounds like you're doing the opposite of understanding my actual points.
I’m more interested in what Jesus/Scripture say on the topic than what you say.
DeleteGo ahead with what appear to be semantic shenanigans. You’re making my point that the term good is used to describe an incredibly wide range of things and loses some of its impact when the term is used so broadly.
YHWH is both good and perfect, yet somehow there’s no overlap or some such.
Well, again, when you get a chance... IF you can show me where I actually misrepresented you when I cited your own words, please do and I can apologize. And if you can't... maybe turn down your own vitriol and attacks?
ReplyDeleteWhat part of me saying that I’d respond in detail when I had time and was not on my phone was confusing to you?
DeleteNo vitriol, no attacks, that’s how you roll. But the ad hom is already getting strong.
Craig...
ReplyDelete"You’re making my point that the term good is used to describe an incredibly wide range of things and loses some of its impact when the term is used so broadly."
As to your first point, of course, yes. You CAN have good behavior that helps a woman across the street or babysits for a neighbor, attends to a sick friend, or drops off a meal for a sick family, or just says a kind word OR that saves someone's life. These are all good. These all fall within the scope of good behavior but what's the problem with that?
You seem to try to answer this with your second half of your comment, that it waters down the notion of good... " loses some of its impact..." but Why? Says who?
Yes saving someone's life is a great and wonderful good. Babysitting for someone is a great and kind good. We have other words that we can use to help clarify the sort of good. A parent in need of a babysitter might call someone who's babysitting a lifesaver with a smile and a laugh. The person who was saved from death by a good helper would rightly call their rescuer a lifesaver with sobriety and great emotion. We can understand the context. These are good. They aren't watered down. That is, the great thing is not watered down by the lesser good. What's the problem?
Again, I appreciate you making my point.
DeleteMuch like the English word love is used to translate multiple Greek words which are much more specific, I believe that the English word, good similarly, lacks specificity. That you are doing such an excellent job of illustrating my point, along with demonstrating how subjective your hunches about what actions are good, is a bonus.
As the term good applies to YHWH, the assertion is that He “is good “, not that he merely does good things. That Good is part of the immutable character of YHWH. That Jesus himself says “no one is good but God” would seem to indicate there is some degree of quantitative or qualitative difference between good as it applies to the nature YHWH, and good as it applies to humans. This assertion you seem to be making that the goodness and perfect perfection of YHWH are somehow not related seems like a bizarre attempt to separate some of the immutable characteristics of YHWH.
From what I’ve seen, in my cursory, reading of your comments, your argument is somewhat of a semantic argument yet also somewhat of an argument, based in your subjective opinion about things you think are good. Neither of these arguments are particularly persuasive, yet I suspect that this won’t stop you from continuing to make them.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteAs the term good applies to YHWH, the assertion is that He “is good “, not that he merely does good things. That Good is part of the immutable character of YHWH.
Okay. And just to establish some details of your/our theories, as humans, created in the very image of God, created a little lower than God, created to do good works, created with God's way written upon our hearts... would you allow that being "good" is likewise innate (if not immutable) in humanity, even if we, in our imperfection, do not live that out perfectly?
Given that your entire hunch there is just that, your hunch, why would I agree with your unproven hunch?
DeleteAre you suggesting that the Genesis account which tells us that Creation was “good” at Creation and that humans were “very good” accurately reflects your hunch?
No. I'm stating that
ReplyDeleteIF one presumes a perfectly Good God
and
IF one presumes that God created humans in that God's very image
THEN it rationally follows that those humans would have something of "God" and, therefore, "good," in their image.
And that it is rationally supported by noting the observable reality that humanity, by and large, recognizes good and bad at least in the broad strokes, as CS Lewis famously noted.
That is, a thing is True or at least likely when it is observable and detectable, that, as opposed to a thing being true when there's a line in an ancient text - even a Bible - that I interpret as saying this Thing is True.
But then, I'm not a believer in the rulings book theory of the bible.
When you start with "I'm stating" or "I'm saying" as if that settles something, I'm not inclined to take anything that follows seriously.
DeleteBut, by all means, provide objective proof of your claim. Instead of unproven presumptions.
"...that, as opposed to a thing being true when there's a line in an ancient text - even a Bible - that I interpret as saying this Thing is True.
DeleteBut then, I'm not a believer in the rulings book theory of the bible."
If your claim, as it appears to be, is that the above accurately describes me, then you have two more misrepresentations to apologize for or to prove that you are correct.
"But then, I'm not a believer in the rulings book theory of the bible."
DeleteWho are you kidding, Dan? You're not a believer in the Bible.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteGiven that your entire hunch there is just that, your hunch, why would I agree with your unproven hunch?
? I didn't offer a hunch. I was responding to YOUR claims about "the term good applies to YHWY," etc. Are you asking yourself about your hunch?
And, since you are more of a magic rulings book Bible believer, I assume you theorize that humans are created in the image of God, a little lower than God, created to do good works, etc because those are all literal lines in the bible.
But do tell: do you NOT affirm those theories or hunches, if you prefer?
If you say so.
DeleteIf you can't accurately state or quote me, I see no reason to reward your laziness or dishonesty.
"And, since you are more of a magic rulings book Bible believer"
One more misrepresentation (actually simply a lie) for you to apologize for (or prove that you are objectively correct).
"I assume you theorize that humans are created in the image of God, a little lower than God, created to do good works, etc because those are all literal lines in the bible."
When you "assume" things, as opposed to objectively proving them, you just look like a lazy, dishonest, idiot. Hardly "good acts" to misrepresent or lie about others.
No, I do not affirm things that you've made up, misrepresented, or lied about. That the likelihood of you apologizing for this is virtually zero, I won't even bother to ask.
Regarding me supposedly slandering or misrepresenting you, I said...
ReplyDelete"I'm saying that YOU have this theory that God's "good" is orders of magnitude different than ours. Is that NOT what you're saying?"
And you responded...
"Yes. I am suggesting that the God who spoke and Creation came into existence, who is omnipresent/omniscient/etc, who is a perfect/sinless/holy being is orders of magnitude different than we are as humans. Are you suggesting that He is not?"
So on that point, it sounds like no slander. This is what you are saying and I correctly stated it. Strike one for you, right?
Or I will note that you are saying that God is several orders DIFFERENT than us rather than "more good" than us. I would certainly agree with that but do you think being different makes God "more good" than us? For instance I could say I am a much better driver than that three-year-old. He's awful. That doesn't make the three-year-old not good, just noting that there are some things beyond their capability or capacity. Right?
That is, it's not rationally or morally fair to judge someone's goodness on a point at which there is no capacity or diminished capacity. Right?
Do you imagine that our moral goodness should be judged on a Godly level... that if we're not as moral as a God, we're not moral? If so do you think that's rational, just or moral?
1. No where did I ever use the term slander to describe your actions. Your use of the term suggests that you are, even now, misrepresenting what I've actually said.
Delete2. You ignore the actual instances I pointed out where you did misrepresent (or allow misrepresentation) and focus on something I never mentioned as an example. My the things you do out of desperation.
Of course, in addition to obsession on this one thing, you now demand that I answer questions based on your BS.
"Strike one for you, right?"
No, not at all. When your big example is not an instance that I pointed out of yo misrepresenting (or allowing misrepresentation) this would logically be a strike against you. I appreciate your obsessive desire to focus on that which you want to focus on to the exclusion of the actual examples I gave.
"I would certainly agree with that but do you think being different makes God "more good" than us?"
If "prefect" is "more good" than "imperfect", then sure if you want to take the word I actually used and replace it with your word. I chose different, because it encompasses more than simply your subjective hunches about what is "good".
"That doesn't make the three-year-old not good, just noting that there are some things beyond their capability or capacity. Right?"
If you say so. I fail to see the relevance. If your point is that YHWH is orders of magnitude greater than we are in everything, then sure, YHWH is orders of magnitude greater than the humans He created.
"That is, it's not rationally or morally fair to judge someone's goodness on a point at which there is no capacity or diminished capacity. Right?"
Now you're just spouting gibberish. I'm simply referring to the fact that the Creator is greater than the created.
"Do you imagine that our moral goodness should be judged on a Godly level... that if we're not as moral as a God, we're not moral?"
No.
"If so do you think that's rational, just or moral?"
It's not so.
Craig
ReplyDelete"No, I do not affirm things that you've made up, misrepresented, or lied about. That the likelihood of you apologizing for this is virtually zero, I won't even bother to ask."
To be clear: you do NOT think humans are created in the image of God?
I find that hard to believe but you can tell me directly and clearly. It's sort of a standard in the conservative world. If you don't believe it, comment: Do you acknowledge that most Evangelicals believe that humans are created in the image of God?
If you don't believe it, I will be glad to apologize for thinking that you probably do.
"To be clear: you do NOT think humans are created in the image of God?"
DeleteIt took me a minute, but I figured out your ploy here. I was disagreeing with the entirety of your construct, you tool one line out of that context and are pretending that the one line is what I was referring to. Your ability continue to misrepresent me, instead of apologizing is impressive.
Yes, I do agree that humans were created ex nihlo in the image of the YHWH. I do not agree with the rest of the nonsense you spouted.
No you won't, it's clear that apologizing is the last thing you will be doing.
Craig...
ReplyDelete" I do agree that humans were created ex nihlo in the image of the YHWH. I do not agree with the rest of the nonsense you spouted."
Because your answer was so vague and unbelievable, I took the time to break it down one point at a time. So I was correct that you DO affirm we are created in God's image.
But then you appear to be saying you think the notion that we were created a little lower than God it's nonsense. Is that correct? Even though that's a literal translation, or one of them, of that verse, that says: "What is humanity that you are mindful of them? ... You created humanity a little lower than God, or sometimes a little lower than the angels, depending on the translator. It's not that you happen to prefer "a little lower than angels" as the better translation in your opinion. You go even further and say the translation "we are created a little lower than God" is nonsense, is that right?
And you appear to be saying you think the notion that humanity was created to do good works, that this idea is also nonsense? Even though that's literally a line in the Bible?
Since you don't give very direct answers, I'm taking it slowly, clarifying one point at a time, perhaps to ease the hostility that you find necessary in your responses.
The sheer gall to try to blame me for your BS is incredible.
DeleteYou make claims about translation BS, but offer no proof. Nothing but your own empty claims.
No apologies, no addressing the multiple misrepresentations/lies, just you playing semantic games, demanding, and bitching. At least I got a good laugh.
"You go even further and say the translation "we are created a little lower than God" is nonsense, is that right?"
DeleteAs I already expressed why "angels" or "heavenly beings" is the more accurate translation, I would go further to say that you, Dan, are for lower than "a little" than God, or even the angels and/or heavenly beings. Or worse for you, if you were indeed created a little lower to an equal measure with the rest of mankind, you are among those who have proven how badly to have crapped on that blessing.
Art,
ReplyDeleteI might have accidentally deleted a comment of yours. My bad. I was laughing too hard at Dan’s BS.
I'm pretty sure you did, but as is usual, I've forgotten what I intended to express at the time. No worries.
DeleteA normal person would have explained their choice to go through my answer step by step to ensure clarity. But Dan is clearly not a normal person.
ReplyDeleteDan's rebuke of "good = perfect" is a manifestation of his desperation he be regarded as good and that his sexually deviant members of his "Beloved Community" be regarded as good as well, despite their sinfulness. But as has been stated many times, "good" by comparison to other people isn't the same as "good" as Jesus applied the word to the Father, who is perfect. And keep in mind who the rich young man applied the word at the outset. Jesus is either obliquely referring to Himself as God or simply asserting that indeed, there are none who are good but God Himself (or both at the same time).
ReplyDeleteDan then goes on an cites verses such as that we're created in God's image and thus, there is goodness in us. I would say simply that in us is the potential to do good things, which is different...distinctly so...of "being" good. We are not God because He made us in His Image and Likeness. And to the extent that He made Adam to be perfect, He gave Adam the free will to choose to obey God or to serve Himself by presuming he could be like God. From that point on, "good" is out of the question, because we are all inclined to sin, just as Scripture so clearly states and Its many historical narratives bears out.
Dan also loves the "little lower than 'God'" interpretation over the "lower than 'angels'/'heavenly beings'" interpretation, which the writer of Hebrews favors. And as commentary puts it, Isaiah 55:9 also mitigates the possibility Psalm 8 is referring to being "a little lower" than God. But again, Dan so badly needs to be regarded as "good" that he would risk elevating himself to "God-status", which he does with this constant citing of Psalm 8:4.
We can discuss words like "salvation", "redemption", "sanctification", all of which are more aptly reserved for our condition at the time of our death, than in a general discussion about whether or not we are "good" at any point until that time. Indeed, it's still a different and separate matter. I accept that I am not "good" because Jesus not only said so, but I have Him to speak on my behalf when the time comes, should I be so worthy.
Here are the problems with Dan's eisegesis on these "created" passages.
Delete1. His definition of "created" seems bizarre as he's also claimed that we've evolved, per Darwin.
2. We were created "very good", yet sin (or imperfection) has changed that.
3. That we were created for good works, doesn't mean that our good works save us, or that everything we perceive as good is actually good.
...or...once again...that because we do good works, that we are therefore "good". I'm "good" with that, because I have Jesus, and that's "good" enough to save me.
DeleteCraig:
ReplyDeleteYou make claims about translation BS, but offer no proof. Nothing but your own empty claims.
? Are you seriously NOT aware of Psalm 8's famous, "Created humanity a little lower than angels/God..."?
what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?[c]
5
You have made them[d] a little lower than the angels[e]
and crowned them[f] with glory and honor.
6
You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
you put everything under their[g] feet:
It's a pretty famous passage - quoted in Hebrews 2, as well - and famously noted that there are at least two ways to translate the word (Elohim, I believe): Angels/divine beings/God.
I apologize if you were not aware of that passage. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were.
So, NOW, given that the Bible teaches that humanity was created a little lower than God (at least as ONE possible translation traditionalist translators have for the passage), do you STILL believe the concept is "nonsense..."?
Likewise, the passage that I assumed you knew the passage in Ephesians 2, where Paul declares: "For we are God's workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus for good works,
which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."
Now that I've pointed to the famous passage in question, do you STILL believe it is "nonsense" to suggest that we were created for good works, as Paul opined?
"? Are you seriously NOT aware of Psalm 8's famous, "Created humanity a little lower than angels/God..."?"
Delete1. More punctuation lunacy.
2. I am aware of the passage.
3. I've never seen a translation that didn't say angels.
4. YHWH was not created.
I believe that your eisegesis is nonsense.
"Now that I've pointed to the famous passage..."
Again I conclude that your eisegesis is nonsense, not Paul.
You're wasting lots of time on this BS, while choosing to ignore the instances where you actually misrepresented or lied about me or my positions (or allowed others to do so).
There are translations which uses "God" where others use "angels" or "heavenly beings" because of the original languages uses a word which can mean all three possibilities depending upon the context in which it is used. Hebrews refers to the Greek, which suggests "angels" (if not specifically uses its word for it). To be "a little lower than the angels" is a vast difference than being "a little lower" than God which can mean we're still WAY, WAY lower than God. And as I provided, Isaiah 55:9 also indicates that "a little lower" is a massive understatement.
DeleteBut Dan insists on "a little lower than God" for the purposes of elevated and praising himself. I'm confident no one would ever consider Dan in any conversation about an actual person who could legitimately be regarded as only "a little lower" than God.