Then, God came to God's Religious Ones and said,
"On the day you were born
your navel cord wasn't cut
you were left covered in slime
you were not tended nor cared for
No eye took even the slightest pity on you
to have compassion for you
for you were
hated
on the day you were born
When I was walking by, I saw you
squirming in your own blood
and I said to you
'LIVE!'
And I made you grow like weeds
and you grew tall and strong
yet still
you were naked and bare
And so, I covered you
clothing you Myself
in My Love for you
And everyone talked about my
Great Love for you and you were
made famous
because of Me.
but you trusted in your reputation
and played the whore, because of your fame
You made yourself wealthy
as maggots
and powerful
in your Many Things,
using this wealth
to buy more Power
and more and more useless Trinkets
and you were not embarrassed
in the least
No, you just wanted more
Power
more
Wealth
more
More
As I live,
your Sister Sodom
was not as Sick as you are
in your wealth and power
Behold,
This is the sin of your Sister Sodom
She and her family
were arrogant, wealthy, lazy-as-shit
but she did not help
the Poor
the Foreigner
the Oppressed
You are Proud, like hell,
and sick, in your Wealth
gorging until you vomit
and then
gorge some more.
Be ashamed,
for your abominations
for your embrace of ignorance
and indifference.
For My sake,
Be ashamed.
Ezekiel 16, in part... my loose paraphrase
110 comments:
Interesting that in your "loose translation", you choose to portray God as a potty-mouth. Another conscious choice on your part to engage in foul language...as if there wasn't a more mature alternative.
I was unaware that you were so fluent in Hebrew? That’s very impressive.
Paraphrase. My fault. Corrected now. Thanks.
No problem, glad to help.
Tomato/tomahto. You're still portraying God in a seriously blasphemous manner. Shame on you.
I suspect that there was some degree of motivation behind the paraphrase of this myth other than to simply render it into more accessible language. B
The motivation was to stay true to the prophetic voice found in the OT, to remind people of the prophetic voice in the OT. These prophets consistently and repeatedly warned Israel against their false religiosity...
"I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them.
Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps.
But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!"
...and about how they substitute these forms of "worship" in lieu of actual justice for the poor, the oppressed, the foreigner. It's a repeated theme throughout the prophets (and of course, throughout the Bible). This is my motivation because it is a good thing to do. We ought to be watching out for the least of these, as it's a good and rational thing to do. We ought to be be welcoming to the poor, marginalized and foreigner, because it is a good and rational thing to do.
Or, as Ezekiel literally says, "[they] were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. "
It's not like my paraphrase is a stretch or deviation from the source text. It just emphasizes things a bit more.
And Marshall, for some of us, saying "shit," or "God said shit" is not blasphemy... what IS blasphemy is ignoring the needs of foreigners, of treating them like whores and thugs and deviants. Or treating the poor and otherwise marginalized in this way. You want true blasphemy? There it is.
As if God gives a shit about a "curse word..."
Grow up, brother.
I appreciate your new found willingness to apply a prophecy specifically aimed at ancient Israel to other unrelated situations. How do you know this is a legitimate prophecy and not a “revenge fantasy”?
Yes, it emphasizes the things you find useful. That’s my point.
I'm not taking it as "a legitimate prophecy" - or not. I think that's irrelevant.
Prophets are those who speak Truth. This is Truth: The sin of Sodom was a failure, in the midst of their wealth, to care for the poor and marginalized.
Taking the Bible as a literal history book misses the point, or at least runs that risk.
Merriam Webster's primary definition of blasphemy:
1. a :the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
Putting profanity into His mouth clearly demonstrates a total lack of reverence for God.
from dictionary.com
1.
a. Contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning God or a sacred entity.
b. An instance of this.
2.
a. Irreverent or impious action or expression in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
b. An instance of this.
Clearly evident in your "paraphrase".
from yourdictionary.com
The definition of blasphemy is saying something concerning God that is very disrespectful.
Portraying God speaking profanity is clearly disrespectful.
No definition of blasphemy described the word as "ignoring the needs of foreigners, of treating them like whores and thugs and deviants" or anything remotely like that. But then, like most lefties, you alter definitions to suit your purposes...reverence for God be damned. Thus, that is nothing like "true" blasphemy. And yes, God most definitely cares about the use of foul language. He wants us to be holy because He is holy. How does being holy include using foul language exactly?
And by the way, our nation treats foreigners just fine, so long as they abide the rules of our nation. This is the same as that of the Law handed down to the Israel. There was absolutely nothing that suggested the foreigner/sojourner could do as he pleased in the land of the Israelites. The opposite was more than merely hinted. Surely your serious and prayerful study should have informed you of this.
By the way, the "sin of Sodom" in Ezekiel 16 does refer to the injustices of Jerusalem, but the entire chapter is an allegory depicting Jerusalem as sexually immoral...and beginning with v49, accuses her of committing detestable things MORE vile than Sodom or Samaria. So the sexual immorality of Sodom is referenced here, despite the point being directed at social injustices. For that I thank you for picking this chapter to use poorly as you help to validate my position on your unfinished response to my concerns in a previous post. You're a pip.
Putting profanity into His mouth clearly demonstrates a total lack of reverence for God.
In your opinion. Not everyone considers cuss words profane.
Again, I consider maltreatment and apathy towards the marginalized to be profane, not mere shits and poops. Those are just words describing bodily functions and natural by products used for effect, sometimes, in speech.
There is a relief found in cursing, Mark Twain once noted, denied even to prayer (or something approximating that).
The "sin of Sodom" in YOUR estimation and opinion is speaking about sexual misconduct. I think it's very clearly metaphorical for more profane abuses like ignoring the suffering of the oppressed and marginalized. Although, clearly, the text is speaking about "Sodom" being lost in a world of their own self-comfort, so it's possible it is including sexual abuses of various sorts, but I don't think that's the larger point of the text.
Again, the text: THIS is the sin of your sister Sodom: She was fat and arrogant and unconcerned for the poor and marginalized.
accuses her of committing detestable things MORE vile than Sodom
Yes, and ignoring the suffering of the poor IS very clearly more vile than anything Sodom may have done (like engaging in rape of foreigners, etc).
"Not everyone considers cuss words profane"
Mostly those who cuss, as well as fake Christians, except that cuss words are profane, as any honest person...like a real Christian...can tell you. What you consider profane in order to provide yourself the liberty to be profane doesn't count...except that it makes you profane.
I pretty much stated that the sexual metaphors used in Ezekiel 16 did not mitigate the point the use of the imagery was intended to convey. I said it was telling that the specific imagery referenced the sexual immorality of Sodom at the same time. Pay attention.
"Yes, and ignoring the suffering of the poor IS very clearly more vile than anything Sodom may have done (like engaging in rape of foreigners, etc)."
Really. You regard being ignored as worse than being raped. Your dedication and embrace of sexual immorality knows no bounds apparently.
Allow me to clarify:
I'm saying that the TEXT asks the reader to "consider Sodom" in all of its corruption (which, as we know, included attempted gang rape, amongst other atrocious behaviors)... and goes on to say that EVEN SODOM IN THEIR MOST ATROCIOUS BEHAVIORS - which the TEXT defines as "being rich, fat and uncaring for the poor and marginalized" was not as bad as Israel.
The point being that, even though we know that part of the Sodom story involves attempted gang rape, the TEXT (or God, if you're taking it literally) says that THIS was THE sin of your sister Sodom: Being wealthy and unconcerned for the poor.
As to your opinions about what is and isn't profane, Profane is defined:
"relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular rather than religious."
or...
"Not relating to that which is sacred or religious; secular."
or...
"(of a person or their behaviour) not respectful of religious practice; irreverent."
"Shit" (for example) is a word. It is a word about excrement. I personally don't think God has a problem with excrement.
Further, people use it in a "cuss word" manner to emphasize the unfitness or grossness of something, usually an idea, sometimes a person. The person who lies to take advantage of women or children, for instance, might be said to be "full of shit." It's an apt and holy way of calling out atrocious behavior, seems to me. I personally think God may well say, if you asked God, "Damn, that Trump fuck is full of shit." when God heard the Billy Bush tapes... Because Trump is a vulgar, atrocious man.
I don't find it to be anything but holy - of God - and rational, in that context.
That is my opinion, and it's one that's shared by many people.
Now, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but you must face the reality that it's only your opinion and not everyone shares it.
From the Merriam Webster "Learner's" Dictionary, since you're still learning the English language:
1 profane /proʊˈfeɪn/ adjective
Learner's definition of PROFANE
[more profane; most profane] formal
1 : having or showing disrespect for religious things
profane language
2 : relating to ordinary life : not religious or spiritual : secular
sacred and profane customs
2 profane /proʊˈfeɪn/ verb
profanes; profaned; profaning
Learner's definition of PROFANE
[+ object] formal + literary
: to treat (a holy place or object) with great disrespect
Vandals profaned [=desecrated] the temple."
the freedictionary.com
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
from dictionary.com
adjective
1.characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious.
2.not devoted to holy or religious purposes; unconsecrated; secular (opposed to sacred)
3.unholy; heathen; pagan:
profane rites.
4.not initiated into religious rites or mysteries, as persons.
5.common or vulgar.
verb (used with object), profaned, profaning.
6.to misuse (anything that should be held in reverence or respect); defile; debase; employ basely or unworthily.
7.to treat (anything sacred) with irreverence or contempt; violate the sanctity of:
to profane a shrine."
Clearly you're playing semantic games again, cherry-picking definitions to rationalize your use of that which makes you as vulgar as Donald Trump. But your grasping at definitions that you present as being unrelated to religion or the religious, seems more aptly described as "anti-relgious" when taken in context with all definitions presented.
I have no doubt that there are those who reject these long-held and widely understood definitions of profanity and the profane meaning wholly negative, immature and derogatory. But "many people" is not only entirely subjective, but without a doubt meaningless when compared to those who, in far greater number, share my understanding of the concept. And THAT would include "many" who are in the habit of using profanity.
In any case, your opinion of Donald Trump is clearly a case of "it takes one to know one".
This just occurred to me:
""Shit" (for example) is a word. It is a word about excrement. I personally don't think God has a problem with excrement."
"Problem" enough that He regarded all bodily secretions negatively and associated with sin and mandated purification for anyone who came in contact with it, even if it secreted from one's own bodily orifices...like your mouth. To suggest that He would have no problem with the words one uses to represent such things is not only self-serving, cheap rationalization, but the kind of "speaking for God" of which you so routinely accuse others who are actually repeating what Scripture says He says, expects or mandates. Sure...you'll say it is only your opinion, that you're not putting it forth as fact. But opinion requires some basis in fact...something that justifies holding the opinion other than your selfish desire to hold it...because you like it personally and want it to be so.
What's more, Christ later clarifies by saying it's what that comes out from within us that makes us impure. Purposely using profane/obscene language certainly qualifies.
Look at your definition:
1.characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious.
I get that, FOR YOU, IN YOUR OPINION, me having God say "shit" is irreverent or contemptuous. So, FOR YOU, you should not do it. But I don't buy your shit, thank you very much.
It's not the definitions, but what you are reading into them (much like you read shit into the Bible) that makes it, for you, irreverent or profane. But, as often noted: Your opinion is not the deciding factor, here.
~Dan
Dan has shown so much reverence for God (or not God), that he’s generously decided to reword a prophecy that specifically applied to one specific nation, and re cast it as applicable to all people and nations for all time. You should just say thank you and move on.
Truths don't specifically apply to any one people. Truths are universal, Craig.
Do you disagree?
I think it is a Truth that humans should watch out for one another, especially the least of these. Doing otherwise only contributes to making the world (and thus, our own lives!) a hellish place. It's irrational to disagree with this Truth and I think it is a Universal Truth.
Do you disagree?
And for those of us who believe in God and follow Jesus, it IS reverencing of God to tend to the poor and, while you are free to disagree, I think it is clear that mere words like poop or shit do not, in any way, cast shade on God... God is well aware of poop. Hell, God is aware of sexual intercourse... or, in the more crude word, "fucking." But it's just a word, men. It, in itself, is not profane, it's how you use it.
To use harsh, even culturally rude, words to speak out against oppression or harmful idiocy is biblical. It's Godly, if you think that Jesus was Godly.
Interesting, you’ve been most insistent that the OT laws only applied to isreal, now your arguing that a prophecy specifically targeted to Israel is universal. That’s convenient.
Oh please, cite the verse where Jesus used some form of “fuck or shit”.
Jesus didn't speak English.
Jesus DID use harsh language towards the religious fundamentalists who abused religion and pretended to speak for God.
And read closely and understand:
I. AM. NOT. SAYING. THAT. OT. LAWS. APPLY. TO. US.
Do you understand this?
I AM saying that Truths are universal. Love one another. That is a TRUTH, not a law. And it's True because it's True, not because there is a line in the Bible that says it (or a line in the Koran, or in Zoroastrianism's book, if they have one...)
I'm saying that it is a universal Truth (but not a law) that we should tend to the needs of one another, especially the poor and marginalized and foreigners, etc. People just generally recognize this Truth.
Now, if you want to argue against this Truth, feel free to. I'll pass on arguing in favor of loving one another.
Please feel free to misrepresent my comments if it helps.
1. You’ve vehemently argued that the OT laws are specifically only for Israel and not universal Truth.
2. You are now vehemently arguing that a prophecy that is explicitly, specifically targeted the Israel is somehow universally True for all people in all times.
Seems inconsistent to me.
I'm not at all interested in discussing other parts of this conversation, including whether and when obscenity is permissible and even commendable, but another aspect stands out as, frankly, incomprehensible -- perhaps the underlying reason is a communication breakdown, after all.
"Love one another. That is a TRUTH, not a law."
Dan, what exactly do you mean by this?
"Love one another" is an imperative sentence, and I believe that questions of truth apply only to declarative sentences: a declarative statement of fact can be true or false or (grammatically correct but semantically meaningless) nonsense, but I don't know how those categories would apply to a bare imperative.
Perhaps you're really alluding to a declarative statement about that imperative, to say that "Everyone ought to love one another."
("Ought" and "should are auxiliary verbs expressing obligation; here, "ought" is paired with the infinitive "to love" and "should" is typically used as part of a larger verb phrase.)
If the obligation actually exists -- if every person really has a moral obligation to love every other person -- then the sentence is objectively true, and this does seem to be exactly what you're saying.
"I'm saying that it is a universal Truth (but not a law) that we should tend to the needs of one another..."
(You write that it is a capital-T Truth, so is there a difference between a truth and a Truth? You capitalize this word but not its opposite "falsehood" or other conceptual nouns such as "law," and you do this consistently enough that it's evidently quite deliberate, but it's not clear why you do it OR what you imply by it.)
I simply don't know what you mean by saying that "love one another" isn't a law. I would say that these two statements are equivalent:
- "Everyone should love one another" is the truth.
- "Love one another" is a law.
By "law" I mean an actual moral imperative, an obligation that applies universally: it's not a human law written by human lawgivers, it is rather a divine law written by the divine Lawgiver, but it's still a law.
Is "love one another" a moral obligation? If it is, I believe it's ENTIRELY ACCURATE to call it a law, but if it's not a law, I don't see what could possibly be meant by saying it's a truth, or the truth, or a/the capital-T Truth -- or, as in your clarifying statement, by saying it's the truth that we "should" do this particular thing.
If your position is that "love one another" is a truth/Truth but not a law or a rule, then I could certainly understand how that position logically leads to your claim that the Bible is not a book of laws or a rule book or even a book that contains rules as well as historiy and everything else it contains.
It seems that, linguistically, we approaching these ideas from very different and evidentally compatible frameworks, and my guess would be that I would not find your framework to be all that accurate in corresponding to reality OR all that useful in communicating to others.
But I don't understand what your framework is.
If you could explain exactly what you mean by what I quote above, it might go a very long way in making yourself clear to me and to others who have similar issues with what you write.
Loving one another is a universal truth. It is at least nearly universally recognized as a good idea. Not a law, but a Truth, a good idea. Is it a "moral obligation..."? I don't have a problem with that, but I'd prefer to call it a good idea.
Now, one can make the case that we could call it a law, "the law of Love [and, I'd add for more wholistic comprehension, Grace...]" but it's not the sort of legalistic law that we find in fundamentalist Islam, for instance, or much of fundamentalist Christianity.
"Do this very specific thing, JUST the way we're telling you to do it, or you're hellhound and maybe, we'll even throw you in jail or kill you! There's no disagreeing with WE who speak for God!!"
That is not consistent with the truths of the Way of Love and Grace. (and it sure seems to burn your buns, but capitalizing some words for emphasis is part of a long, historic literary tradition, I capitalize in that sense... (hell, many translations of the Bible do this!). No harm intended.
At any rate, I'm fine with calling the Good Idea of Loving others a moral imperative, or a Law, if you prefer. But it's not a law like "Don't let the gays marry..." or "When you own slaves and need to chastise them, don't beat them to death..." or, "If you sell your daughter into slavery or into sex slavery, here's some parameters on how to do it..." That is, it's not a specific set of guidelines for a specific set of people. It's a universally recognized good idea. Let's do it.
Hope that helps.
John 13:34 sounds like a law to me.
I always thought that a commandment from a ruler or a king was pretty similar to a law or a rule. So, when asked "What is the greatest commandment?". Jesus replied, "Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.". Then he said that the second greatest commandment was "Love your neighbor as yourself.".
It seems that several truths can be gleaned from this.
1. That loving God is in fact a commandment (rule, law, etc.).
2. That loving others is also.
3. That there are commandments.
4. That there are more commandments other than these two.
If we look at what it means to "love God" we see that those who love Him "obey His commandments".
It seems logical to conclude that to love is there are commandments (rules/laws/whatever you want to call them), and that we are expected to obey them if we want to demonstrate our live for God.
It seems as if we're at an impasse, do we believe Dan's opinion or the words of Jesus?
I know what I'd do.
I even guess you could accurately say that "loving others" is not just "a law, like...", it's the second most preeminent law above all other law, so that makes it kind of important, but still second beyond "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength", and how do we demonstrate the love in the Greatest Commandment? By acknowledging the existence of and obeying all of the other commandments (including, but not limited to "love your neighbor".
Oh, and that whole John 13:34 thing. " “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."
Once again, we can reasonably conclude that:
1. There are commandments we should obey.
2. There were commandments before this one.
3. Jesus has the authority to give commandments
4. The love He's commanding is sacrificial, not selfish.
Again, I choose Jesus words, not Dan's.
It would be an interesting semantic trick to try to suggest that the commandment of a king or ruler is not functionally equal (or actually equal) to a rule or a law.
Dan, I mention your use of caps, not merely because I find it annoying, but because I find it potentially confusing. "Three teaspoons make a tablespoon," and "Paris is the capital of France" -- are these claims mere truths or Big-T Truths, what would be the difference between the two, and how does this difference change how you interact with people as you discuss these two categories of claims?
I'm not sure your self-expression through this selective use of capitalization is worth the potential loss of clarity.
In short, if you want to be understood, make sure you're writing in prose, not poetry.
It seems to be only a possibility that you're using the word "truth" in unconventional ways when you capitalize it, but -- despite how often you invoke dictionary definitions in other situations -- it CERTAINLY seems to be the case in how you use the word "law."
Law, rule, command:
- NONE of these terms imply a limited or selective applicability. Laws aren't always applicable only "for a specific set of people," and if a moral obligation is universal -- binding in all circumstances for all people -- it doesn't suddenly become something other than a law.
- NONE of these terms imply a thoughtless, rote, mechanistic application. Legalism is an inappropriate application of the law -- excessive in some way, such as its literalism, its emphasis on the letter of the law even in the teeth of its spirit, or its focus on the statue without any consideration for the circumstances at hand -- but one can reject a legalistic approach to a law while still calling it a law.
Quick example. In the U.S., it's the law that cars be driven on the right side of the street, but I believe that a driver can AND should ignore that law in very limited circumstances. If a fallen tree is blocking just the right side of a residential street and the driver is absolutely sure the left lane is clear of opposing traffic, I see nothing wrong with his carefully driving in that lane just long enough to clear the obstacle in his path. A police officer COULD technically write a ticket, but I think he would be legalistic in doing so, but that doesn't mean that I think "drive on the right" is ANYTHING other than a law.
(As an aside, it's worth noting that literalistic legalism can be overly strict OR overly permissive -- like a kid who obeys Mom's rule about not eating cookies before dinner, but eats a candy bar instead. The Pharisees were apparently being overly permissive in teaching that it's okay to break an oath so long as the oath invoked anything other than God Himself. In teaching that all lying is wrong -- and that hatred and lust are as bad as murder and adultery -- Jesus actually made the moral implications of the law MORE severe, not less.)
(And, in some cases, the Pharisees' teaching evidently contradicted the written text outright. "Love your neighbor" is in the Torah, but "hate your enemy" isn't, and this second clause is incompatible with Exodus 23:4, especially when compared with Deuteronomy 22:1.)
[continued]
[continued]
I would go further.
- NONE of these terms imply salvation by law rather than salvation by grace. One can believe that the law's impossible standards spotlight the need for grace without making them anything other than the law, and that those who have already been saved should fulfill the law by loving others (Rom 13:10, Gal 5:14, Jas 2:8).
- And NONE of these terms imply an impersonal relationship with the Lawgiver.
I recently saw a great quote attributed to Tim Keller: Legalistic remorse says, "I broke God's rules," while real repentance says, "I broke God's heart."
In the same way, spiritual maturity is more about pleasing God rather than following the rules -- about living a life WHOLLY devoted to God rather than trying to check off a list so that we can spend the rest of our time focusing on ourselves -- but that doesn't invalidate referring to His will as His rules or laws or commands.
(In Pillipians 2:13, Paul writes that God works in the believers "both to will and to work for his good pleasure," in other words, giving us the desire and the power to accomplish His purposes. As we mature, believers do what God desires because they find themselves desire the same thing, but I see nothing wrong with continuing to call His desires and purposes the command of God. Apparently neither did Paul, because in 2:12, he commends the church for their having "always obeyed" and implicitly urges them to continue doing so.)
--
Craig mentions that Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment, and I note that Jesus DID NOT say that there's no such thing, only "good ideas."
Marshall mentions John 13:34, where Jesus gives us a new commandment, and I would point out John 15:14, which uses the Greek root of the word "commandment" in 13:34.
"You are my friends if you do what I command you."
We are invited into this incredibly intimacy with Jesus, to share in His love and joy and peace (see John 14:27, 15:9, and 15:11), but it is most CERTAINLY not a symmetrical relationship. Jesus demands our first allegiance and our complete obedience.
You write about "those of us who believe in God and follow Jesus," and I don't see why you would be reluctant in saying that you follow Jesus by obeying His commands.
--
I'm still not entirely clear what your position is, Dan.
"Loving one another is a universal truth. It is at least nearly universally recognized as a good idea. Not a law, but a Truth, a good idea. Is it a 'moral obligation...'? I don't have a problem with that, but I'd prefer to call it a good idea."
Is it an actual moral obligation or not? (Do moral obligations really exist?) If it isn't, then it's inaccurate to say that it is, but if it is, I see nothing wrong with calling it what it is.
You say you "don't have a problem" with "love your neighbor" being a moral obligation, but that's not a clear affirmation of your belief that it is.
And, generally speaking, when earthly parents tell their children that doing something is "a good idea," the implication is that it's ONLY a good idea -- a suggestion, not a command, which the parent perhaps prefers but does not require.
Does God have no expectations of us? Does He only offer suggestions that might to be our benefit and the benefit of others, which we should heed because of His wisdom but which we NEED not heed because of His authority?
Is Jesus Lord or merely a mentor?
I would also point out that just because something is "nearly universally recognized as a good idea", doesn't really give that idea any sort of authority.
For example, one could say that "marriage is nearly universally recognized as being between male and female", clearly by any standard the statement is true (especially if one considers history). Yet just as clearly, some would argue that this statement is not true (or True, or Truth, or a truth). So, that leaves us with a choice. Do we give equal weight to the authority of numbers, or do we apply it randomly and selectively? Accepting it when it serves our purposes and rejecting it when it's inconvenient.
If Jesus is Lord, then what implications does that have for our obedience? If he's merely a mentor (or a guru, or a wise man, or a sage), then why should we treat His suggestions as anything but utilitarian. In other words, if His suggestion "works for me" then I'll decide to follow it. Of course if that suggestions stops "working" for me then I'm equally free to abandon it with no repercussions.
It seems as of there is a desire to establish a "moral imperative" (love people) without actually making it a command. But that simply allows humans the power to establish "control" over themselves, which brings us back to the original sin (or the root of all sin), that of pride or wanting to assume the role of God.
If not a rule/law/command, then what obligation is one under to love at all...or ever? While you may regard it as a "good idea", another may have reason to believe putting one's self above all else without regard of any kind for others is a "better idea". How can it be held against him simply because he disagreed with the notion of love being a good idea.
Further, your self-serving interpretation of the Sodom story means that God destroyed Sodom because they didn't buy into the notion that love is a "good idea". God's wrath poured out suggests the concept to be more than merely a"good idea" to Him, but rather that He regards it as essential and something required of everyone. Kind of a universal thing without actually being labeled as sucj
Craig...
Once again, we can reasonably conclude that:
1. There are commandments we should obey.
2. There were commandments before this one.
3. Jesus has the authority to give commandments
4. The love He's commanding is sacrificial, not selfish.
Look fellas, you are free to believe whatever you want. You can think that the Bible is a rule book if you want (or partially a rule book, or a rulings book, or anything you want to call it). I disagree with that opinion and think it diminishes the Truths found in the Bible (or "bible," if you prefer, Bubba. Geez.) In fact, in my opinion, it is exactly the wrong conclusion to reach from the teachings found in the Bible or just good reasoning.
But you are welcome to your own opinions. Want to call the Bible a Rulebook? Knock yerself out. Just don't demand that I accept that human opinion.
Marshall, if it's not a rule/command then what obligation is one under to love at all? Common sense? Decency? A following of our better selves and better ways (by which, I mean Ways). Because one is an ass if one does not embrace the notion of love one another and one contributes to making the world a more hellish place?
There are all sorts of reasons for embracing grace and love as The Way to Live. Jesus' teachings are just helpful pointers to what we can recognize in many ways. As the Bible, in fact, teaches, if one accepts the notion that the Bible teaches.
In short, if you want to be understood, make sure you're writing in prose, not poetry.
Seriously, what do you think I mean by Truths? Do you think I mean anything other than the obvious? Look, you'll have to take up the notion of abandoning all capitalization for emphasis with authors throughout the ages. And this is just a guess, but that probably includes folk like CS Lewis, King James (or his writers), Jonathan Edwards and many other classic traditional Christian authors.
My goodness, you strain at the gnats!
Bubba...
Laws aren't always applicable only "for a specific set of people," and if a moral obligation is universal -- binding in all circumstances for all people -- it doesn't suddenly become something other than a law.
I don't think reality bears out your hunch here, Bubba. Of course, laws are always written specifically to/for a specific people in a specific time and place. What Universal law do you think there is?
(Unless you're speaking of scientific laws, like Gravity (If you jump off a cliff unsupported, you WILL fall). And, for a further explanation, if you want to call Love one another a law, I think it is more like this sort of law: Something innate and natural and inherently good.)
Our laws in the US are not universal, they are specific to those living here.
Is it an actual moral obligation or not? (Do moral obligations really exist?)
In a sense, I can say yes, I think they exist.
I'm just wary of the legalism problem you yourself cite that I believe too many - especially in more fundamentalist camps of religious types, when we try to make "the Bible" a rule book. Love one another is a great guiding principle, a moral obligation, a law, in a sense.
But the Bible is not a rule book and we ought not love one another or buy into it as a "law" because we find that line in the bible. We ought to buy into it because it is a great Truth of humanity.
Do you understand the distinction I'm making?
I don't know how else to explain it.
Feel free to disagree. I just don't think that the bible is a rule book, that is my point.
So, are you denying that Jesus gave his followers commands?
If you want to argue against the plain recorded words if Jesus, go right ahead. The problem you have is that you undercut your reliance on the words of Jesus in other matters. Unless you think you can have it both ways.
Once again, I’ll go with Jesus over Dan any day.
Would it be possible for you to stop the Bible is a rule book crap. No one has ever said that, you just keep pretending we do.
I think if you reduce the Great Truths found in Jesus' teachings to mere rules to follow, you're missing the point. Jesus taught about a Way of Grace, of Love. Not TEN COMMANDMENTS OF CHRISTIAN LIVING.
I'd always recommend you go with Jesus over Dan. Any day.
Just don't conflate the sound of your voice to Jesus and then go with your voice. That'd be a bad idea.
And yes, people are treating the Bible as a rule/rulings book. Evangelicals and fundamentalists, at least, have done it for decades.
"How do we KNOW how to live? Go to the Users' Manual!"
"What is our SOLE AUTHORITY for knowing HOW TO LIVE? Why, it's the gosh darn Bible (capital B according to GOD - capital G, don't you know?), you idiots! We know this is so because we told you!"
So, when people abandon using the Bible as a rule/rulings book, I'll be glad to quit bringing it up. In the meantime, I'm concerned that many brothers and sisters in Christ (even liberals!) treat it as such and so I'll raise the concern. Thank you very much.
~Dan
Craig,
To be clear, I have indeed referred to the Bible as a rule book. It is THE Rule Book for Christians. I say this because of all the rules found therein. It's certainly more than that, but it is a rule book as well. Why Dan has such a problem with this has been addressed many times.
So, are you denying that Jesus gave his followers commandments? It’s a simple yes or no question.
Art, if you mean that the Bible is only a book of rules, then I disagree. If you mean that the Bible is the only source of rules, that’s different.
Part of the problem is the semantic game of reducing the commandments of a sovereign Lord to the diminished level of the rules for a board game. As Bubba pointed out, if Jesus is just a mentor, then it’s all about suggestions that we can ignore. As Dan pointed out, if it’s all about societal convention and utility, then who needs a God.
Ultimately it’s about who gets to make the rules, the creator or the created.
Clearly “near universal” recognition is a meaningless standard. It’s an argument from numbers (a logical fallacy Dan uses when he thinks it advantageous and decries when he doesn’t), it’s impossible to empirically prove, it’s so vague as to be meaningless. It’s clear that the there are large chunks of the word that haven’t gotten the memo and are not engaging in this “near universal” love fest.
For all that, it all boils down to pride and control. To who gets to be in charge and making decisions.
are you denying that Jesus gave his followers commandments? It’s a simple yes or no question.
For conservatives/fundamentalists, perhaps. I don't think it's a simple yes/no question.
I think part of our problems is that people like me and other more progressive folk recognize that "there is a time and place for everything." That things can often be true in a sense but not true in another sense.
Yes, Jesus uttered literal commands. "DON'T STORE UP TREASURES ON EARTH" for instance. It is written in the form of an imperative statement, a command, if you will (although many conservatives reject taking it as a literal command, interestingly!)
So, yes, it is true, in a sense, that Jesus gave his followers commands.
BUT, I think (i.e., in MY opinion) Jesus' teachings are better understood under the rubric of the notion that Jesus is NOT uttering literal commands for us to literally obey (and here, conservatives agree, since they don't literally obey "don't store up treasures..."), but that Jesus was teaching a Way, rather than a set of rules. A Way of Grace and Love.
One key passage that helps illuminate this way of understanding is Jesus' teaching about the Sabbath.
Clearly, "DO NOT WORK ON THE SABBATH" is a literal command from God to the ancient Israelites. In one sense.
But, Jesus clarified the point for us: The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humans for the Sabbath. That is, this is not a stone cold rule. It's hinting at a Way. A Way of Grace, of rest, of worship, of respect.
The point, then, is not to limit the number of steps you take on a Saturday or avoid lifting anything over 5 pounds on Saturdays. The point is to take time to relax, to let the world rest, to recognize God, to contemplate, to rejuvenate, etc.
Not a rule, but a Way.
So, to me, the more rational way of understanding Jesus' teachings is NOT as a set of rules to be woodenly obeyed, but as a Way of Grace and Love.
Which sometimes, for example, that love might cause you to raise a concern with a beloved one, in love, about choices they are making. And at other times, that love might cause you to just embrace that struggling loved one and assure them that you love them. Period. And not speaking of choices they are making.
Not a rule, but a Way.
Ultimately it’s about who gets to make the rules, the creator or the created.
I think this is a good point but I'm coming at it from perhaps the opposite direction.
God is NOT MAKING RULES. Period. End of discussion. God has not come down to Craig and said, "Here's precisely what I want you to do, steps 1, 2 and 3..."
No. Rather, God has created us in God's image, with God-given reasoning, with the Spirit speaking to our hearts, with God's Ways written upon our hearts, with all of Creation testifying to and of God, with resources like the Bible and other wisdom sources. And given ALL that we have, we can seek God (or not) and strive to understand this Way that God would lead us in and we, who are created in God's image, a little lower than God!, are given the holy and beautiful task of figuring out what that Way is.
So, we are burdened with this responsibility for seeking God ourselves. NOT some other humans and their hunches about what God wants, but you. Me. Each of us. For ourselves. And certainly, part of doing this may well involve listening to Tradition and Brothers and Sisters, but still, it's each of us figuring it out for ourselves.
Craig,
Yes, I said it is a rule book, but I also said,
"It's certainly more than that, but it is a rule book as well."
Just to clarify.
Dan,
"Yes, Jesus uttered literal commands. "DON'T STORE UP TREASURES ON EARTH" for instance. It is written in the form of an imperative statement, a command, if you will (although many conservatives reject taking it as a literal command, interestingly!)"
You keep saying this, it has been explained to you every time, and thus, despite your protestations (about being a liar), you are lying yet again. No conservative rejects what Christ is saying about storing up treasures. We reject your willful distortion of His message in which that "command" is found. Thus, your lie about this lesson makes your point about the commands of Jesus to be worthless.
More later.
So, when Jesus specifically referred to commandments and obeying YHWH and obeying His commandments are you suggesting that He was wrong? Or the He really meant something else?
Now perhaps you’ll understand why the posts at my blog where I respectfully asked you to expand in your worldview could have been productive had you not bailed.
You keep using the word “created”, yet you’ve clarified what you don’t mean by it, but wouldn’t clarify what you do mean. One confusion is that you claimed that the “best science” tells us we evolved from nothing, yet that “best science” denies any sense of creation or has no explanation for all of these “nearly universal” human constructs. It pains me to think that your suspicion kept you from expounding there, so we wouldn’t have to do so here.
Art, I was just clarifying.
when Jesus specifically referred to commandments and obeying YHWH and obeying His commandments are you suggesting that He was wrong? Or the He really meant something else?
I'm literally suggesting that Jesus was teaching a Way. A Way of Grace. So, any rules/commands he might have stated need to be understood within the light of this Way.
So, NO, NO, NO. I'm not suggesting Jesus was wrong. However, if YOU think Jesus was teaching a way of rules, I think YOU are wrong. But then, I don't conflate your ideas with Jesus' words.
As to your "kind offer" to answer a bunch of questions at your blog, I'd be glad to do so if the communication is two way, and that you answer questions in return.
It's precisely because you all tend to take words and ideas out of context and thereby misunderstand them that I prefer to take it step by step and trade answers for answers. It clarifies.
Now perhaps you'll understand why you answering questions and not only interrogating me would have been productive had you not bailed.
~Dan
Of course, when I actually answered questions, you bailed. But, if you want to pretend otherwise, that’s ok.
So, are you suggesting that Jesus explicit commandments need to be redefined, or modified, or clarified by filtering the explicit through some amorphous, undefined “way” that only you seem to understand?
Does that mean that you’re not going to clarify your opinions on “creation”?
Again, a clarification, when you said “ God IS NOT MAKING RULES. Period.End of discussion.”, we’re you planning to offer proof of this claim? Could we expect that proof when you explain your opinions on “creation”?
Please, don’t even bother trying to pass that last off as an opinion.
Of course, when you answered SOME questions on your blog, you didn't answer the more pointed/significant ones.
You interpret Jesus in the ways that make sense to you, I interpret Jesus in ways that make sense to me. But yes, I'm saying that we need to strive to understand Jesus aright.
I don't think God "created" you and me by some magic trick. Our parents did what they did and we resulted. It's demonstrable.
The same with your parents and their parents before us. So, I'm NOT saying that God "created" us out of thin air or anything like that. I think that God started the universe. I'm saying that we don't know specifically what that means. You don't know. I don't know. The Bible hasn't told us. Science can't tell us, not yet.
We don't know, not in any authoritative way.
Do you understand this reality?
Please answer that question.
I'll address your other questions when you answer this one.
~Dan
What reality, am I supposed to understand? That you can’t explain what you mean when you use the word “created”? No I can’t understand why you’d use a word you can’t definne”:
If you’re asking if I understand how species REproduse, of course I do. But that isn’t the point. Reproduction doesn’t explain production. It’s like explaining where the first model T came from by pointing to the Transit assembly line in Claycomo. It’s a category error.
You say “God has created us in God’s image”, you’ve chosen to use the word create for a reason, I’m trying to drag out of you what the hell you mean. If you can’t explain what you mean, why should I.
But at least I’ve answered your question.
Just scrolling through this thread, the number of unsubstantiated fact claims (the specific one I pointed out is representative), that I could go for days just listing them. But I’ll stick with the one.
you’ve chosen to use the word create for a reason, I’m trying to drag out of you what the hell you mean.
I. DO. NOT. KNOW. WHAT. HAPPENED. EXACTLY. AT. THE. BEGINNING.
WE. HAVE. NO. DATA. TO. ESTABLISH. AUTHORITATIVELY. WHAT. HAPPENED. AT. THE. BEGINNING.
Thus, I can't say specifically what it looks like to say that "God created the universe."
Neither do you. You just can't.
Do you understand this?
Last chance.
I do understand that. I understand that you believe that to be the case.
But that’s not what I’m asking.
You said, “God had crested us in God’s image.”. Those are an exact quote of the words you chose to use. There are two choices
1. You specifically chose those words arranged in that manner to communicate s particular specific thought or idea.
2. You just threw some random words together and didn’t know or care if they had any meaning.
If number one is correct, then it’s reasonable to ask you to clarify what you meant when you chose to use the word “create”. Because you should know what you meant.
If number 2 is correct, then just admit it and move on.
Either way, I answered your question.
Except you didn’t say “God crested the universe”, you said “God has created us in God’s image”. Do you really need to try to throw out this kind of diversion.
Okay, I get now that you're asking a different question than I thought. You see, when YOU said...
you’ve chosen to use the word create for a reason, I’m trying to drag out of you what the hell you mean.
and...
Could we expect that proof when you explain your opinions on “creation”?
and yet again...
You keep using the word “created”, yet you’ve clarified what you don’t mean by it, but wouldn’t clarify what you do mean.
I thought the point of the question is how do we know God "created" the universe, the world, whatever. (Perhaps you can understand my confusion, given that you specifically cited "CREATE.")
But the point of your question is, "What do you mean when you say we are created IN GOD'S IMAGE?" Not just that we were "created" but specifically, "created in God's image..."? Is that what you're asking?
Also, you have not answered my question. Merely saying you have is not answering it.
Again, my question:
I. DO. NOT. KNOW. WHAT. HAPPENED. EXACTLY. AT. THE. BEGINNING.
WE. HAVE. NO. DATA. TO. ESTABLISH. AUTHORITATIVELY. WHAT. HAPPENED. AT. THE. BEGINNING.
Thus, I can't say specifically what it looks like to say that "God created the universe."
Neither do you. You just can't.
Do you understand that you can't specifically and authoritatively say that you know what it precisely means that God created the universe? (or, if you prefer, that God created us in God's image?
Please answer.
My answer to that is, it's what I believe, that we are created in God's image, like God, reasoning, able to discern, to choose moral options, to understand the notion of morality, to care for the least of these, etc. I believe, given the notion of a Good God, a Creator God and given the evidence that humans tend to recognize and crave morality and are able to reason things through, that we are created IN THAT IMAGE. Meaning, we are like God, in that sense. Not perfect, like God (given the notion of a perfect God), but in the sense of craving moral order.
HOW that looks specifically, WHAT that means "How did God accomplish this creating humanity in God's image...?" I don't think anyone can authoritatively say what the details are/were. I'm just talking about the end result and evaluating what we have on hand.
Humanity IS able to reason, in ways that distinguish us from other animals and plants, and humanity IS able and DOES crave moral order. IF we believe in the notion of a Good Creator God, it is rational hunch to hold, then, to believe that we are created in that image of God, in that sense.
Now, before making any other comments, please answer my question.
Do you understand that I’ve never specifically and authoritatively said that I know precisely what happened at creation? Given that I’ve never made any specific and precise claims about it, and that I’m a human with limited knowledge, why would I.
But if you want me to agree that I’ve never made specific, precise, or authoritative claims, and that I don’t plan to because I wasn’t there, then of course the answer is that I don’t know.
But, you did make a claim. You claimed that we are “Created in God’s image...”, you’ve answered the question, but haven’t proven the claim. It could be argued that you’ve re framed the claim in terms of what you believe (in essence a retraction of the claim), but provided no proof.
Your answer is interesting, because it contradicts what you claim is the “best science” regarding origins, all it really does is simply restate your premise.
Now that we’ve gotten past your misunderstanding and the resultant detour, and I’ve answered your question twice, I expect that you’ll make good on your agreement to answer the rest of the questions I asked earlier.
I'm letting this comment stand, but you are being pretty weaselly with your answers so I'm going to ask you to clarify.
But first:
I did not make a fact claim. I stated what I believe. I believe that we are created in God's image. How do you KNOW I didn't make that as a fact claim? Because I have been quite clear that if I can't prove it, I'm not stating it's a fact. It's an opinion, a belief.
I do not and cannot prove an unprovable claim.
Do you understand this?
I have provided the REASONS (not proof, as in a fact, but the notions that give me REASON to believe what I believe about an unprovable notion) for what I believe. My BELIEF does not, in fact, contradict what I claim about science. You've misunderstood.
Now, in addition to the new question, I'm going to ask you to answer the specific question that I asked you, and to do so clearly. I'm not asking you to agree that I THINK something. I'm not asking you whether or not you've made a claim. I am asking you a specific question to understand your actual position, because you seem sort of weaselly on the matter of provable and unprovable and I want to understand specifically your position. I'm going to re-ask it differently with a few questions to help you clarify what I'm trying to understand.
1. Do you believe that we are created in God's image?
2. Do you think this is a provable fact, or is it an opinion that you hold and that I share?
3. Do you acknowledge that you can't "prove" that we are created in God's image - or is it the case that you do think you can prove it?
4. It appears that you are glad to acknowledge, along with me, that we don't know precisely how it happened or what it means (in terms of the origin) that it's the case that we humans are created in God's image, it's just a belief you hold that you can't prove... is that correct?
I understand that as your comment was originally phrased it was a simple declarative statement with no qualifiers. I understand that you later modified your statement, (in effect withdrawing or nullifying your original satatement) to something else. You might have noticed, that I actually mentioned that in my earlier comment.
So, your earlier promise to answer the previous questions after I answered one of yours (twice now) is meaningless and now your interrogating me over a claim you made. Well that seems fair.
1. Yes
2. It depends on what specific level of “proof” you arbitrarily choose to accept. If you demand scientific or empirical “proof” you’d be asking for the impossible (physical proof of the metaphysical). If you accepted logical proof, then yes there are a number of options.
3. It still depends on your arbitrary choice of what you will consider as “proof”. You can’t offer physical proof of a metaphysical claim. It’s a category error. Yet, you seem dismissive of offers of logical proof. I believe it can be proven (to the extent anything can), but I believe that you will most likely dismiss any “proof” offered thereby making the exercise meaningless.
4. See answers #2&3
It’s interes that you’ve decided that it’s reasonable that I be interrogated regarding a statement that I didn’t make. I can’t help but wonder if this might possibly be a stall to avoid answering the questions asked previously and to assert dominance in the thread. I’m sure that couldn’t be the case, but it’s certainly a strange path. To go from “I’ll answer you if you answer this one question.” to your confusion over the statement you made and why you should clarify the words you chose, to interrogation. I guess it’s helpful that I’m willing to go along.
"Marshall, if it's not a rule/command then what obligation is one under to love at all? Common sense? Decency? A following of our better selves and better ways (by which, I mean Ways). Because one is an ass if one does not embrace the notion of love one another and one contributes to making the world a more hellish place?
There are all sorts of reasons for embracing grace and love as The Way to Live. Jesus' teachings are just helpful pointers to what we can recognize in many ways. As the Bible, in fact, teaches, if one accepts the notion that the Bible teaches."
Your response is nothing more than a subjective view that isn't necessarily shared by all. While you may regard those who do not align with your views as "asses", they most certainly have equally low opinions of you, as well as equally subjective reasons for thinking more selfishly. Indeed, "common sense" might certainly find looking out for number one to be the far more practical approach, even for those who wish to help others. "I concentrated on enriching myself, and now I can do more for others than can any 'simple living' advocate ever could on his best day." That sort of thing.
Regardless, there's no obligation to anyone to love at all without first a law/rule/commandment to do so. Obligation implies accountability and there is none without a law and penalties for non-compliance. That the world might become a "hellish" place is irrelevant to one who is not moved by the possibility, nor is it necessarily a guarantee that it will become so simply because people don't love one another. At least not for everyone. Not loving one another does not mean everyone hates one another. Not loving one another does not even mean that provisions aren't made for one another. That is, one might help out another without giving a damn whether it results in the survival of the other. Many who do for others may only be doing so for how it benefits them for doing so. Remove the benefit for the giver and nothing gets done for the needy. "I'm only giving because it would negatively impact my ability to earn if I didn't."
Even more notable is your own preferred interpretation of the Sodom story. You insist that the "sin of Sodom" was that they weren't nice guys. Essentially, they didn't love. But there's no "law" obliging them to love, because according to you, "love thy neighbor" is only a "good idea". Where's the logic in God destroying Sodom because they didn't act according to what is only a "good idea"? Clearly loving thy neighbor is more than just a "good idea" to God if He thought total destruction as punishment was in order.
Natural negative consequences, such as poor health due to rejecting the "good idea" to eat well, get 8 hrs of sleep and don't get drunk every night...those are the results of "common sense" or "good ideas". Total destruction as a result of direct action by God is indicative of law...rules...commandments.
And even if we say that we are not under the Law, abiding the law demonstrates love for God in ways that abiding only that which one regards as "good ideas" does not. Common sense, good ideas..."decency" as defined by Dan Trabue and those who agree with him...compel no sense of obligation at all, unless one considers self-preservation or self-gratification obligatory. But this just makes obligation a law, rule or commandment as well.
Art,
Of course "the best science" would argue (from a purely materialistic worldview), that altruism and love are simply convenient fictions designed to perpetuate the species. Or they might say that it's just a random combination of genetic impulses. Or that the appearance of altruism simply masks the selfish desire to make the world "less hellish" for personal gain. Of course it's also observable that not everyone on the planet accepts this universal truth of love your fellow man. Clearly, the Tsutsi's don't love the Hutu. The Boers don't (didn't) love the Keffirs. The Sunni don't love the Shia. The Hindus don't love the Buddhists or the Muslims. I don't think you can argue that the Chinese government/society has been particularly loving toward girl babies. I don't think the FGM and honor killings that permeate an unknown segment of the Muslim community could be considered loving.
Maybe it's bot so universal. Maybe not everyone is "craving moral order". Or, at the very least, maybe by turning morality into simply the expression of the mores of a majority, any sense of morality has been diminished.
Maybe, just maybe, Dan is mistaken.
I'M GOING TO DO THIS IN CAPS SIMPLY TO DIFFERENTIATE THE DIFFERENT COMMENTS/QUESTIONS.
ON OCTOBER 11TH AT 6:39, YOU "ASKED" THIS "QUESTION".
" Our parents did what they did and we resulted. It's demonstrable."
"The same with your parents and their parents before us. So, I'm NOT saying that God "created" us out of thin air or anything like that. I think that God started the universe. I'm saying that we don't know specifically what that means. You don't know. I don't know. The Bible hasn't told us. Science can't tell us, not yet."
"We don't know, not in any authoritative way."
"Do you understand this reality?"
ON OCTOBER 11TH AT 8:26, I RESPONDED IN PART:
"If you’re asking if I understand how species REproduse, of course I do. But that isn’t the point. Reproduction doesn’t explain production. It’s like explaining where the first model T came from by pointing to the Transit assembly line in Claycomo. It’s a category error."
IF YOU LOOK REALLY HARD, RIGHT IN THE FIRST LINE, YOU'LL FIND THAT I ANSWERED THE QUESTION YOU ASKED,(WITH SOME CLARIFICATION)
SO, WHEN YOU SAID: "Also, you have not answered my question." THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOU MISUNDERSTANDING. DON'T WORRY, I DON;T EXPECT AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OR ANYTHING.
I'M DONE WITH CAPS NOW, THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING.
To both of you, I'd say... The notion that altruism/love/kindness/grace are not in a person's best interest is a not very intelligent or well-considered point of view. IF, it is true that "I'm strong and powerful and well-off and can afford the best for my family and thus, I have no incentive to be loving towards others," that is a short-sighted and foolish approach to this moral reasoning. The person/family who is well-off today and in need of nothing today is the person/family who may not be well off tomorrow. Or, the person whose family is all he needs and he can take care of today may have a child go missing or a confused parent wander off tomorrow. There are always self-interested reasons why it's wise to tend to the least of these. Or consider that if YOU are well off, but the neighborhood/world around you is in desperate straits and dying, then it remains in your best interests to tend to the least of these because who wants to live in a world where you're constantly stepping over the dead, beating off the needy who decide to challenge you for your stuff?
"Do unto the least of these what you'd have them do unto you" is only smart, wise, rational.
Feel free to disagree. I'm sure there are some so short-sighted and, to be blunt, stupid, that they would dismiss the self-interest in being loving to others, kind and helpful, but they tend to be Darwinned out of the pool, I think. Of course, they can do some great harm in the short term, but "he who lives by the sword..." and all that.
As to the rest, Craig, you simply do not understand my point, as evidenced by your continuing to answer the wrong questions/missing the point of my actual questions.
I DON;T EXPECT AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OR ANYTHING.
I acknowledge that you continue to miss the point. If that helps. I doubt it will.
2. It depends on what specific level of “proof” you arbitrarily choose to accept. If you demand scientific or empirical “proof” you’d be asking for the impossible (physical proof of the metaphysical). If you accepted logical proof, then yes there are a number of options.
You have a logical set of proofs that authoritatively "proves" that God exists, God created us, etc, beyond all doubt?
No, you don't. But if you can point to some such "proof," I'd be interested.
Most likely, you are pointing to reasons to believe what you believe, as opposed to authoritative proof that is indisputable.
Thanks for trying to answer, anyway.
As to the notion that I've left some of your questions unanswered, I don't see any, unless they're silly little exercises like this one that are obviously wrongly understood on your part...
one could say that "marriage is nearly universally recognized as being between male and female", clearly by any standard the statement is true (especially if one considers history). Yet just as clearly, some would argue that this statement is not true
No one rational would say that this statement isn't true. It's contrary to the data. Absolutely, throughout most of history, marriage has been recognized as being between male and female, or male and MANY females, or male and female captive rape victims, etc. Of course that's the history of marriage. But so what?
Throughout most of history, women have been treated as chattel, slavery has been considered okay, forced sex on women has been accepted, killing gay people has been accepted as moral, etc. The point would NOT be that this isn't our history. The point would be that it's not the beginning and end of morality.
I don't really see any other questions that aren't answered.
That’s very helpful Dan, except neither of us have ever said that love/altruism/grace are not in a person’s best interest.
I’ve offered the naterailst/naturalist/science argument that love/altruism/grace are so much in our best interest that they are actually an expression of selfishness. Or that they are an illusion foisted upon us because it benefits the species.
But, clearly I’m not suggesting what you’ve just made up. Ooops you did it again.
FYI, the questions you said you’d answer are easily accessible to you at my blog, so you don’t have to scroll.
Interesting, I answer your questions, I answer them specifically, and you claim that I haven’t.
For example, your question #2, You asked me if I had “proof”, I gave you 2 answers to that depending on what you meant by “proof”.
That answered your question as asked.
Now your asking a different question. That question is “Can you provide logical” proofs?”.
I didn’t answer that question because you hadn’t asked it.
But, to answer your question, I’ll gladly point you toward some resources that you can study at your leisure.
For starters I’d suggest:
Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey
The God Who is There/He is Not Silent by Francis Schaefer
Both of those works make or reference plenty of logical proofs for the existence of God.
Of course, since you haven’t acknowledged the possibility that you would seriously even consider a logical proof as proof you’ll probably be better off not trying. If you can’t put aside your presumptions and materialist/utilitarian worldview in favor of an open mind, I see no point.
And no, I’m not going to summarize/plagerize/paraphrase something here that you can get from the primary source so easily.
I suspected you’d “miss the unanswered” question you said you’d answer, so I posted them at my blog for easy reference.
I've answered them all at your blog, but I did so by copying and pasting my answers from this page to your page, as I had already answered them here.
As to your sources, I've read Francis Schaefer and find his reasoning lacking. I'll pass on wasting further time looking up this book.
And yes, I accept actual logical proofs as proof for ideas. I am just doubting you have conclusive logical proofs. You most likely have opinions that are not provable and are not a given, rationally speaking, but rather, rely upon sharing some previous notions.
On Ms Pearcey's book, can you point to some online source where her notions are shared. I mean, surely if someone has "proof" that is incontrovertible that God exists and created Adam (or whatever), surely that is important enough to be online somewhere, yes?
For starters, I have read several times CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and I find his defense of the Christian God compelling, but it's not conclusive proof of a fact. It's well-considered reasons that many people find compelling.
But not a proof.
~Dan
I’m impressed that your going to dismiss Schaefer because you once read something you didn’t like and Pearcey because it’s tii much trouble to look anywhere but online.
You asked me to “point” you and I did. If you choose not to do anything with what I’ve “pointed” you to, that’s not my problem.
And if pointed out the failings of your responses at my blog.
I love how you refrence a source I didn’t “point” you to as a reason to ignore those I did.
Look, if you want to tackle any of the two resources I “pointed” you to and do some in depth book review posts and using the same level of proof they offer to refute them, I’d welcome that.
But a priori dismissals and excuses don’t really indicate any desire to seriously pursue anything beyond your comfort zone.
Oh, I know, you’ve read enough of everything 30,40,50 years ago to bother with anything else.
My point in referencing Lewis is that Lewis is almost certainly more respected as a Christian scholar than Schaefer (except, perhaps, in some more fundamentalist circles... just a guess) and I've read his arguments and indeed, find them compelling. But, not "proof."
I read Schaefer and find his "reasoning" infantile, immature, silly. I dismiss him, then, as a poor thinker, not because "i didn't like" what he had to say.
Understand the difference?
I opt not to pursue Pearcey because I grew up in the evangelical, conservative world... I'm generally familiar with the apologists coming from that arena. CERTAINLY, I am not aware of all such thinkers and I'm not saying that. I'm saying I'm familiar with Lewis, McDowell, MacArthur, Edwards, Sproul, etc, etc, etc, and, to my thinking, Lewis stands out as the making the most rational, best case for these sorts of questions and again, I find them compelling. Just not an authoritative, indisputable "proof."
Are you suggesting that Pearcey makes better arguments than these folk? Did Lewis "miss" something that she's managed to find?
On top of that, I find her book title to be pedantic and arrogant and most likely, a simple false claim.
Also, looking her up online, her academic credentials are uninspiring. Having grown up with extremely first hand experience of the conservative take over of the Southern Baptist world, including our local seminary, and knowing first hand the lack of rigorous rational/well-considered academic reasoning (indeed, an antipathy, all too often, to rigorous academic study) from those conservatives and seeing that replicated other places around the US, I'm dubious of the conservative seminary she sprouted from. As I am the conservative PCA, having some experience (not as much) with these types.
Also, if you'd like to cite a KKK guy with a specialty in Christian apologetics, I won't be reading his book, either.
Again, man, I grew up with this. Do you think you're offering something with which I'm unfamiliar? Wouldn't that be a bit presumptuous?
... a priori dismissals and excuses don’t really indicate any desire to seriously pursue anything beyond your comfort zone...
you’ve read enough of everything 30,40,50 years ago to bother with anything else.
No. I'm asking a question: Have the brilliant minds of the past 20-30 years come up with some new bit of reasoning/data/morality that is entirely new and not something already discussed in the past?
And if they have... if Pearcey is a modern miracle of a genius and she has Something New to offer that can save the world... IF ONLY you'll buy my book (which I've named with a pendantic and presumptious title to alert you of my Unique Genius)... this is not a claim made by legitimate genii, or their rational defenders. It's more the mark of a con man (or con woman, in this case).
I generally believe that passing on purchasing a new bottle of snake oil on the outside chance that THIS TIME, there's something special and magical in it, is not the better part of wisdom.
~Dan
Passing on buying snake oil ...IS the better part of wisdom, I meant.
~Dan
"I've read Francis Schaefer and find his reasoning lacking"
So, just another "that's your opinion" dismissal, as opposed to the presentation of "hard data" that demonstrates Schaefer might be wrong.
As Craig said, no one is arguing against the notion that loving one another is beneficial but as to whether or not we are commanded to love, which makes loving one another a rule or law that we're obliged to follow.
There are plenty of examples of selfishness leading to some great things in terms of creature comforts and such. Ignoring the suffering of others reduces the workload of those striving to build wealth for themselves and anyone that actually might love. The consequences of living that way for such a person who chooses to aren't necessarily compelling, either, if such a person is willing and able to deal with those consequences, be it stepping over dead bodies or killing off all who try to take what's his. Indeed, there plenty of examples of those who do or have done just that.
But here's the thing: The ability to keep the world from being hellish, to live comfortably, to receive any benefit at all also has no bearing on whether or not we should love one another. Our own individual lives can be hellish and the very opposite of experiencing benefit of any kind, and still we are obliged...commanded...to love. There is no mention of any benefit other than to please God. Good gosh, that's what Jesus did when His whole world turned on Him and crucified Him. The command has nothing to do with payoffs, common sense or what a "good idea" it is.
just another "that's your opinion" dismissal, as opposed to the presentation of "hard data" that demonstrates Schaefer might be wrong.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of this off topic point. I'm saying I'm unimpressed and so I will pass on reading him further. I mean, if you want to cite some passage that I can read online, I can give a short effort to this off topic point, but I'm not going to heroic measures. Why would I?
Here: I'm telling you both that if you read all of Yoder and Crossan, you'll see the error of your ways. Have at it.
Or will you pass on investing that sort of time? Does that make you lazy or cowardly? Or just recognizing you have limited time?
By the way, I have ~25-30 years of reading extensively and almost exclusively traditional conservative evangelical writers. How many years and books have you read of progressive writers? (And, for what it's worth, I still haven't read much of progressive Christian writing, interestingly. I've read easily hundreds of books and articles by conservatives... how many have you read by liberals?
Dan, you asked to be pointed toward resources, I pointed. If you choose to reject them a priori, that’s your problem not mine.
I’d be willing ro wager that you couldn’t accurately present and refute virtually any argument Schaefer made.
Honestly, why even ask if your going to come up with excuses for ignoring.
I really think you need to throw your academic credentials on the table before you get all snobbish about someone else’s.
And yes, I do take a tiny bit of pride in predicting your response. If only you could see how prideful it makes you sound.
"By the way, I have ~25-30 years of reading extensively and almost exclusively traditional conservative evangelical writers. How many years and books have you read of progressive writers?"
Years of reading and numbers of books mean very little if understanding and comprehension are in question. More specifically, and to your question, it is irrelevant. My point was your typical dismissal which manifests in the any of the following manner:
"that's your opinion"
"I'm unimpressed"
"...find his reasoning lacking"
"you're free to believe that"
All these and more like them serve to replace actual arguments from evidence...something you NEVER accept from us, demanding as you do that we provide "hard data". As such, I never expected that you'd try to provide any to explain why you were "unimpressed" in the first place. I was just pointing out that you're again employing your common tactic. To wit, I'm still waiting for an actual evidence based argument on the universality issue of a previous post. I believe you left that one either with a comment like one of those from above or you simply bailed on it...which is why I insist your "case" has more holes than Blackburn, Lancashire
So, you've never read one liberal Christian's book all the way through, Marshall? Not even one?
And Craig, you?
And are you trying to shame me, having had ~25 years of reading conservative writers, for not agreeing to seek out this woman based on naught else than you like her and think she might have something new to add that I haven't heard?
Really?
My academic credentials are not much. I've a BS in education and a good bit of study in environmental and mental health fields. There they are.
But I am well-read and I am well aware, first hand, of the conservative take-over of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and similar schools and am aware, first and second hand, of the hit that academic strength has taken when people are putting conservative politics and theology over a rigorous commitment to scholarly academics, like happened at the SBTS.
So, what are your academic bona fides that would suggest that I should heed your wisdom that this lady knows more or argues it better than Lewis and other giants in the field?
I’ve read plenty of liberal Crirstian books. I read quite a lot and don’t automatically discredit a book or author because I might not agree with them. I’m actually in the middle of one right now.
I’m not trying to shame you at all, just pointing out how ridiculous it it to decide that you read everything you need to read more than 25 years ago. First, because I find it hard to believe you have perfect recall after decades. Second, your presumption that nothing has changed since them.
My academic credentials aren’t the issue, I’m not the one exhibiting snobbery and prejudice by drawing negative conclusions based on a perception of someone’s academic credentials.
Look, you asked if I’d point you to some resources, I did as you asked. You’ve allowed your hubris and prejudice to reject those suggestions without actually reading them. Your prejudice and snobbery aren’t really my problem, nor are your presumptions about what I read.
1. I’m not sure I’d say Lewis was a giant in the field of science and worldview.
2. I’d say that it’s absurd to try to equate the two,given the changes since Lewis wrote.
3. You are basing your opinion of a book written in the 90’s based on that fact that back in the 80’s you read a book by an author who did the majority of his work in the 40’s and 50’s. You’re really cutting edge there.
4. While I enjoy Lewis, he’s hardly conservative.
5. Given that you’ve prejudged everything against your list of “giants in the field”, (none of whom you probably agree with), why ask for recommendations that your going to make excuses to ignore.
Before you ask. I read a bunch of Tony Campolo books and watched a lot of his talks back in the 80’s and really feel like that’s enough for me to have a grasp on progressive theology.
You’ve allowed your hubris and prejudice to reject those suggestions without actually reading them. Your prejudice and snobbery aren’t really my problem
No pride or snobbery. I asked a simple question: Does this lady have anything to offer that others before her have not offered? You gave me no response to this. What I've read about her does not inspire me with confidence that she's a great thinker or writer so, given the data available (and the notion that you can find nothing worthwhile, apparently, to support your "case" on the internets), I'm not inclined to read her stuff.
Give me a reason.
1. Lewis is considered, by many conservatives, to be a giant in the field of theology. I respect him, too.
2. Data on the creation of the world has changed since the 1940s, that somehow supports Creationism? I don't think you can support that hunch/claim.
I think I've addressed the rest of your unfounded complaints.
If if you want to make up excuses not to engage with the people I’ve “pointed” you to, that’s fine. I did what you asked and pointed. The fact that your so contemptuous based on such superficial things, says all I need to hear.
1. Yes many people consider Lewis a giant in many areas. But I don’t necessarily think that science and worldview are those areas. Not only that, Lewis had a wide range of viewpoints not all of which are conservative.
2. I’ve never used the term “creationism”, nor advocated it. The fact that you are either unaware of how things have changed or intentionally using “creationism” as a term to ignore the changes simply points out the fact that you’re satisfied with stuff you read decades ago is probably not a good strategy.
Of course making stuff up isn’t a great strategy either.
Of course you do.
As you’ve just demonstrated, you’re going to find some reason to reject anything that is suggested to you, which you can certainly do. Just stop acting like it’s not your choice to do so.
Hopefully I’ll get this in before you close comments here too.
This whole digression is the result of YOU choosing to make a claim. YOU, chose to make the assertion that, “God created us in God’s image.”. No one forced YOU to make this claim, no one even asked that YOU do so. But YOU did. Then when YOU were asked to explain and support YOUR claim, YOUR initial response was to “misunderstand”, the fact that YOU used this”misunderstanding” to change the subject and to act if I had initiated this was strangely fortunate as it detoured away from YOU supporting and explaining YOUR claim. Then, when YOU finally figured out the “misunderstanding”, there was a sort of explanation of YOUR claim, but no real proof. Instead there was a retreat from the original claim back behind the opinion defense.
Yet despite the demonstrable fact that it was YOUR claim, YOUR “misunderstanding”, YOUR in satisfying response, it’s somehow turned into me having to defend a subject I never brought up, to spoon feed you sources that YOU are going to find excuses to ignore.
I must say, I’m impressed at how you’ve avoided doing something you say you always do (provide proof of your claims) twice recently.
Honestly, I’d offer to “point” you to some other places, but it would be a waste of time. Or you could check the footnotes/bibliography in Pearcey’s book.
To answer your question (I don’t want to give you an excuse to delete), yes. If nothing else in compiling and laying out plenty of the things that have changed since you read anything that might challenge your prejudices in an effective manner. Of course, the fact that she’s dealing with things that have happened long after Lewis died, virtually guarantees that she’s at a minimum building on Lewis.
But, it’s OK, you just take refuge in your decades old memories of when you read some books by “conservatives”, firm in your knowledge that absolutely nothing new has been written since.
"So, you've never read one liberal Christian's book all the way through, Marshall? Not even one?"
Again, the question is irrelevant to the point I was making with regard to your history of rejecting opposing arguments on the basis of "not being impressed" as opposed to "here's evidence that supports my contrary position". I don't recall you ever so much as providing ANY argument, such as "for example, on point XYZ, the author errs for this reason..." You just dismiss and we're supposed to take that as a substantive response...as if you'd EVER accept that from us.
Secondly, is there something about "liberal Christian" authors that somehow differs from the things YOU and others like you (GKS, Alan, feo, etc.) have put forth on these blogs, that could possibly be more compelling? Which liberal author do you believe is worth the time and could possibly have an affect on someone like me who has failed to find any value in the weak rationalizations and interpretations of libs I've encountered already?
Or are you just looking for another excuse to block my comments rather than deal with the points I raise, as if the number of books I've read makes any real difference?
Marshall, I suppose you're not impressed by the racist, anti-gay bigots of the Westboro Baptist Church people, am I right?
Do you not recognize the notion of dismissing out of hand people with bad agendas/bad arguments based on what you DO know about them?
If the WBC people said to you, "But wait! You haven't read THIS document from us that PROVES that God is on our side!" would you read it in the hopes that maybe they have abandoned idiocy? Or would you dismiss it out of hand?
Sometimes, not reading is the better part of wisdom.
And again, someone who has not read NOT EVEN ONE liberal Christian book is hardly in a place to criticize others for not reading ANOTHER person with a book that is most likely not anything new, not based on what you all have offered so far.
Again, point me to some place ONLINE where I can read a gist of the defense of the argument you're trying to make and I'll read a few pages? An entire book from someone whom I don't respect, on the face of it, with no reason to give them a try other than some guy on the internet told me to try it?
No thanks.
C’mon Art, it’s just too much to ask Dan to challenge his prejudices and read an entire book. He’s more than capable of passing definitive judgment from reading a few pages online. What a crock.
Craig, I'll wager that I've read more conservative writings and books than you have liberal writings. So, really, until you guys start to catch up, you don't have much credibility to criticize.
I'll tell you right off for future reference, unless someone can offer a very compelling case, I'm very unlikely to read a book by modern evangelical conservatives. I just don't have much respect for them, as a group (again, see Trump, President). However, I WILL review any website links you can offer AND, if someone makes a compelling case in a few pages' worth of writings, I'm always glad to read more.
The point is, I'm not willing to read pablum or irrational, arrogant writings more than a few pages. And, unfortunately, too much of modern Christian writing has devolved down to that level of pablum.
Do you really find this to be a bad idea?
How many pages of bad writing are you willing to wade through in honor of "listening to the other side..."?
Please answer.
Please answer the question that was asked, Craig. Not some other question of your own making. If you'd like to post further here, please answer the actual question that was asked.
As to your concern that my claim (that I've read more conservatives than you have liberals) is not that bold given that I have 25 years of serious dedication to conservative writers, plus another 10-15 years of reading conservatives only to realize how poor their arguments are.
No, you can't make a serious adult charge that I don't read those I disagree with.
On the flip side: If conservative evangelicals want to be taken more seriously, they'll have to be better, more rational and less inclined to be swayed by the likes of perverted liars like our current "president."
Here's a good article from conservative S Baptist Russell Moore that speaks, at least in part, to the damage the Religious Right have done to themselves that has seriously harmed their moral and rational credibility...
The crisis before us now is not that many among the national religious right’s political establishment have endorsed a candidate but that they also ignored or downplayed some of the most morally troublesome questions of personal character, and, for instance, issues of torture and war crimes, an embrace of an “alt-right” movement of white identity ethno-nationalism and anti-Semitism, along with serious matters of sexual degradation towards women.
Some—mostly Evangelical—political leaders have waved away misogyny and sexually predatory language as “locker-room talk” or “macho” behavior. Some have suggested that their candidate has never claimed to be “a choirboy”—thereby defining deviancy down to such a degree that respect for women, protection of the vulnerable, and a defense of sexual morality are recast as naive and unrealistic. One said that his support for his candidate was never about shared values anyway. Others suggested that we need a strongman (implying a strongman unencumbered by too many moral convictions) in order to fight the system and save Christians from a hostile culture...
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/01/can-the-religious-right-be-saved
~Dan
Craig, I've saved your response to my question, but it was not an answer to my question. It was an answer to your own invented question. Shall I post it and explain it to you and, if I do, will you recognize your error and answer the question that was asked?
Except that I did answer the very question you asked. Also continuing to broad brush an entire group of people based on your perception continues to be irrational.
Oh, the answer to your question is that I can count on one hand the number of books I haven’t finished in the past 25 years. Which, if your not quite mentally agile enough to figure it out, means that I almost never counted how many pages.
To be blunt, I don’t look for excuses to avoid finishing what I start.
My questions:
The point is, I'm not willing to read pablum or irrational, arrogant writings more than a few pages.
1. Do you really find this to be a bad idea?
2. How many pages of bad writing are you willing to wade through in honor of "listening to the other side..."?
Your responses:
Yes, I find that irrationally choosing to avoid people who disagree with you...
Stopping there. I didn't ask about avoiding people who disagree with me. Reality shows that I literally do not do that. YOU can testify that I've read and reached out to people I disagree with. Regularly.
It is a lie to say that I avoid reading people who disagree with me. Reality does not support that stupid claim.
Do you understand this reality? Please answer.
continuing then, with your response...
...by broad brushing hundreds of authors and books as "pablum" is an incredibly bad idea.
Stopping there, again. So, YOUR answer is "it's a bad idea to avoid reading people you disagree with..."
False, and NOT the question I asked. I didn't ask, "Do you think it's a bad idea to avoid reading people who disagree with you..."
"...by broad brushing hundreds of authors as pablum..."
I haven't done this and that was not my question. I'm speaking specifically of the books and writers that I have read whose work WAS pablum, was lacking in depth, discernment or humility.
From there, you did come closer to answering my question, but it only came after NOT answering it and misstating my points. You continued...
For example, I've read plenty of McLaren as well has had some conversations with him and I can say confidently that much of what he writes (especially recently) is "pablum".
So, after reading enough of McLaren that you reached the conclusion that he writes pablum, you'd continue reading another book by him? I disagree with that approach, but you're welcome to it.
I guess in this, you DID answer the question, but it was preceded by such false atrocities that it undermined the actual answer.
You continued...
, I can count on one hand the number of books I've started and haven't finished. Call me weird, but It's just a thing I feel strongly about.
Yeah, I've been counseled by many literary teachers and advisors: Don't stick with a book just because you started it. If someone writes pablum for 100 pages, if they're arrogant and ignorant or just poor writers, it isn't going to get better. It's a waste of time and a thief to all the actually good books/writers out there.
Conservatives have damaged their credibility and I speak as someone with decades of experience first hand, up close and personal... among a community of hundreds of others with first hand, personal experience... of dealing with conservative Christians, of BEING conservative Christians. I'm willing to listen to anyone, the data shows that. But I'm not going to steal time from Good Ideas, Clever Writers, Wise Counselors to read whole books by these sort of people.
I'll still find and read someone who is worth it, but not pablum.
~Dan
And just as a kindness, you should really consider this wisdom (not from me, but many other wise folk)...
We have limited time in this world. There is SO much to experience and do and live. Spend time with family and loved ones. Help our neighbors. Take hikes and experience this great creation. Read words of wisdom and inspiration.
If you find yourself with your limited hours reading something that is not uplifting, that is just stupid or harmful or hateful, give it up! Move on to better authors, to time with your children, to taking a hike or doing some art or writing poetry yourself. Don't chain yourself to a bad book just because you started it.
That would be a crime to your brain, your life, your family, this great and glorious creation of our great and glorious God.
Words of wisdom, sir. Take 'em or leave 'em.
~Dan
"1. Do you really find this to be a bad idea?"
Yes, I find it incredibly arrogant and lazy to decide after a page or tow, or after cherry picking something from the internet, that your not going to read something.
"2. 2. How many pages of bad writing are you willing to wade through in honor of "listening to the other side..."?" 99% percent of the time I'm willing to read the entire book. If the author thought it was all necessary, who am I to not respect that.
"3. Do you understand this reality? Please answer."
I understand that you asked a question my answer to your question was "Yes". I then expanded on that answer, but "Yes" is an appropriate answer to the question you asked.
"So, YOUR answer is "it's a bad idea to avoid reading people you disagree with...""
No, my actual answer to "Do you think it's a bad idea..." was "yes". I then explained why I thought so. That doesn't change the fact that my answer was "yes". You can edit my response, or rephrase it to eliminate the word "yes", but the fact is that "yes" is the answer to your question.
"I'm very unlikely to read a book by modern evangelical conservatives. I just don't have much respect for them,"
Oh no, that's not broad brushing hundreds of authors.
"I'm speaking specifically of the books and writers that I have read whose work WAS pablum, was lacking in depth, discernment or humility."
I guess that speaking "specifically" without actual specifics is a bit of an oxymoron.
"I guess in this, you DID answer the question, but it was preceded by such false atrocities that it undermined the actual answer."
So, you deleted my comment, because I didn't answer your questions, yet I pointed out where I did answer the first one and now you admit that I answered the second one. But, you're still not willing to put the comment back. It's easier to keep it hidden and cherry pick parts out of context to try to manipulate things.
Thank you ever so much for the sanctimonious "advice", I think I'll make my own decisions thank you very much. The difference between us, is I'm willing to read anything that sounds interesting and seems worth the time. I don't need to rely on something I read 25 years ago, to form my opinions about things written more recently. I don't need to come up with excuses to avoid books by authors with different points of view.
Most of all I'm not arrogant enough to try to tell you what you should do with your time.
I've answered your questions again, it's up to you if you aren't willing to re post the comment you deleted for context.
It is a lie to say that I avoid reading people who disagree with me. Reality does not support that stupid claim.
Do you understand this reality? Please answer.
I understand that you asked a question my answer to your question was "Yes". I then expanded on that answer, but "Yes" is an appropriate answer to the question you asked.
No. Craig, that is not an answer to the question asked.
You truly do have a problem with English communication.
The difference between us, is I'm willing to read anything that sounds interesting and seems worth the time.
Me, too. That's not a difference, since we agree on that point. The difference, then, is you think it's somehow smart or honest to keep reading arrogant, shallow, stupid, irrational pablum.
Good luck with that. Consider, however, if you didn't read so much pablum, maybe you'd be better at understanding the English language and, you know, communicating.
~dan
You’ve claimed multiple times that you haven’t read anything by a conservative author in decades, because some book or two you read was “pablum”, you’ve used that to justify not reading conservative authors in the decades since. You’ve also said that you’ve learned enough from what you read decades ago, that you don’t need to bother reading any more.
Now, to me, that looks like excuses to avoid reading any books written in the past several decades by conservative authors.
So, if you’re going to insist that you don’t avoid books and authors you disagree with/don’t like, I’ll have to take you at your word.
As you’re so fond of pointing out, an opinion can’t really rationally be categorized as a lie, but I will admit that my opinion was mistaken.
Speaking of mistakes, I never said I read “pablum”, that’s your poor, prejudiced, invention and twisting of what I did say.
Again thanks for the condescending “advice”. On the advice front, I’d suggest that you not write off hundreds of authors of thousands of books as “pablum”, based on one or two you started decades ago. Maybe, by broadening your horizons past the 70’s and 80’s you might gain some new insights.
I see you still won’t admit your own mistake in deleting my comment, even though you’ve admitted that I actually answered the questions you claimed I didn’t. I wonder what could possibly prevent you from providing the context, to the lines you quoted.
I have my suspicions, but won’t share them.
What I think is the most fascinating part of this particular digression, is that it stems directly from your inability to answer a simple question, due to your admitted lack of understanding of that question. You’ve managed to turn the conversation away from your use of “create”, and what you mean by that in light of your denial of Creation and your allegiance to what you call the “best science”, and toward scolding me for the choices I make when I read.
Again, I have my suspicions, but I’m not sharing.
"The point is, I'm not willing to read pablum or irrational, arrogant writings more than a few pages.
1. Do you really find this to be a bad idea?"
I find it to be less than honest, as my criticism is that you settle for calling opposing points of view "pablum or irrational, arrogant writings" with not the slightest example to illustrate the charge. We're simply to accept your review as accurate and objective, which I heartily reject as true in any way given my knowledge of you after all these years.
As to your excerpt from Moore, I don't believe he speaks for the vast majority of those who voted for Trump, and I wouldn't accept as indicative of the overall position on Trump by religious conservatives who voted for him based on a few anecdotal examples. You dismiss the moral failings of a Hillary Clinton, or the serious threat to the nation that a Bernie Sanders would represent simply because Trump's character flaws are so out in the open. Serious people don't have that problem and make choices based on that which is more substantive than the superficial. What's more, I have no reason to reject the notion that opposition to Trump from those like you is merely a matter of convenience...it's easy to pretend his character flaws are more a threat than were Bill or Hillary Clinton's were or would have been, when the threats resulting from their policy positions alone are more likely to harm the nation, as we've seen with those of Obama.
What too many don't realize is that Trump's ascendancy was the direct result of leftist damage and too little push-back from the GOP.
But anyway, Moore's comments soothe you and so you you excitedly post it as validation for your point of view without serious consideration as to whether or not Moore's suggestion is worth a damn.
Dan,
I haven't had time to respond at length -- and, honestly, my response encompasses comments you've made in other threads, as well, so a comment here is probably not the best possible venue -- but I do appreciate your providing feedback, much as I have problems with it in the details.
Going back to the original post that started this conversation, I do wonder how closely that paraphrase matches up with Ezekiel 16.
Apart from changing the singular "me" to a plural "religious ones," the first bit quite obviously matches up with an abridged summary of 16:1, 16:4-8, and 16:14.
DT:
"No eye took even the slightest pity on you
to have compassion for you
for you were
hated
on the day you were born"
16:5, ESV:
"No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born."
And parts of the last bit line up with 16:48-49.
DT:
"As I live,
your Sister Sodom
was not as Sick as you are
in your wealth and power
"Behold,
This is the sin of your Sister Sodom
She and her family
were arrogant, wealthy, lazy-as-shit
but she did not help
the Poor
the Foreigner
the Oppressed"
16:48-49, ESV:
"As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."
But in 16:48 Jerusalem wasn't condemned for her "wealth and power," and for the life of me I can't find **ANY** passages in chapter 16 that could be even an approximate paraphrase of your middle section:
"You made yourself wealthy
as maggots
and powerful
in your Many Things,
using this wealth
to buy more Power
and more and more useless Trinkets
and you were not embarrassed
in the least"
Specifically what verses are you paraphrasing here?
If anything, 16:33-34 condemns Jerusalem in her extravagent disregard for her explicitly God-given wealth as she persued His rivals.
"Men give gifts to all prostitutes, but you gave your gifts to all your lovers, bribing them to come to you from every side with your whorings. So you were different from other women in your whorings. No one solicited you to play the whore, and you gave payment, while no payment was given to you; therefore you were different."
The chapter doesn't seem to imply that Jerusalem was worse in the excess in which she practiced the same sin as Sodom: Jerusalem was worse for an entirely different category of sin, namely idolatry in neglecting her saving, covenant-making God, not greed in neglecting her needy neighbors.
If you're inserting a whole-cloth fabrication into the middle of an otherwise fairly close translation, I'm not sure that really qualifies as a paraphrase.
I'll write more when I can, but it may be quite a while; I'll keep an eye on the thread as time permits, and I'll go ahead and thank you for your answer in advance.
Bubba,
You make a great point, after reading the text in question, it’s a selective paraphrase at best.
Dan:
You made yourself wealthy
as maggots
and powerful
in your Many Things,
using this wealth
to buy more Power
and more and more useless Trinkets
and you were not embarrassed
in the least"
Ezekiel:
"As I live, declares the Lord God,
your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done.
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom:
she and her daughters had pride,
excess of food, and
prosperous ease,
but did not aid the poor and needy."
For starters.
The chapter doesn't seem to imply that Jerusalem was worse in the excess in which she practiced the same sin as Sodom
You are certainly welcome to that opinion. I think it is clearly and specifically condemning Israel for their excess.
"Pride, EXCESS OF FOOD, PROSPEROUS EASE."
There are also the many verses of how they squandered their jewels and great wealth.
It's not a line by line paraphrase, just a paraphrase of the gist of the passage.
To be sure, there is much emphasis in the source about the idolatry of their day they were engaged in, literally chasing "false gods," but I think the text and the context of the Bible clearly makes it obvious that wealth - especially for us, today - IS that thing which becomes an idol. That causes us to consume more and more foolish junk and pay less and less attention to the poor. Even sacrificing our children to the "fires" of this great and all-consuming wealth and the pursuit, thereof.
Feel free to disagree. I think this paraphrase very strictly honors the intent of source text and helps paint it in more clear terms for us, today.
Disagree all you wish.
25 verses that reference idolatry, one that specifically mention the poor. 7that mention God punishing Jerusalem.
Oh, and multiple specific claims that this chapter is the explicit “word of the Lord”.
But you feel free to stick with your preconceptions.
Dan, thank you for the quick reply, but I don't think a verse explaining Sodom's sin is conclusive evidence that Jerusalem was guilty of the same sin, particularly because the warning was of greater, and not equivalent judgment.
I think there would be at least three possible explanations...
1. Jerusalem committed the same sin, but the action was in the face of greater moral understanding, and so she was more culpable.
2. Jerusalem committed the same sin to a greater degree.
3. Jerusalem committed a worse sin.
...but the extended metaphor at the beginning of the chapter makes clear that the sin was betraying God, NOT neglecting one's neighbors. It's a different sin and implicitly a worse sin. Such an evaluation would line up with the Ten Commandments, where idolatry is explicitly forbidden, as is coveting others' possessions but not being greedy about your own possessions, and we should remember that "love your neighbor" is only Jesus' second-greatest commandment.
Certainly, wealth is AN idol -- one cannot serve God and mammon -- but I think it's overly restrictive to write that wealth is the only thing that could lead us away from God, as if God doesn't mind if we worship nature, our ancestors, or a conception of the Creator entirely at-odds with His revelation.
But that's more on the subject on which I'll elaborate later...
You are certainly welcome to your opinions. Given that neglecting the poor, the foreigner, the marginalized is an ongoing sin in Israel's life, documented by multiple biblical authors over a long time period... and given the literal words in this passage it seems a reasonable conclusion to me.
But it's not gospel, just my take on it. Take it for what it's worth.
I would hope that we could at least agree that problems with wealth and poverty are an ongoing concern raised by a variety of biblical authors... indeed, just by sheer numbers of the times it's mentioned, perhaps one of the greatest concerns repeatedly raised in the biblical text (certainly moreso than gay guys and gals marrying, for instance, which is what fundamentalist types typically associate with Sodom...)
Craig, I would remind you, again, that my "preconceptions" were that any and all texts about Sodom and passages like this were speaking of "gay stuff..." My preconceptions and prejudices changed with more careful study and prayer.
And now, your preconceptions are that everything is about, totally about, or primarily about, wealth and poverty and related issues. But your problem is that you haven’t demonstrated that your preconceptions are correct, therefore it renders your conclusions fairly meaningless.
Not everything. Just what the text merits. And looking at a text, seeing it say, "THIS is the sin of Sodom, they were wealthy, lazy and unconcerned for the poor..." and noting, "Hm. Israel and Sodom had problems with wealth and being unconcerned for the poor.." is not really a preconception. It's just noting what the text says. Even if I paraphrase the text, it's still just what the text says.
Dan
Yes, that one while verse that specifically mentions the poor. As opposed to the 25 that mention idolatry.
"I would hope that we could at least agree that problems with wealth and poverty are an ongoing concern raised by a variety of biblical authors..."
I would hope that we could say the same thing about idolatry, but evidently not, and it seems that I am supposed feel grateful that I'm allowed to recognize that the Bible's writers have much to say on our duty of whole-hearted commitment to God: permission to hold that "opinion" is as close to finding common ground as we'll get.
Post a Comment