"What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."
~St James
Work. Keep digging your well.
Don’t think about getting off from work.
Water is there somewhere.
Submit to a daily practice.
Your loyalty to that
is a ring on the door.
Keep knocking, and the joy inside
will eventually open a window
and look out to see who’s there.
~Rumi
“Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.”
~Martin Luther King, Jr
If you cannot feed one hundred people,
Feed one.
~Mother Teresa
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me...
[For] ‘truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’’
~Jesus
182 comments:
Thank you so much for the lovely opinions and helpful suggestions.
Yes, those are lovely and helpful opinions.
~Dan
Wisdom handed down by wise people for wise people to consider and, perhaps, implement. No need for a magic rule book, just recognizable wisdom.
~Dan
Wisdom accompanied by condescension, always a helpful combination.
I don't know anybody that refers to any "magic rule book". Do you?
Maybe he meant Magic 8 Ball.
You know, while those are reasonably good suggestions about how someone might choose to act, there’s really no reason why one couldn’t choose to do the opposite and still consider themselves a Christian in good standing.
Craig chose to be condescending (and, in turn, accused me of being condescending! Irony, eh?) by offering the snarky comment suggesting that these quotes of widely recognized wisdom are merely "lovely opinions," to try to minimize the notion of opinions, being as he is one who believes in what I've started calling the Magic Rule Book approach to the Bible.
(MRB: Treating the bible as a book of established facts, but only SOME of the facts are "established" and "knowable..." and he can't say which ones are and which ones aren't, nor can he offer a rubric or reasonably consistent method of establishing what is and isn't knowable... it's just that HE - and fellow fundamentalists - "know" which ones are "knowable," and thus, he and other fundamentalists treat the Bible as if it were a magic rule book, magical, because THEY are the ones who "know" what is and isn't a fact).
I'm not responding to Craig and Marshall, to be clear. Just clarifying what's happening here to any who may come and be unaware of the history and claims of the fundamentalists who visit here. Craig believes I've no basis for believing these accepted wisdoms ought to be accepted, because I reject the fundamentalist approach to the Bible as irrational and unbiblical and counter to Christian teaching (i.e., the teachings of Jesus, not the fundamentalists who follow him and ascribe to him rules and ideas that he didn't espouse).
I believe these Truths I quote because they are rational and stand up to the test of time and are innately wise and, acting contrary to these Truths contributes to a more hellish earth. I DON'T accept them because "God said so," nor do I need the MRB to tell me that these are sound teachings.
No condescension at all. I’m merely adopting the position you’ve chosen. These lovely quotes are indeed wonderful opinions, if they are in fact “Truths” (leaving aside the inherent contradiction in the word “Truths”), then they should be able to be demonstrated to be True.
Unless the definition of “Truth” has somehow changed.
Thank you so much for telling me what I believe. It’s strange that you repeatedly tell others how wrong they are when they repeat what you’ve said, yet you have no compunction about doing exactly what you bitch about.
If misrepresenting me helps you, don’t let me stop you.
Taking the time to respond to you:
So, you DON'T believe that there are portions of the Bible and theories advanced from the Bible that you can and do "know" are objectively factual?
Is it NOT the case that you find the notion of recognizing that our opinions about God are not provable and thus, not demonstrably factual? Do you NOT disdain the notion of holding opinions in the sense that I do?
I mean, you regularly mock me (as you try to do here) for holding "mere" opinions, as if acknowledging an opinion IS an opinion is somehow lacking in solidity.
I'd welcome you to clarify that and denounce that sort of fundamentalism, and that you recognize the danger inherent in that sort of fundamentalism.
I'll gladly admit I have misunderstood you... it's fairly easy, given your penchant to not answering questions directly and to making vague and unspecific assertions.
~Dan
This is interesting. You’ve consistently misrepresented my views, been quite clear that you won’t “engage”, and that I’m incapable of understanding you.
Yet, now you expect me to do what you won’t do.
I’ll have to think about this. My instinct is not to because you’ve gotten so much wrong in your last comment alone and I can’t imagine correcting your mistakes is worthwhile. But, I’ll think about it.
As far as one understanding another, I must say that Dan has long been lacking in understanding, be it our words or positions or those of Scripture. Indeed, Dan. You don't even seem to understand the concept of holding an opinion, given how you use the term to defend your rejection of so much of Scripture, as well as a bludgeon to attack those who strive to adhere to it.
As to your quotes, with the exception of one of them, the speaker of which I am unfamiliar, all those others base their worldview on thar MRB you reject.
Ah, right on cue, here's someone posting just today on MRB-thinking...
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2018/03/people-of-book.html
i.e., God will magically "make" or "help" God's followers "understand" the Bible and not be in error... BUT, not every follower (only the right ones who believe the right way... or something. It's vague). NOR will every point be magically "clarified" (only SOME points which are "obvious"... TO THE RIGHT people, but not other people... or something. It's vague).
This in spite of the complete absence of God telling us that we will understand God perfectly, or some points perfectly, or the Bible perfectly, or some points within the Bible perfect, or some vague list of points - but without providing that list or the criterion for WHY those specific points can be understood perfectly. Or something. It's vague.
In spite of the reality that the Bible never refers to the Bible, nor does it make any promises of "the Bible" being partially perfect... or partially perfect on some vague undefined points to some vague and undefined people, but not everyone... or something, it's vague... in SPITE of this absence of this teaching from the Bible, this writer appears to believe it to be a biblical teaching, which is to say, it's HIS OPINION about HIS INTERPRETATION of what "God meant" when "God wrote" the Bible... or something, it's vague and impossible to tie people down on.
At any rate, no need to comment further gentlemen. I will accept an explanation of this Magic Rule Book (i.e., "biblical Christian and right understanding of what the Bible means on some vague and undefined points) theory of the Bible, but that, of course, is never forthcoming.
So, no more comments from Marshall and Craig UNLESS you answer these questions (since you all reject the MRB designation I've given NOT to the Bible, but to the theory espoused by Stan in his post I just cited...) about what I'm calling the Magic Rule Book approach to handling the Bible. Contrariwise, if you don't agree with Stan, I'll accept that clarification, too...
con'td...
Stan refers to the "reliability of the Christian Bible."
1. What does that mean? That people can read it and understand it perfectly?
[No, I'm sure that you all don't think that, but you can clarify if you wish.]
2. That "true Biblical Christians" can read it and understand it perfectly, in toto?
[No, I'm sure that you all don't think that, but you can clarify if you wish.]
3. That "true Biblical Christians" can read it and get CERTAIN PARTS perfectly, or near perfectly? But that other believers (but not ones you accept as "true Biblical Christians") WON'T get it right? That these false believers are NOT able to reliably understand it?
4. If so, then are you saying it's NOT reliable for SOME people? Ie, that SOME people won't be able to reliably understand some parts of it correctly?
5. If so (for both 3 and 4), WHICH parts are reliably understandable with some good deal of perfection or certainty?
5a. On what do you base this assertion? That is, where does the Bible say that THIS part is reliably understood, but THAT part can be reasonably disagreed upon?
5b. On what do you base the notion that it's not understandable to SOME people? And who are those people? [Given that there are some people like me and those in my church who love the Bible, who study the Bible, who respect the Bible, who value the Bible, who love God and profess and DO follow the teachings of Jesus as we understand it... BUT who don't take the Bible the way you do on points which you think are "reliably clear..."]
Again, as usual, I do not think that you all are understanding even the questions being asked or why they are asked, but I will at least read an attempt to answer these questions or explain where Stan is mistaken in his "reliable Bible"/"Magic Rule Book" view of the Bible.
Stan espouses no such thing.
You’ll note that this is s series of questions designed to elicit certain responses, not necessarily to gain information. You’ll also note that this is not an attempt to make a positive case (complete with actual evidence and that sort of thing) that Stan’s (historical) position is wrong.
In short, it’s one more tar baby.
Stan has been unswerving in his insistence that God is absolutely sovereign over ALL things. Included in "all" would have to be the writing, copying, and translating of the Bible.
So now which of these do you think is closer to how Stan sees things?
* God sovereignly desired there to be 33,820 denominations of Christianity by our time, so God saw to it that there are plenty of ambiguities in the Bible in order to create schism.
* God saw to it that the Bible's writing is perfectly clear, and it vexes Him that there are believers who wickedly choose to interpret things differently than Stan does.
[That 33,820 comes from an online search. Feel free to disagree with it.]
~ Hiram
Hiram,
I would first suggest that you have a different understanding of the word "sovereign" than does Stan. Thus, I would then suggest that neither of your choices reflect how Stan sees things.
You might find it helpful to question him directly.
P.S. Most denominations are divided by differences in things like church polity and organization, rather than disagreement about what Scripture teaches, particularly the essentials.
Thanks for your attention, Marshal.
Would you go so far as to say that any modern version of the Bible contains passages God knows to be incorrect, misleading, or ambiguous? If so, is it because God wants this to be the case, or is it a matter of humans subverting God's will?
I am not trying to be argumentative, believe it or not. I just see this as crucial to the question of sovereignty. (It might help if you tell us what YOU think Stan's definition of "sovereign is, by the way.)
~ Hiram
Hiram, I’d push back on putting “incorrect” in the same category as the other options.
Historically the position is that the autographs were innerrant and that the process of translating has introduced some minor variance.
I do think (I suspect Dan agrees) that some bible passages are intentionally ambiguous and open to various levels of interpretation. I also think that the fact that some people might be mislead, doesn’t mean the problem is with scripture. It also doesn’t take into account the role of the Holy Spirit.
I would suggest that the best way to determine Stan’s definition of sovereign would be to: 1) read the numerous posts he’s written on the topic, 2) ask him. It seems pointless to ask Art, at Dans blog, to expound on what Stan thinks. Seems overly complicated and likely to lead to confusion.
Thank you Craig. I figured that since Marshal knows I am reading Stan wrong, Marshal could tell us what Stan really believes.
Some Christians like to use the "God doesn't want us humans to be robots" explanation for this or that theological question. The ultimate deployment of that would go, "Even in giving the human race His Holy word, God didn't want the process to be robotic, so He let them do their own thing, with the result being something quite different from how He Himself would have written it if He were the one wielding the pen. So really, we shouldn't even attach the word 'Holy' to the Bible, because it is a fallible human document."
~ Hiram
I understand your thought process, but as a general rule it seems like it’s more effective to deal directly with people rather than through third parties.
I’ve never heard anyone express quite the construct you’ve laid out, but I’m sure it’s something that some people believe.
I think that the thing that people like you, Hiram (correct me if I'm wrong), and myself have with what I'm calling "fundamentalists*" like Stan and some visitors here is the problem of not seeing the rational consistency in the fundamentalist argument. Take, for instance, Marshall's suggestion that Christian's don't have much... "disagreement about what Scripture teaches, particularly the essentials."
"The Essentials." Which immediately, reasonably, begs the question, "Oh? Jesus had 'Essentials' in his teachings? Great! If we just look at what Jesus said about 'the Essentials' and what Jesus included in his list of 'Essentials,' that could really settle a lot of questions and churches could really be unified. Please, tell us all, where did Jesus list the Essentials and what are they??!"
The answer (correct me if I'm mistaken) is that there IS NO LIST of "essentials." Jesus never referenced "the Essentials." God never talked about a group of beliefs that are "essential" to being a God-follower.
Right?
So then, the problem becomes, well, ARE there beliefs that are "essential" to christianity? If so, what are they? How do we know? Can we really call them "essentials" if Jesus never referenced "essentials" or any notions to that effect?
The Amish/anabaptist tend to identify being anti-war/a pacifist as an essential part of their tradition, but most other Christian traditions don't identify that. Who gets to make that call?
The answer is: There IS no one to make that call... and so, as Hiram notes, we have hundreds of different traditions and church groups, each believing in some set of "essentials," but each not able to prove that there even ARE any essential teachings of Jesus or God, nor are they able to authoritatively point to what the list of essentials are, or defend them authoritatively...
In short, they're all relying upon human tradition and human opinion. Which is fine, insofar as that goes, but then, they conflate their human traditions and opinions as "essential" and "according to God..." Which gets back to the irony of Stan criticizing the Catholic tradition for relying upon human tradition as equal to the Bible... while he does the same thing.
Sorry that I can't find a more succinct way of saying all that, but there's some thoughts on my point in this post and your response to it, Hiram.
==========
* I'm truly not intending anything mean-spirited in saying "fundamentalists", just as a word to describe those who approach the Bible and God in the way that Stan and some here do. I need a better word, I just don't think one exists. I think "fundamentalists" is a wrong word, as I don't think that these types ARE sticking to the "fundamentals" of what Jesus taught... at all. I actually think that sticking to the fundamentals of Jesus' teaching is a great thing... another post, some day... It's just that the word "fundamentalist" has, unfortunately, come to mean Christian extremists who identify themselves as the Deciders on what is and isn't Christ-ian.
On essentials... I have known three people who are proud to call themselves Christian but deny the Trinity doctrine. Obviously they are in a minority, but it goes to show how flexible the label "Christian" is. Is the Trinity essential? Clearly some Christians don't think so, though others I've known would say it is.
~ Hiram
Hiram,
That’s an essential question. “Does simply labeling oneself a Christian make one a Christian?”
It does seem that it’s possible to reach a reasonable conclusion about some minimal level of things that are essential to being a Christian.
For example, it seems reasonable to conclude that someone who denies the existence of God (any god) and of Jesus, or who identifies as an “atheist” could be a Christian by any rational definition.
My point in using the term "essentials" was merely a general application of the word to address the question of what brought about so many denominations. An objective look at the beliefs of each one would clearly demonstrate that there is little that separates them with regard to Scriptural understanding and interpretation, and that for the lion's share of them, it is "non-Scriptural" issues that does.
Out of time, more later.
We again are faced with Dan's default argument, one very defensive in nature rather than a truly profound one, that if the Bible doesn't explicitly, distinctly and in particular wording say XYZ, then no one can insist that it indeed teaches XYZ, particularly where Dan finds XYZ inconvenient. Of course, by his logic we should expect to see Scripture clearly state that unless it explicitly states XYZ, we should (or can) therefore ignore all Scripture DOES say that teaches XYZ.
The point, Marshall, is that there IS NO AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE, no Final Call Arbiter, no one entity that can clarify for us that, Yes, the Amish are right on their "essentials" or tenets, or that they're right on these three tenets, but wrong on tenets 4-12... while the Baptists and Methodists are right on these six tenets, but wrong on the rest of their tenets, that they are "essential" to Jesus' teachings.
IF there is no authoritative source for "essentials" for Christianity, for who is and isn't a Christian, for what is and isn't an acceptable opinion for a self-proclaimed Christian to hold, then on what basis does any one group or person get to presume to speak for Christianity or for God?
Because THEY think that THEY are the ones who are understanding the Bible or God aright? Okay, but so what?
The Amish consider pacifism an essential to Christianity, does that mean that you, as a non-pacifist are not a Christian? Or do they not get to make that call for you? (they don't.)
The fundamentalists consider PS Theory of Atonement and an "inerrant" Bible and a "virgin Mary" to be essentials to Christianity... does that mean that those who do not agree with those human opinions are NOT a Christian? Or do they not get to make that call for others? (they don't).
The point is that you are welcome to hold your hunches about which opinions/interpretations make the most sense TO YOU, but you don't get to say that you (and those who agree with you) are the Objectively Right ones and that you get to speak on God's behalf that, no, those who disagree with these essentials are NOT Christians.
Put another way, I'm totally fine with someone addressing the "What are Christian essentials?" question this way:
"Well, the Southern Baptists have traditionally held to these nine or ten points being essentials and if you don't believe those opinions, then you are not a Christian by SOUTHERN BAPTIST standards...
on the other hand, the Amish have traditionally held to these ~12 tenets as being essential, while the Catholics have held to these other ten 'essentials,' and if you don't believe these tenets, then you are not an Christian by Amish, or Catholic, standards..."
That is, I'm fine with people saying that "many Christians in this group believe X..." but I'm NOT fine with anyone declaring authoritatively, "NO, these people are NOT Christians according TO GOD..." because then they've presumed to speak for God what God has not told them. They are conflating human opinions and traditions to "God's Word" and to "fact." THAT is the problem.
Fundamentalists simply have no authority to make that kind of call.
Good, but fundies aren't making that call in the manner of which you speak...and just because you believe some do, or that in fact some might, that too is irrelevant...particularly to what my previous comment stated.
It's not a matter of who agrees with whom. It's a matter of whether or not essentials are taught in Scripture. You pick and choose what you like to believe about a host of things that are in Scripture, but as regard essential Christian belief, the Bible does so inform us despite not listing them under a heading of "Essential Beliefs for All Followers of Jesus Christ", or whatever narrow and self-serving alternative you insist upon. The Bible...Scripture...the Word...is not required to teach in a manner that satisfies Dan Trabue in order to teach all the things your reject for whatever reason you reject them. THAT is my point, and while you continue to act on that notion, you only give yourself liberties to do what is forbidden and to preach a different Gospel than what Scripture presents to us.
Let me be clear... I'm not looking for a titled section of essentials. Also, I do think a casual or scholarly study of Jesus's story and teachings can draw some conclusions about ideas that are of the essence of Jesus's teachings. The big ones being, love God, love people. These are essential teachings of Jesus, reasonable people should be able to agree.
However, fundamentalists ascribe a whole laundry list of "essentials" that have nothing or very little to do with Jesus' teachings. Which is fine as long as they add the caveat that these are their opinions, not God's Word.
Are you willing to do that?
Dan
In the last 24 hours I came across three things that made me think of this comment thread.
I saw a web page which brings up the planet "Kolob" that Mormons think God lives on/near.
"Mormon theology differs radically from conventional Christianity in locating God in time and space. He is not outside creation as traditionally believed. He is part of the physical universe, a being like the God in Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel who could touch Adam’s finger with his own if He chose."
I had heard that back in my childhood when my family was talking about our Mormon neighbors as we sat at the dinner table, and laughed at their idea that God is 3-D rather than spirit. But later I realized that Isaiah 40:22 could very well be taken as support for that 3-D picture, though the Bible doesn't name the spot in the sky where the throne of God is positioned.
Last night I watched a CNN program on the Catholic Kennedy family. Rose Kennedy warned her kids that they would end up in hell if they ever divorced, and I presume she takes that from Matthew 5:32 since that scripture equates divorce to the sin of adultery. So she has a bible rationale, in that it is traditional in Christianity to say anyone who dies in sin cannot go to heaven. But the church I went to would take that view that like any other sin, a divorce in one's past is one that can be "cast into the sea of forgetfulness" with sincere prayer. My Protestant church did not list a set of sins that can never be forgiven as a matter of principle.
My home page yesterday linked to an article on Generation Z in the U.S., including their lower level of religious faith. A comment below the article made the claim that fewer people believe a soul in hell burns for eternity. But Matthew 25:46 speaks of "eternal punishment," which doesn't sound like a finite amount of time to me.
~ Hiram
By any reasonable measure (from both sides) Mormon’s diverge so far from Christian theology as to not be considered as Christian.
That attitude is much more a Roman Catholic view than anything else. It’s the whole “Mortal/Venial” sin tradition. It’s not necessarily a biblical doctrine.
What people believe doesn’t always correlate to reality. If the Matthew verse represents The Truth about the afterlife, then what people believe about it is immaterial.
Hiram, I think it’s also important to realize that virtually all organized groups (denominations) have an enumerated statement of beliefs. Many individual churches do as well. So it’s completely accurate to say that the official position of the SBC, or PCUSA is X,Y, and Z, that doesn’t necessarily mean that every individual member 100% agrees with 100% of the belief statements. I’m seeing a trend among people who want the ability to identify is a christian without having to enumerate or ascribe to a particular set of beliefs. They tend to fall into those who identify as “Anabaptist” (because they have a (seemingly) flexible set of beliefs or they fall into the (oxymoronic) “Atheist christian” category.
This isn’t to denigrate Anabaptists in general or their belief system, but to point out that there are a subset of “anabaptists of convenience” who just want the camouflage.
As far as the CA’s, they mostly just want to co-opt the term christian, while stripping it of any sort of meaning or grounding in history.
I find the notion that people recognize the need to seek God and Truth themselves to be one of the stronger points of Christianity.
If there was/is a religion that spoke with one voice and they all claimed to agree - in unison - what God (goddess, Sentient Being, whatever) wanted us to know and do, THAT would be an immediate red flag to me. Rationally speaking, how could "mere" mortal humanity perfectly understand an infinite God (at least, as gods are typically thought of) to the degree that we'd all perfectly understand that infinite God?
Given a Good and Loving God who is also Omnipotent and Infinite, I would say it should be expected that
1. Humanity wouldn't understand that God perfectly and
2. Humanity would be obliged to try to understand that God as best they can, NOT relying upon one human authority to tell us what that God wants us to think.
It's one of the strengths of the Baptist/Anabaptist and other "priesthood of the believer" type traditions, seems to me.
I don’t think anyone necessarily disagrees with that premise. I think that the notion of knowledge doesn’t conflict with ones ability to seek God.
1. No one claims that as even s remote possibility, but the lack of perfect understanding doesn’t eliminate the possibility of sufficient understanding.
2. With some notable exceptions, I don’t see that sort of thing very often.
I’d close with this. Luther, who was a strong advocate of the priesthood of all believers, also realized that faith isn’t a free for all either.
I'm not saying it's a "free for all." I'm just noting the reality that there is no one group or groups who have the authority to say that they have the authorized list of Christian essentials. The Amish have their list that's different than the Catholics that's different than the Baptists that's different from Progressives. Their tenets are the opinions of those people in their tradition, that's all they can reasonably say.
None of them can say, with authority, "YES, WE have the correct list of God approved tenets."
Just as a point of reasonably observable fact.
I've never suggested otherwise. I was simply pointing out that even one of the staunchest champions of the priesthood of all believers recognized and understood that there are limits.
I'm surprised that this notion is controversial in the leas.
Well, given Luther's persecution of anabaptists (whose priesthood, he apparently rejected...), I don't know that he's much of a role model for "the priesthood of believers..."
Indeed, it's always part of the problem when you support freedom of conscience... for yourself, but not others.
"“We condemn Anabaptists who forbid Christians to hold office,” and “We condemn Anabaptists who reject the baptizing of children, and say that children are saved without baptism.” Most Lutheran states crushed Anabaptist groups within their borders."
https://themennonite.org/feature/martin-luther-anabaptists/
"Staunch..."? Not so much.
~Dan
There's a huge difference between a perfect understanding of God versus a perfect understanding of that which He means for us to understand, such as His will for us. It defies logic that He would reveal His will in a manner that is beyond our comprehension.
1. I'm not saying that anyone says they have a perfect understanding of God.
2. What I am saying is that you do not have a rational basis to claim AUTHORITATIVELY that YOU have a perfect understanding of that which God means for us to understand.
3.Do YOU think you have a perfect understanding of that which God means for you to understand?
4. Do you think you can affirm that authoritatively, or is it just a hunch you have?
Don't know why I'm asking.
I apologize. I was under the impression that simply stating a known historical fact wouldn’t be a problem. Had I suggested that Luther was absolutely correct in everything he said, you’d have a concern. But simply stating the fact that one of the things that could have seen him put to death was his view on the priesthood of all believers. It’s one of the main reasons he translated the Bible into German, so that everyone could read it for themselves.
1. Just out of curiosity, if your not saying that anyone is claiming perfect knowledge, why bring it up?
2. Good, because no one is claiming that.
3. Can’t/won’t speak for Art, and wouldn’t claim perfection, but sufficient seems reasonable.
4. I won’t try to speak for Art, nor Stan.
1. Marshall brought it up. I was making sure he wasn't misunderstanding me.
2. I don't know. It sounds like Marshall was saying that, which is why I asked him to clarify.
3. Sufficient is fine for me.
What I'm objecting to is those who'd say, "THIS TENET is essential, and if you disagree with THIS TENET (whatever that tenet is), then you are not a Christian..." or, ..."then you reject the Bible..." or, "then you'll have to take it up with God, because that's what God's Word says..."
For instance, do you think that God wants us to accept that someone who doesn't believe in the deity of Jesus can't be a follower of Jesus?
That such a person is not/can not be a Christian?
Do you think that this opinion IS "God's Word," or just your interpretation of God's Word?
Pretty convoluted questions.
For starters, I’m not speaking for God. Is it possible for someone to follow Jesus in the sense that they can try to live by some of His teachings, sure.
Can someone be a Christian while denying the deity of Christ, I guess I don’t see how that works. It’s like believing in a square circle. But, this gets to the more salient point. Does self identification as a Christian mean that someone actually is a Christian? Is there some delimitation between being a Christian and not? Jesus clearly taught that not everyone would follow Him, He even taught that not all of those who followed Him were believers.
Well, it’s pretty much impossible for a human opinion to be “God’s Word”.
The more basic question’s are
Can one be a disciple of Jesus without being a Christian?
Does calling oneself a Christian make one a Christian?
Does calling oneself a Christian automatically make one a disciple of Christ.
Are there people who are Christians ( believers/disciples/saved) and are there others who are not?
"None of them can say, with authority, "YES, WE have the correct list of God approved tenets."
Sure they can. They all can. The more important question is how does any of them back it up? It is where we part on every point of contention between us. I support my position until my position has been shown to be in error (you've never come close). You support your position in an incredibly weak manner, and when errors are exposed (as is so often the case) you bail and default to "it's my opinion" or some such.
"1. I'm not saying that anyone says they have a perfect understanding of God."
Pretty much who you're accusing of "fundies".
"2. What I am saying is that you do not have a rational basis to claim AUTHORITATIVELY that YOU have a perfect understanding of that which God means for us to understand."
It's not cryptic. It's not mysterious or in some kind of Holy Code. Your schtick is that you don't like the clear understanding, but prefer your personal preference for what God should be like in order for you to deign to pay Him reverence. So you throw about this "rational basis to claim AUTHORITATIVELY" crap to avoid having to either explain why you "don't buy" what I say or to defend to the end your self-serving alternative. It's always been this way.
"3.Do YOU think you have a perfect understanding of that which God means for you to understand?"
Pretty much, yeah. At least until such time as someone can provide a compelling and persuasive argument for why I'm in error. (Caveat: This refers only to those areas of Scripture that have been of contention between us. We haven't spoken of absolutely everything, and I won't suggest that my knowledge of every verse is perfect.)
"4. Do you think you can affirm that authoritatively, or is it just a hunch you have?"
I'm not sure I understand the question, other than for that which I'm sure there is no "hunch" because I can back up everything. I know you like that word "hunch" because it also gives you the freedom to avoid backing up your alternative understanding or proving I'm in error in mine.
"For instance, do you think that God wants us to accept that someone who doesn't believe in the deity of Jesus can't be a follower of Jesus?"
Someone who doesn't believe in Christ's deity isn't a true follower of Christ, even if that person lives by His teachings. But then, Christ taught that He is divine, so there's that. Such a person is just living according to a code of behavior that has Christianity as its basis. He's not a follower of Christ if he decides the Christ isn't divine contrary to Christ's own teachings about Himself.
It seems with this question we once again see that you're more about following on YOUR terms, and not Christ's/God's. That, too, is not being a true follower.
Art,
I think you've raised an interesting point. If someone follows Jesus, but picks and chooses what teachings of Jesus they follow, are they following Jesus in any meaningful sense? Clearly the Jesus that is followed by the JW's and the Jesus we see in the Bible are mutually exclusive. They can't both be simultaneously True. It's the same for how the Koran portrays Jesus.
One of the problems we have is one of definition. The term "Christian" is not adequate. There were thousands of people who followed Jesus who would not accurately be termed Christians. In the same way, the term Christian is an umbrella for Western Culture, which doesn't necessarily follow Jesus. We need a more accurate term, Jesus spoke of "sheep" and "goats", so there is clearly some dividing line.
The reality is that everyone has a god of some sort; money, sex, power, video games, whatever it is. It's either YHWH or it's something or someone else. In reality, if it's not YHWH, it's self.
re: Not everyone calling themselves Christian is necessarily Christian...
Certainly the point can be made... for instance, the "reformers" like Luther and Calvin who turned around and started calling those they disagreed with "heretics" and then began persecuting and even torturing and killing them were not acting as a follower of Christ's teachings.
So, indeed, there is a problem of definition. "Christian" simply has NO AUTHORITATIVE definition. God has not approved of the evangelical or Catholic or Anabaptist or Progressive or other definition of Christian.
The word itself would suggest One who follows the teachings of Jesus, known as Christ... but WHICH teachings? And who gets to make that call?
To take the more extreme examples, Jesus referred to himself in ways that make it sound as if he and God were one ("I and the father are one..."), but is it a teaching of Jesus' that he IS/WAS divine? Or was he speaking metaphorically?
Who gets to decide?
Is there anyone who has the authority to speak for Jesus on that point?
I say no.
On questions like this, we can say, I think, that there is plenty of data, textual and otherwise, that makes me confident in this interpretation or that interpretation, but the interpretations themselves remain our human interpretations, NOT God's Word. Even on points we may think are abundantly clear.
Those who go further and say that, "No, THIS IS the Right interpretation and if you disagree with me, then it's not ME you disagree with... it's God..." have taken it too far and have, as Craig noted, it's not God they're worshiping, it's self.
~Dan
...but does even THAT mean that they're not Christian? I'm not willing to say so. It could be that they sincerely seek to follow Jesus and have simply made a human error and human error does not condemn us as separated from God, as we are saved by grace, not human perfection (or partial human perfection). Or at least, that's what I think fits with the teachings of Jesus.
And reason.
Marshall...
Someone who doesn't believe in Christ's deity isn't a true follower of Christ, even if that person lives by His teachings
Is that your opinion, or God's Word? If it's God's Word (in your opinion!) then on what basis do you make such an assertion?
And Craig, if Marshall asserts that this claim IS God's Word, not his human opinion, has Marshall gone too far? Is he conflating his opinion with God's Word? If not, why not?
~Dan
Interesting, that you’ve chosen to ignore the fact the the reformers were declared to be heretics, anathema, tortured, burned alive, and generally persecuted.
Of course your lengthy discourse doesn’t really address the question. The fact that you’ve taken something simple and made it complicated makes me wonder why. All we have to do is look at the clear words of Jesus to see that not everyone who claims to follow Him, is actually following Him.
What I have to wonder is what’s stopping you from simply asserting an all roads lead equally to God and eventually everyone is included.
As to your last question, why would I answer a loaded hypothetical question, when it’s reasonable to presume that Art will respond and then the reality can be dealt with. Especially given the numerous other possible points raised already in this thread.
? Not ignoring it. In fact, that just makes it all the worse. These "reformers" wanted reform partially because of the blatant persecution of the Catholic Church and what do they do? Turn right around and oppress those who "believe wrong." (According to them.)
re: "All we have to do is look at the clear words of Jesus..."
So, since Jesus was abundantly clear, you must affirm that Christians should be opposed to war and refuse to take part?
Or... what?? You mean, that's not clear to you? And those to whom it's clear to, that isn't sufficient?
This is the point, you all want to pretend there's a group of beliefs that are "clear" to "all sincere seekers" and yet, the reality is that this is not the case.
Do you recognize that?
~Dan
Jesus never preached against war for defensive purposes...to protect the innocent from despotic oppressors. There's no teaching that even comes close to that. But even if you wish to pretend that such can be extrapolated from His teachings, no honest person can say it is clearly so. You can't even make that case in a manner that prevents legitimate objection and criticism that you distort His teachings to arrive at that conclusion. You certainly never have in all our years of debate.
You miss the point. Jesus never preached in support of PS theory of atonement. Jesus never preached the "inerrant Bible." Jesus never preached a lot of things that you believe.
Whether you accept it or not, many people throughout the world and throughout history have identified and recognized Jesus' pacifism as one of the most clear teachings found in Jesus' words. Now, I GET that you and your tribe don't find it clear, but many, many people HAVE identified it as clear.
That is the point: We have no authoritative list of "These are Jesus' 'clear' teachings to which no one can object..." Especially as it regards many of Evangelicals'/fundamentalists' list of "essentials..."
Which is fine. You are free to think that "it's clear enough to me" that this point is right and that point is wrong. What I object to is the suggestion that YOU could not be mistaken. That what the Bible says about your beliefs on whichever tenet(s) you hold dear are "so clear" that it's the only possible good faith conclusion one could reach. That to disagree with evangelicals on the point of, say PSAtonement or Inerrant Bible is not possible in good faith, that you are essentially disagreeing with what GOD says, when we disagree with your conclusions.
Do you understand the point?
Do you agree that people can and do disagree in good faith about just about any belief you hold dear?
You didn’t “ignore” it you just chose not to mention it because it didn’t help your argument.
Really, we “must affirm”, please explain where Jesus explicitly says that strict pacifism is required for all believers. Sounds like you’re appealing to some giant rule book.
Yes I understand, and yes I agree. The problem you have is that no one is saying they they “could not be mistaken”, it’s just not there. So when you argue against what hasn’t been asserted, you make yourself look foolish and force others to waste time correcting you.
You further err when you assert that because some people believe something is simply an appeal to numbers. A logical fallacy you have rebuked others for, when you believe they’ve engaged in it.
Are you suggesting that appealing to numbers is appropriate when your do it, but inappropriate when you perceive others doing it.
Are you reading ANY of my actual words, you know, for understanding?
you just chose not to mention it because it didn’t help your argument.
? It precisely makes my argument, but whatever.
we “must affirm”, please explain where Jesus explicitly says that strict pacifism is required for all believers.
?? No, that's the point. EVEN ON THE MOST OBVIOUS (to many) POINTS of Jesus' teachings, there is disagreement. Those (like the anabaptists) who hold to this belief CAN'T reasonably insist that those who disagree with it are disagreeing with God.
What you're saying is the exact OPPOSITE of the point I'm making.
Do you understand that?
The problem you have is that no one is saying they they “could not be mistaken”, it’s just not there.
The reality, Craig, is that people DO say that can't be mistaken on some points that they think are "absolutely clear." Marshall does. Glenn does. I personally know others who do.
Are you suggesting that appealing to numbers is appropriate when your do it, but inappropriate when you perceive others doing it.
Again, the EXACT OPPOSITE of my actual point. I have NOT MADE THAT ASSERTION THAT YOU JUST SAID I MADE. It's not there in my words.
I do not appeal to numbers. Where you have read me refer to the number of people who believe something and inferred an appeal to numbers, you misunderstood.
Again, Craig, try reading for understanding.
That you can't understand the words of a fellow Christian, written in your language in your time and your culture does not bode well for any confidence that you can adequately understand the words of the Bible... do you see that?
Ok Dan, whatever you say. When you insist that “must affirm” doesn’t mean “must affirm”, it’s pretty clear that even quoting your own actual words, is pointless.
I realize that asking you to provide the actual words where Jesus teaches a universal, strict, unambiguous pacifism ad well as that war is wrong under all circumstances is not the point for you. I also realize that you’re arguing that the mere presence of an argument gives credibility to that argument. Whether you are willing to accept that these are the logical conclusions, isn’t in my control.
I’m going to close by reiterating a question I asked earlier.
“I have to wonder what’s stopping you from simply asserting that all roads lead equally to God and eventually everyone is included”
It’s not the only thing left hanging, but it’s one.
When you insist that “must affirm” doesn’t mean “must affirm”, it’s pretty clear that even quoting your own actual words, is pointless.
Read it in context, Craig. Read for understanding. Look again at what I actually said, not just two isolated words.
Let me walk you through it.
The whole text in question, in response to your comment, quoted first...
Craig had said: "All we have to do is look at the clear words of Jesus..."
I responded:
So, since Jesus was abundantly clear, you must affirm that Christians should be opposed to war and refuse to take part?
NOTE THE QUESTION MARK... It's important to understanding meaning in this sentence. I was responding to YOUR comment with a question... the question was meant to help pull out some understanding, NOT to state an opinion. Keep reading my response...
Or... what?? You mean, that's not clear to you? And those to whom it's clear to, that isn't sufficient?
"OR WHAT... YOU MEAN, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO YOU."
The CLEAR intent of my words was to that Jesus' "clear words" are not always agreed upon.
Really, Craig, before moving on to ANYTHING ELSE, do you understand now where you made your mistake? That 1. You failed to note the question mark and 2. you failed to keep reading where the explanation was offered as to why it was a QUESTION, not a statement of belief. In fact, it was a question designed to mean the OPPOSITE of what you eventually mistakenly read into it.
Do you see? Look, I totally get that sometimes, we read things quickly, we see a few isolated words and we too quickly assume we understand the meaning. You made a simple mistake. No big deal. But do you UNDERSTAND, now, why you made the mistake?
Please answer before making any further comments.
As to your question...
“I have to wonder what’s stopping you from simply asserting that all roads lead equally to God and eventually everyone is included”
You can stop wondering. I don't make that assertion because I DO NOT BELIEVE IT.
Is that difficult to understand?
I do not believe that the fundamentalism of, say, extremist violent Muslims leads equally to God. I believe it leads to hell.
I do not believe, either, that the fundamentalism of Christian extremists who insist they have the One True Way and that to disagree with them is to disagree with God leads equally to God. I believe it leads AWAY from God.
And so, I do not assert it because I do not believe it.
As to "everyone being included," I DO believe that everyone has the opportunity to be included. But they may choose to reject that inclusion. God is welcoming. Humans sometimes reject that welcome and God allows that.
So again, I do not assert it because I do not believe it.
In other words, this was a (non-mean-spirited) bit of sarcasm intended to suggest the OPPOSITE meaning of "must affirm..."
Like someone responding to "Nazis are great people and slavery is okay, too!" with this comment, "Oh really? Then rape and murder of children is all good, too? Hmm. Got ya!" The POINT of that statement would be the OPPOSITE of rape and murder are good. It's sarcasm.
And indeed, we find sarcasm and humor and hyperbole and other figurative language in the Bible, as well. As well as poetry and apparent myth and epic stories and a whole range of non-woodenly literal language in the Bible. It's why it needs to be rightly interpreted and why, at least in part, people can and do in good faith disagree with meanings of various passages.
You know, just as it has been studied and reported that conservative brains (i.e., the brains of conservatives in these studies) respond more strongly to fear and disgust), so too, perhaps, conservatives have a difficult time understanding sarcasm/humor...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rationally-speaking/200905/conservatives-lack-sense-humor-study-finds
I wonder if those two factors would explain some of the difficulty in liberal-conservative communications?
Hmm.
Yes, your rhetorical question was clear, that’s why I treated it as I did. I grant that it’s possible that you were genuinely asking an actual question, but in context the conclusion that it was rhetorical is reasonable.
Thank you for responding to one of the questions I’ve brought up, I appreciate it. It’s interesting that you spent a fair amount of time being wishy washy and vague about the entire concept of a line of demarcation between Christian/non Christian, yet you’re now clear that you do agree that a line exists. Thank you for that.
My point has always been and remains that there are teachings that are more in alignment with Jesus' teachings (i.e., "Christian," to me) and teachings that are less in alignment and, indeed, are incongruous to Jesus' teachings... AND my point has been that just because the anabaptist may think that the Baptist is wrongly interpreting Jesus in the Baptist's support for war, that this does not give the anabaptist license to say the Baptist is not a Christian.
In the same vein and reverse, the conservative who may think that the liberal is wrong for thinking that PS Atonement is not a biblical or Christian teaching does not give that conservative license to say that the liberal is not a Christian.
Do you understand my point here?
Do you agree?
That is, a liberal who rejects an inerrant Bible (as conservatives define it, anyway) and PSA are NOT "Not Christian" and conservatives should not make that claim merely because they disagree with their take on these human traditions/tenets.
Do you agree?
Re:
your rhetorical question was clear, that’s why I treated it as I did.
? Then why did you say "When you insist that “must affirm” doesn’t mean “must affirm”, it’s pretty clear that even quoting your own actual words, is pointless."
IF you understood it was rhetorical, sarcastic and intended to point to the OPPOSITE conclusion (i.e., NOT that we "must affirm..."), then why did you treat it as if I meant we SHOULD "must affirm..." the teaching?
This is confusing, I'm not sure you're understanding the questions put to you, given your responses.
I agree that I’ve never once said or intimated any of the views you express in your first comment.
My minor problem with what your opinion seems to be, is that it’s entirely possible that (for example) the PSA theory is the factually correct explanation of what happened. If so, then it’s eminently reasonable to try to correct those who are mistaken. Would I suggest that those people aren’t believers, no. But would I be concerned if they weren’t open to education and correction, yes.
I was not aware that rhetorical meant opposite. I realize it’s hard to believe that it’s possible that the medium of blog comments isn’t the best forum that sort of rhetorical flourish.
Just a thought.
How about Scripture? Is that an appropriate place for the sarcasm, hyperbole and other figurative "rhetorical flourishes" that, say, Jesus used?
Seriously, I'm wondering what the state of research is on conservatives and sarcasm/irony...
(And lest anyone think I'm being sarcastic and not getting my point, that is a serious, not a sarcastic, question.)
is that it’s entirely possible that (for example) the PSA theory is the factually correct explanation of what happened. If so, then it’s eminently reasonable to try to correct those who are mistaken.
Ah, but those who hold to the PSA theory don't KNOW that it's a factually correct explanation (if it were). It's their opinion that they think is compelling and reasonable, but not everyone agrees with that opinion.
But IF one holds an unproven opinion and believes it is very likely and reasonable, I don't mind if they push that opinion. What I object to, as always, is them suggesting that they are speaking for God in voicing that opinion and that, if you disagree with them, you are in effect, disagreeing with God. THAT is what I'm objecting to.
Yes, I’m well aware that you are objecting to a behavior that relatively few people engage in.
I’m also aware that sarcasm, irony, anything of that nature doesn’t necessarily translate well in this medium.
This "speaking for God" nonsense has to end. No one does that. To say, "This is what Scripture says" is not speaking for God as one might do to suppose what God would say about something not covered in Scripture. Or, "I think I can speak for God and insist that He wouldn't like that color paint for your house." If one can point to Scripture, one can insist God's position is made known. It is then the other person's job to use Scripture to counter that belief. I can support everything of which I am certain...it's why I'm certain. That you don't agree doesn't make me wrong in the least, UNLESS you can bring a compelling counter argument by using Scripture. This is where you fail so often and it is when you fail that we first heard from you this "speaking for God" malarkey (It's almost St. Patty's Day). Accusing your opponents of this is a sign that your position has no merit (if not an outright surrender without surrendering). It allows you to dismiss Scripture in favor or your preferred alternative that so often pleases YOU primarily, and not necessarily God.
So, if I say, "This is what Scripture says... Christians should NOT go to war..., and they should live simply, thus saith Scriptures!" you're okay with that?
PSA is NOT covered in Scripture.
"Inerrant Bible" is NOT covered in Scripture.
GOD has not told you this, these are HUMAN OPINIONS, interpretations of passages in the Bible that LEAD SOME to reach these conclusions.
Do you agree with that reality?
And no, one can't merely "point to Scripture" and say, "Thus, we KNOW GOD's WILL." It's just not the case, or at least not provably or rationally consistently. After all, I can point to scripture for my positions and you don't think I therefore know God's will.
Right?
Or do you accept that I know God's Will because I can point to scripture to support my positions (even if you don't agree with my reasoning)?
The deal is, you don't agree with my reasoning as to how I reach my positions, and thus YOU don't think I am speaking for God or know God's will.
IN THE SAME WAY, I don't agree with your reasoning, and it IS your reasoning, not God's Will. You see that when you disagree with me but miss it when others disagree with you.
Please, show where scripture says “Christians should NOT go to war...” and “they should live simply...”. By all means, demonstrate from scripture that those two specific things are blanket expectations for all believers, in all places, at all times. I beg you to do so.
You’re righ, the term “PSA” is not mentioned specifically in scripture, yet the concept is present in both the old and New Testament. In the same way, the term “inerrant Bible”, does not specifically appear, but the concept is there.
Please show us where anyone (at least in this context) has said “ Thus, we KNOW GOD’S WILL”. I’m unaware of anyone saying that, but am willing to look at evidence to the contrary.
I’d love to see you point to clear unequivocal scripture that supports your opinions. By all means, bring it on. Again, in the absence of evidence, I think it’s safe to say none of us claims to know God’s will. I’m prepared to be proven wrong if you have evidence, but I can’t recall anyone saying that specifically.
I don’t think you understand the position you’re arguing against. All that’s being said is that when scripture says “For God so loved the world...”, that the meaning is that there is a God, and that He loves the world. If you want to try to complicate things that’s fine, but it’s not that complex.
What would help your case immensely are the following.
1. Privide specific, clear, unequivocal support for your opinions directly from scripture.
2. Provide specific, clear, unequivocal scriptural evidence that demonstrates that our positions are contrary to scripture.
If you would do that, it would be helpful and appreciated.
"So, if I say, "This is what Scripture says... Christians should NOT go to war..., and they should live simply, thus saith Scriptures!" you're okay with that?"
This doesn't even qualify as an oversimplification. I clearly said there must be some serious and honest back and forth using Scripture to support one's position. If you're going to read into verses something the verse doesn't clearly say (such as Lev 18:22 not referring to all forms of homosexual behavior) then you're not using Scripture at all, but continuing to assert only opinion. You've never seen me do that in support of my positions. EVER! You do it constantly and when you can't fill the holes, you default to "that's your hunch" or "you can't speak for God".
"The deal is, you don't agree with my reasoning as to how I reach my positions, and thus YOU don't think I am speaking for God or know God's will."
No. The "deal" is that your "reasoning" is comprised of illogical assumptions that the words on the page don't support.
Gotta go. More later.
Marshall, Craig, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have studied the Bible on the topic of war and peace and are not ignorant of the arguments that Christians from all stripes of denominations and backgrounds have offered for centuries against Christians taking part in war.
I mean, come on, are either of you suggesting for a moment that you are entirely ignorant of the arguments?
I will offer you this link...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2014/03/unexpected-sites-of-christian-pacifism-holiness-edition/
...Which points to the history of various denominations being opposed to war for what they considered, at the time, to be clear biblical reasons.
And I will point to just the most obvious:
We are to love our enemies. We are to overcome evil with good. We are to turn the other cheek. We are to "put away our swords," for "those who live by the swords die by the sword."
The point being that there have been, throughout ALL of church history, Christians (and not just the anabaptists or Quakers) who believe that the Bible is clear on this point. Unmistakably clear. No debate.
HOW CAN one "love their enemies" if they are killing them? HOW is killing people overcoming evil with good? These are just blatant rational impossibilities, on the face of it. You all KNOW this argument, don't play incredibly stupid.
And here's my point:
Does there exist a verse that says, "Christians shouldn't go to war..."? No.
Does there exist a verse that says, "Thou shalt embrace PSA or Inerrancy..."? No.
And yet, there are verses that Christians throughout the year have read and extrapolated out what they thought were clear implications of those verses... and the point is that these ARE HUMAN OPINIONS and INTERPRETATIONS of passages, not "what God said" or what the Bible said.
Do you understand and agree with just that much?
Just reiterating directly in response to this...
You’re righ, the term “PSA” is not mentioned specifically in scripture, yet the concept is present in both the old and New Testament. In the same way, the term “inerrant Bible”, does not specifically appear, but the concept is there.
In the same way, "simple living" and "don't go to war, Christians" are not specifically literally mentioned but the concepts are there, OT and NT. This is what many MANY Christians have believed over the centuries, just as some have believed in PSA and inerrancy.
The question is, can either group say, "This IS 'God's Word' on the topic and we who believe it, are NOT and can not be mistaken on it..."?
Or are you both willing to admit that these ARE human interpretations and you COULD be mistaken on inerrancy and PSA?
I just lost a comment, so this will be briefer.
Yes, I have looked at the scriptural evidence and while I acknowledge that a case exists for some degree of pacifism, that it doesn’t rise to the level of the imperative that you claimed in your earlier comment.
If find that in that particular case there are reasonable arguments on both sides and that it’s a question for debate, not division. It’s certainly not something where one can make a case for an imperative standard for all Christians, in all times and all places.
But, please I beseech you, make a detailed explicit biblical case for the positions you advocate. Let us see the clear, explicit, unequivocal biblical support. I can think of nothing more satisfying that seeing the results of your biblical study laid out in a clear, unambiguous fashion.
I’m totally serious about this.
To be fair and accurate, the scriptural case you should probably be making is the one that supports your specific claim.
“Christians should NOT go to war...”.
Been done before and cited before on my blog...
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2012/11/what-does-jesus-say.html
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2005/01/the-old-testament-god-and-war.html
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2006/11/the-bible-war-and-peace-part-i.html
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2006/11/the-bible-war-and-peace-part-ii.html
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2009/11/christian-pacifism-etc.html
But regardless, that does not settle the questions I'm talking about here. The questions put to you:
1. there are verses that Christians throughout the year have read and extrapolated out what they thought were clear implications of those verses... and the point is that these ARE HUMAN OPINIONS and INTERPRETATIONS of passages, not "what God said" or what the Bible said.
Do you understand and agree with just that much?
2. The question is, can either group say, "This IS 'God's Word' on the topic and we who believe it, are NOT and can not be mistaken on it..."?
3. Or are you both willing to admit that these ARE human interpretations and you COULD be mistaken on inerrancy and PSA?
And, addressing this comment of yours...
while I acknowledge that a case exists for some degree of pacifism, that it doesn’t rise to the level of the imperative that you claimed in your earlier comment.
If find that in that particular case there are reasonable arguments on both sides and that it’s a question for debate, not division.
My point is that this is true for PSA, for Inerrancy and for support for gay folk getting married. There are reasonable arguments on BOTH/ALL sides and that these are questions for debate, not division.
IMPORTANT QUESTION, PLEASE ADDRESS: Can you agree with that?
1. Yes
2. On what topic?
3. Since I’ve never claimed I can’t be mistaken, I’m not sure why I’d need to repeat that. But yes, it’s theoretically possible that I could be mistaken.
Can I agree with what? That there are people who make cases for that laundry list of topics? Yes they are. Not all of them are biblical cases, and not all of them are equally credible, but cases are made.
Are you saying that if I wade through all the links you provided, that I will find a thorough, explicit, biblical, positive, unequivocal, clear case that demonstrates that your earlier imperative statement is True?
As to your laundry list.
Inerrancy, I’ve seen multiple people make clear, unambiguous, positive, unequivocal biblical cases for various degrees of inerrancy. I’ve never seen any compelling reasons (especially biblically founded) that are convincing in the least. I would argue that a proper understanding of the role, nature, and authority of scripture is a critical issue.
Atonement, I find elements of most of the atonement theories to be scripturally supported and actually think that almost all of them accurately portray part of the Truth. I would suggest that the fact of the atonement is essential, while the mechanism is less so.
Gay marriage, I’ve never, ever, seen anyone make a positive, biblical, unequivocal, clear case that “gay marriage” can be considered biblical. I’ve seen multiple “gay christians” who are quite clear that it can’t be done. In a general sense, I wouldn’t say that it (in and of itself) is an issue to divide over.
I have to note, that you’ve chosen not to limit the discussion to the specific issues, but to add an additional issue and elevate it to a level of more significant issues. I’m not sure why, but if this is just an excuse to tout the wonders of “gay marriage”, then have at it.
If you want to make a positive, biblically based, specific, clear, unambiguous case for homosexual behavior, be my guest.
My sole point is that all of these are topics where people of good faith can and do disagree. All of those topics.
You APPEAR to agree (but tell me if I'm mistaken). Good, we agree.
I think Marshall, Glenn, Bubba and multitudes of others disagree. Violently.
I've made the case repeatedly on homosexuality as to why I think my position is CLEARLY the most biblical, most rational, most Godly one, in my opinion. I fully recognize that others disagree.
My sole point (here) would be that people of good faith can and do disagree.
So, you CAN be mistaken about inerrancy and PSA, your opinions about those topics ARE your opinions, NOT God's Word, or definitively "God's opinion..." but rather, some of the human opinions and interpretations of these topics.
Good, we agree.
Are you saying that if I wade through all the links you provided, that I will find a thorough, explicit, biblical, positive, unequivocal, clear case that demonstrates that your earlier imperative statement is True?
I'm saying that my opinions and interpretations on the topic of war and peace as it relates to the Bible are reasonable, thought out positions representing the human opinions of many Christians throughout history.
You may not agree that they are the MOST reasonable or apt and you may disagree with our conclusions, but they are there, thought out, considered, serious and within the tent of Christian thinking.
I'm saying it is TRULY our opinion and we think it is the most reasonable, biblical and Godly opinion to hold, but we are NOT saying that we speak for God on the topic, just that it's the most reasonable TO US.
In the same way that your opinions about PSA and inerrancy are not without possible error, just that they are the most reasonable To YOU.
you saying that if I wade through all the links you provided, that I will find a thorough, explicit, biblical, positive, unequivocal, clear case that demonstrates that your earlier imperative statement is True?
And just to be clear: IF (and when I have) I wade through the information put forth by the defenders of human theories like PSA or Inerrancy or opposition to equal rights for gay folk or support for war for Christians, etc... will I find a thorough, explicit, biblical, positive, unequivocal, clear case that demonstrates that their imperative claims (sometimes, speaking for God) are "true..."?
No.
I find them offering their opinions as best they see them, in a way that I tend to (not always, but ofttimes) find sloppy and shallow in reasoning and consistent biblical exegesis and leaning WAY too heavily upon human tradition and eisegesis)... but I have no doubt that they are sincere in it.
Do you get my point?
That is, that IF you hold to inerrancy or PSA, and you offered your opinions and support as to why you hold those opinions, I would NOT find it... "a thorough, explicit, biblical, positive, unequivocal, clear case that demonstrates that your earlier imperative statement is True..." at least, if it's like any of the other dozens or hundreds of cases I've read in support of them.
Do you get that?
Yes, I’ve always gotten your point. You aren’t going to present a positive, unequivocal, clear, biblical case for any position you hold. Unless something has changed, you still can’t provide one single reference from scripture, the Torah, the Talmud, any of the recorded writings of the leaders of the early Church, that speak in a positive or even neutral manner about homosexuality. But as usual I invite you to do so.
You may be saying that you find your opinions to be “reasonable, thought out positions that represent other human opinions”, but in no possible way does that justify your imperative, nor is it a biblical affirmative case.
The question is, will you withdraw or modify your imperative claim given that you can’t support it?
It’s interes that you predetermine what you will find if you actually research the evidence for the things you deride. It’s amax that you can determine without actually reading or studying what you will find.
Yes I get your point, you’re going to dismiss those who you disagree with and suggest “sloppy and shallow” reasoning with nary an example. Without even bothering to demonstrate the specific problems that you’ve found. Oh yes, I get your point.
Again yes, I get that. I get that you are prepared to dismiss any possible case in favor of anything you disagree with, without even engaging with what may or may not be provided. That you’re going to prejudge anything you see in the future based on some unknown, unidentified, unrebutted, mystery something that you claim you’ve studied in the past 3 decades or so.
Oh yes, I get that. Not only do I get that, but it frees me to do as you do and prejudge and dismiss your (likely) self serving eisegesis (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have thrown in a biblical reference or two) without having to wade through it. I do have the benefit of you letting me know that it’s not an affirmative, clear, unequivocal, straightforward, biblical case. That will save me a lot of time.
I do guess that it’s possibke that “Christians should NOT go to war...”, somehow means something other than what it says.
If not, I’m still waiting for you to explain how you you can express such an emphatic, imperative claim without a foundation.
Yes, I’ve always gotten your point. You aren’t going to present a positive, unequivocal, clear, biblical case for any position you hold.
You don't get it. I'm guessing that you don't even get that you don't get it.
YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AN UNEQUIVOCAL CASE for a SINGLE POINT on which we disagree.
You can't do it.
Unequivocal: Leaving no doubt.
Do you understand THAT?
I HAVE as a point of fact in the real world given you the "biblical case" for my position on many topics, including war. It is a positive case based upon what the bible says, what Jesus taught, what many other believers throughout history have believed.
I HAVE as a point of fact in the real world given you a CLEAR set of support for my position. You may not find it clear, but then, I don't find your hunches clear on a whole series of theories clear or reasonable. It's clear to many people.
Do you understand that real world reality?
I think it comes down to the first thing, then. You do not understand that you can not provide an unequivocal case for your theories and interpretations. But tell me and clarify:
DO you understand that?
you’re going to dismiss those who you disagree with and suggest “sloppy and shallow” reasoning with nary an example.
Oh please, I've done this for years. You don't agree with what I find sloppy and shallow. I don't agree with your not agreeing. Read and understand:
That you do not agree with my case does not mean that I have not pointed out what I think is clearly sloppy and shallow reasoning on the part of your side. It has happened in the real world.
Yes, I’ve always gotten your point.
Prove it.
One of my central points is that
YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AN UNEQUIVOCAL CASE for a SINGLE POINT on which we disagree.
Do you understand that reality?
IF you understand that, then explain to me why you would say...
I’ve always gotten your point. You aren’t going to present a positive, unequivocal, clear, biblical case for any position you hold.
...? You see, in normal conversation, one would say something like that IF they were in the position of standing ready to do it themselves, and thus they're exposing some perceived in weakness in the other guy's argument. But if we're just both not able to provide an unequivocal case, then what's the point of saying it?
I continue to get your point, but thanks re restating what I just said.
I know you probably won’t understand this, but when you freely admit that you prejudge any possible case that might be presented to you based on something you allegedly read decades ago, you render any attempts to do so pointless.
In reality, I just was hoping you would be able to provide clear, biblical, unequivocal support for your emphatic, imperative claim.
I guess not.
...and you failed to answer the very simple, very reasonable question.
You can not provide an unequivocal case for a single point on which we disagree. You certainly can not provide it for PSA or Inerrancy.
Do you understand that reality?
Answer or move on and your silence will say all that needs to be said.
when you freely admit that you prejudge any possible case that might be presented to you based on something you allegedly read decades ago
And, of course, reality shows that I've never "admitted" or said any such thing. You continue to need to learn to read for understanding, Craig. Or quit seeking disagreement where none exists and quit making false claims about things I have not said. I'd ask if you understand that reality and the mistake you made in your clearly false claim, but it doesn't really matter what I ask, does it?
Now, answer the question put to you or move on.
Do I understand that your reality is that an unequivocal case can’t be presented for any number of positions, yes. Do I understand that you simply making that claim doesn’t make it reality, yes. Do I understand that, once again, you’re retreating behind the “you don’t answer” barricade, while not answering multiple questions yourself, yes.
Most important, I understand that you can’t support your emphatic, imperative, claim and since you can’t support and won’t retract it all you have is to deflect.
“If I wade through...will I find a thorough, biblical...” “No”.
I guess announcing what you “will find” before and if you look for it is somehow not prejudging the outcome.
Nice try, but if you can’t back up your emphatic, imperative claim, and won’t look at arguments for things you disagree with because you already know what you’ll find, I have nothing but pity for you.
I like how you have moved the conversation away from you being able to back up your statements and claims and toward the (non specific, alleged) failure of (unidentified) others to do what you can’t or won’t.
I don’t think you understand the opportunity you have here that you are squandering. You have to opportunity to set an example and to demonstrate how you can do what others can’t. You have the opportunity to demonstrate the overall correctness and superiority of your emphatic, imperative claim by using the clear explicit teachings of scripture.
The fact that you’ve chosen not to do that, but to focus on your perception of others failures, speaks volumes. It’s really kind of sad.
I'm sorry that you don't even understand that you don't understand what you're speaking of.
Suffice to say, you don't my points, what I'm actually saying.
And you can't support your suggestions, your claims, your vague allegations.
I don't know how to help you with that. I'm going to pass on trying to help you.
One final question for you, Craig: Can you prove that you're really a real person and not a Russian bot?
Answer or not. I don't care. I just am beginning to wonder.
I’ve got you, you can’t support your claims, you can’t make a rational biblical case against those things you disagree with, and instead of even making the effort to do so you simply deflect.
What does it say when all you’ve got is “You don’t understand me”, bizarre accusations.
The problem I have is that, as Craig suggests, you, Dan, are not willing to go the distance in defending your positions...which parallels what I've said numerous times...and often run from the opportunity to do so, or deflect, obfuscate, equivocate and generally show a clear lack of conviction in any of your positions beyond your endorsement of them.
Another problem is how weak your arguments are, or worse, how they do NOT consider Scripture in its totality to arrive at your positions. Indeed, your positions damn near require that you dismiss, omit or ignore verses and passages that are in direct conflict with your positions. The most obvious example is your defense of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. But it shows also in your defense of the "no war" position. The following link brings up several New Testament verses and passages that indicate, quite clearly in fact, that the "Christ opposes war" position you hold is NOT supported by Scripture as you wish that it was:
http://www.ptm.org/02PT/MayJun/war.htm#recom
So here is another position where I can at least say what God/Jesus/Scripture absolutely does NOT say.
The point that the two of you appear to be not even understanding is that I HAVE provided the biblical case for my/our position on Christians and war. It is a long and historic position held by many Christians throughout the ages. We have sound biblical reasoning for the position and you simply can't say we don't or haven't provided it. You can disagree on the strength of the argument, but you can't say we haven't made it. Not in the real world, not if reality matters to you or is understood by you.
We have made our arguments and find them compelling. Even many non-Christians recognize this teaching as a primary essential teaching of Jesus.
In the same way, many evangelicals have made their case for PSA and Inerrancy. Even if we find your arguments for these human theories to be lacking and even counter to sound biblical teaching, we can't say that you haven't made your arguments and we can't say that you don't believe them... clearly you do.
The point being (and this is what you two don't appear to understand) is that we don't have a basis to say that your arguments for your opinions don't count or can't be held by other Christians and in the same way you can't say that we have not made our arguments or that we don't have our reasons for holding them.
You can't rationally say, after I've offered pages of biblical case reasoning for our position against war for Christians, that I'm not defending my position. And I GET that YOU HAPPEN TO THINK IN YOUR SKULL that my/our reasoning and biblical argument against war is "weak," and in the same manner, I think your rather ridiculous and awful arguments in favor of human theories like Inerrancy and PSA are "weak in the extreme, and from weak minds most of the time..." The point is that I don't get to decide for Christianity that you all are not in because I find your arguments are weak and YOU don't get to decide for Christianity that we're not in because you don't like our reasoning.
In the real world, reality matters and you don't get to make that call.
From the link I offered before about the pervasiveness in Christian tradition of the anti-War beliefs...
Consider this 1844 source from the Wesleyan Methodist Church:
“[The gospel] is in every way opposed to the practice of War in all its forms; and those customs which tend to foster and perpetuate the war spirit [are] inconsistent with the benevolent designs of the Christian Religion.”
The St. Lawrence Annual Conference of the Wesleyan Methodists even considered a resolution to “alter the denominational Discipline so that refusal to engage in war and military training would be come a condition of membership.” There are hundreds more such statements ranging from
the Brethren in Christ,
the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection,
Church of God (Fort Scott, Kansas),
Church of the Living God, Church of God (Anderson),
Church of the Nazarene,
Congregational: Broadway Tabernacle,
Emmanuel Association,
Free Methodist Church, and
the Salvation Army.
The statements are diverse, representing numbers of John Howard Yoder’s twenty-nine distinct types of pacifism as described in Nevertheless: The Varieties and Shortcomings of Religious Pacifism. Some documents denounced any law that supported warfare, such as paying war taxes or working for war-related industries. Others drew the line at actual killing. Still others contended for “personal nonresistance,” citing Romans 13 and saying that the state had the authority to prosecute war, but that they couldn’t personally participate.
Binding each of the statements together was biblicism, defined by Christian Smith as a “theory about the Bible that emphasizes together its exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability.”
The point being, in the real world, in Christian history, many Christians HAVE found the case against war participation to be compelling PRECISELY what God is saying, contrary to Marshall's claim where he presumes to speak for God to the contrary.
The point being is that you can not say authoritatively that God disagrees with these many Christians. You CAN note the reality that it is an in house disagreement. Some Christians have in good faith thought one way and other Christians in good faith thought the other way.
That is my point.
My further point is that this is true for just about every case I can think of and that no one, certainly not Marshall and those who agree with him, is in a position to speak with authority that, NO, those people are wrong.
Of course you’re absolutely right Dan, the fact that there are people who disagree with historic, Orthodox, Christian doctrines means that we can’t know anything about them to a high degree of certainty.
The fact that you can’t cite any support from any Jewish or Christian scripture that is treats homosexuality as either positive or neutral just adds to a “biblical case” for gay marriage. The fact that Jesus never once told the Roman soldiers who believed in Him to hang up the sword and “teach the poor origami”, can only mean that Jesus was against those who served in the military as well as those who served Rome.
Ultimately, and what you’ve never bothered to understand, is that all we’re asking from you is what you demand from us. You repeatedly demand “data, proof, evidence, specific language” and we’re just asking for the same from you.
Of course, announcing that you won’t even read anything based on you allegations and characterization of stuff you read decades ago doesn’t help either.
The fact that neither of us has ever claimed that we should or have any desire to “make that call”, should be relevant but it’s not. The fact that you’re the only one making imperative claims about what Christians “should” do is also a little ironic.
You repeatedly demand “data, proof, evidence, specific language” and we’re just asking for the same from you.
The difference being - and it is a critical difference - is that I am quite clear in my comments that when I speak of Pacifist Christians, or Welcoming and affirming Christians, or non-"inerrancy" Christians or non-PSA Christians, that I'm speaking of THEIR OPINIONS. We are not saying that we speak authoritatively for God.
Marshall, Glenn, et al the countless Fundamentalists (it remains to be seen if you'll choose sides... some days you seem to swing from the Fundamentalist bench, but then you make other vague comments that vaguely and non-conclusively seem to suggest that maybe you perhaps AREN'T in agreement with the Fundamentalist, "My way or to hell with you" view) DO make it clear that they speak for God. There AUTHORITATIVELY (in their minds) can NOT be Christians who disagree with Inerrancy or PSA... or who support gay folk getting married, etc.
THAT is the sticking point. IF these groups want to abandon "fundamentalism" and allow that they are offering the human opinions of many Christians of good will who sincerely think the most plausible takes on Inerrancy and PSA and against gay folk is the view that they hold... but it IS a human opinion and that they do not authoritatively speak for God on those points... they do NOT get to decide who is and isn't In or Out, then I don't mind that they hold their opinions for themselves, just as I hold my opinion for myself.
I demand PROOF and DATA when someone makes an authoritative fact claim. THIS IS ONLY RIGHT.
Do you agree with that reality? That those who make fact claims have the burden of proof and should expect people to demand hard data, and that data should be demonstrable, not subjective opinion... do you agree?
If so, then why do you keep requesting hard data from me when I'm making opinion claims that I gladly affirm are NOT authoritative? THAT is where you are appearing irrational.
I request data when you all claim "facts" that you can't prove.
You request data when I state opinions that are specifically NOT fact claims.
There is a distinct difference between "I think this is CLEARLY a teaching consistent with Jesus' teachings..." and "Jesus authoritatively DID insist upon inerrancy and the PSA..." do you recognize the distinction? Because it does not appear you do.
The fact that neither of us has ever claimed that we should or have any desire to “make that call”, should be relevant but it’s not.
Then step up right here and now and be unequivocal and clear:
1. CAN CHRISTIANS OF GOOD FAITH DISAGREE WITH THE HUMAN OPINION THAT INERRANCY IS AN ESSENTIAL TEACHING OF JESUS AND THE CHURCH?
2. CAN CHRISTIANS OF GOOD FAITH DISAGREE WITH THE HUMAN OPINION THAT PSA IS AN ESSENTIAL TEACHING OF JESUS AND THE CHURCH?
3. CAN YOU AGREE THAT INERRANCY AND PSA ARE HUMAN OPINIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS AND NOT AUTHORITATIVELY A TEACHING OF JESUS?
4. CAN YOU AGREE THAT CHRISTIANS OF GOOD FAITH CAN AND DO AGREE WITH THE NOTION THAT GOD SUPPORTS GAY FOLK GETTING MARRIED?
Step up now and make it clear that YOU are not trying to make that call for others.
And go one step further: When Marshall, et al, make claims that they ARE speaking authoritatively for God against gay folk getting married, against pacifism, in support of inerrancy or PSA, that they are clearly mistaken on that point.
The ball's in your court. Demonstrate that you understand the points being raised. Demonstrate that you are not trying to make that call for others and on behalf of God.
Be clear.
1. Your comment contained zero specific biblical references.
2. Your comment did refer to the Bible as having “exclusive authority, infallibility, perspecuity, self sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability”, that’s interesting that you’d agree to all of that.
Now, I’ve always said that pacifism was an issue for debate, not division and that it’s a non essential. So, I’m not sure why your so pissed at me. The fact is, you are the one who has phrased it as a universal imperative and don’t so emphatically. It appears that you are actually doing what you accuse us of doing.
I find it telling, that your are citing a methodology with which you vehemently disagree, as a means of supporting your point on a secondary issue (at best) about which we don’t disagree.
Your the one who claimed the emphatic, imperative about Christians and war. You need to either prove, retract, or modify your statement if you want to make the argument you’re making with intellectual consistency.
1. I’ve already addressed this earlier, if you have specific questions based on what I said, I’ll answer them.
2. I’ve already addressed this, if you have specific questions about what I said, I’ll answer them.
3. No. It’s interesting that you ask since you appear to deny the very concept of authoritative teachings of Jesus. I’ve also dealt with this earlier and will be glad to answer specific questions about what’s not clear.
4. Can they, sure. Is there an affirmative, specific, biblical case? No.
1a. Anything is possible, but it’s there’s no affirmative biblical argument to argue against it.
It’s easy for me to demonstrate, because I haven’t done so. Acknowledging and agreeing with someone in authority, isn’t an attempt to assume that authority.
Unlike your claim.
Here’s the hurdles that seemingly must be cleared for your standard of “Christian good faith belief” being the measure of acceptability.
1. We know from Jesus himself that not all who identify as followers of Jesus actually are, so simply assuming that just because someone calls themselves something is a problem.
2. There are ample examples of sincere beliefs held in good faith that were harmful.
3. Despite the good faith and sincerity of humans, not all beliefs are equally valid and not all beliefs conform to reality.
You still do not appear to even understand that you are not understanding the points being made. You do not appear to understand that you fail to give direct and clear answers, that your answers/responses to questions put to you are vague and slippery, not clear, not direct.
As to this, the one apparent direct answer you give (which is factually wrong, not correct in the real world of data)...
3. No. It’s interesting that you ask since you appear to deny the very concept of authoritative teachings of Jesus.
...you don't understand that it's NOT the concept of jesus' teachings not being authoritative. It's the concept that YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of Jesus' teachings (which, in the example given, are explicitly literally NOT A TEACHING OF JESUS AT ALL - a concept which you don't even appear to understand) that I reject as being authoritative.
In this real world, you see, I do not conflate your hunches - crazy as they are and all - to Jesus' teachings. You appear to do so.
That, in itself, is probably part of the problem... and part that you just appear to not even understand.
Good luck.
1. We know from Jesus himself that not all who identify as followers of Jesus actually are, so simply assuming that just because someone calls themselves something is a problem.
Indeed.
2. There are ample examples of sincere beliefs held in good faith that were harmful.
Indeed. I can name some here and now that fall under this category.
3. Despite the good faith and sincerity of humans, not all beliefs are equally valid and not all beliefs conform to reality.
Indeed. Again, I can name some now.
Not disagreeing with any of your "hurdles." None of which touches the point I'm making.
Which is and remains that the fundamentalists are not in a position to claim with ANY authority that THEY are the ones who are correctly identifying Jesus' "essential" teachings... ESPECIALLY on points which Jesus never even talked about (their position on marriage, PSA and Inerrancy, for instance).
Indeed, I'd say that fundamentalist theories about their beliefs about Inerrancy and PSA are not very valid, at all and do not conform to the reality of the actual teachings of Jesus.
Given your aversion to direct clear unequivocal answers, I’m not surprised that you expect more from others.
I know this might be too complex for you to grasp, but just maybe you might want to consider that your questions and the assumptions that underlyi them might be at least partially at fault.
The fact that you find my referring to my previous statement atements on the topics of your questions unacceptable is strange. I’d addressed both of those specifically and your questions demonstrate that you didn’t pay attention to those. That’s why I asked you for specific issues with what I actually said, rather that continue down your road of misunderstanding.
What’s sad, is that you insist that no one undstands you, when you clearly have little desire to understand others.
I could go on, but I’ll boil it down to the one thing you’ve not dealt with.
What gives you the standing or the authority to make pronouncements about what Christians “should NOT” do?
The problem with "arguing in good faith" is that one must assume the other is actually doing so. Also, one can be totally wrong in every way and still believe that which is wrong and thus is arguing in good faith. Thus, "arguing in good faith" only goes so far and to insist that we must set aside our own arguments or deny the strength of those arguments or concede that we "can't know" what is obvious and clear about Scripture is a waste of time because it ain't gonna happen. That is, you can choose to believe that inerrancy isn't taught in the Bible, or isn't an essential belief (though not one on which salvation depends), but that changes nothing about whether or not it is. It may be your opinion, but that isn't the issue. We all have our opinions, but as those of us who regard our "opinions" as reflective of fact and the truth, we stand ready to defend those opinions as fact and truth until someone...anyone...even you...can cobble together a compelling argument...hopefully with facts of your own...that persuades us to believe differently. Our firm conviction in that which we believe does not mean we are not open to altering our beliefs.
The fact that Scripture does not use terms such as "Biblical inerrancy", "penal substitution atonement", etc., does not mean that Scripture does not teach those things. You rely on the lack of such terms to bolster your position, but those are just names and terms used to label those teachings. It isn't a teaching invented and then injected into the text as you seem to need to believe it is.
So now we consider that "people of good faith" must have something more solid to remain "people of good faith" than simply to claim they are Christians supporting or opposing a concept or teaching. I insist that no Christian can in good faith support your position on homosexuality and SSM because there is no legitimate way to do that, and your piss-poor arguments and "serious study" hasn't produced anything in Scripture that does so. As such, the use of the expression "arguing in good faith" is a cover for supporting non-Biblical concepts and positions. It is the support of such counter-Biblical notions that indicates a complete lack of "good faith", regardless of how hard you try to insist you mean to know God's will.
War is another issue. You can believe what you like about whether or not Christians should be active participants in war and not risk your salvation. But you can't say that you have actual Biblical justification for the position without ignoring all that goes against that position, such as what my last link provided. THAT'S the problem those like Craig, Bubba, Glenn, myself and others have always had with your positions...they require ignoring legitimate Scriptural support for the contrary. "Good faith" doesn't make up for that.
Here's a final criticism as I run out of time: "Jesus never said..." This ploy requires ignoring Christ's deity, that He is God and existed from the beginning of all things. He is the physical representation of God, and in no way has ever rejected anything that God said from the beginning. If "God" said it (Lev 18:22), then "Jesus" said it as well.
Thus, "arguing in good faith" only goes so far and to insist that we must set aside our own arguments
I haven't done this.
or deny the strength of those arguments
I haven't done this.
or concede that we "can't know" what is obvious and clear about Scripture is a waste of time
You don't know. Just as a point of fact.
THAT is my point.
NOT that I don't think my arguments are way more solid than yours or vice versa. NOT that you should abandon your arguments. My point is only that, as a point of fact, you can't prove that your opinions ARE facts. You can't prove or demonstrate or authoritatively affirm that your interpretations are equal to God's Word or that ours are authoritatively wrong.
You don't objectively know that we are wrong. We don't objectively know that you are wrong.
I think, for my part, that you are CLEARLY wrong on some of your positions.
I am fine if you think, for your part, that I am CLEARLY wrong on some of my positions.
What I'm objecting to, what I've always objected to, is the stating of opinion as if it were a fact... of conflating human opinions and theories (about the weak and irrational arguments PSA, for instance, or Inerrancy or even the clear arguments for marriage equity or against war) with God's Word.
If you would merely own up to reality... that you do NOT KNOW AUTHORITATIVELY that we are mistaken or that you are correct on God's opinion on these topics, and just step back so far as, "...but I do think my interpretations and opinions are clearly stronger and yours are clearly weaker..." I'd be fine with the disagreement.
I'm objecting to the difference between "I know authoritatively and demonstrably that I'm correct," and "I feel the evidence is quite compelling that I'm correct."
Can you just own up to that much reality?
First off, I do not go beyond Scripture in suggesting I have some superior knowledge of God's will, nor do I feel a need to do so. That is, I do not say anything that suggests something such as, "In addition to what it says in Scripture, God wants 'XYZ'." But I can certainly speak authoritatively on a given subject insofar as Scripture provides for that position UNTIL an opponent provides a more compelling argument to the contrary using Scripture as well. Knowledge and understanding of Scripture gives me that authority. Better knowledge by an opponent strips authority from me. Merely asserting that I "can't say authoritatively" is worthless desperation.
I don’t much care what you say about my arguments in aupport of my position. If you can't bring Scriptural substance to bear that contradicts, then the absence of it only serves to bolster my conviction in my understanding and thus the weakness of yours.
Indeed, I KNOW my arguments are way more solid than yours BECAUSE of how easily and quickly you default to this very defense of yours. This weak sauce ploy of denying that I can ever "objectively" know something is fact employed in place of presenting countervailing Scriptural evidence has no effect because it is so meaningless. It's easy enough to prove I can't "objectively" know if such countervailing evidence actually exists.
The same is true for your rejection of these other issues. "Weak and irrational arguments"??? Because you merely say so? I don't think so, and if that were even remotely true, some attempt at providing more than such insulting assertions would seem a gracious attempt to enlighten.
So to reiterate yet again, that we disagree is a given. I won't even waste time with questions regarding "good faith". I want cold, hard data. I want questions about what you might regard as holes in my position.
I guess emphatically stating the imperative “Christians should NOT go to war”, is somehow not intended to make an authoritative statement. I also guess using a source that bases it’s entire conclusion on the authority of the Bible is not intended to be authoritative either.
Art, Dan has good arguments. They sound good and reasonable because they’re both for him and by him. They focus on what he thinks sounds fair, and reasonable to him. He’s not really worried about convincing other people because even though his statements have the appearances of being authoritative claims, they’re really just very personal opinions that only need to suit him. It’s very simplistic, easy, and safe.
The problem is, when we say “For God so loved the world...”, we’re not “speaking for God”, we’re simply acknowledging that God has spoken, and that we agree with Him.
It’s not so much claiming to speak for God, as acknowledging that God has spoken for himself.
The things to note here are that Dan hasn’t dealt with the imperative claim he made, and he hasn’t dealt with the fact that the one source he’s actually cited has a view of the authority of scripture that doesn’t line up with his. In essence he wants to make unchallenged claims about what Christians should do, and he wants to be able to use the conclusions of others while not agreeing with their foundation.
Art, you’d think it would be child’s play to quickly and definitively refute one or two of those weak, irrational arguments. I’d bet that someone who’s studied scripture for decades should be able to make short work of weak and irrational arguments.
The same is true for your rejection of these other issues. "Weak and irrational arguments"??? Because you merely say so?
No, for the reasons I've offered repeatedly over years and years, with thousands and thousands of words.
I don't find your arguments compelling. You do.
Now, can you please answer directly the question that was put to you?
I'm objecting to the difference between "I know authoritatively and demonstrably that I'm correct," and "I feel the evidence is quite compelling that I'm correct."
1. Are you saying, with your answer, that you are NOT saying that you know authoritatively and demonstrably that you are correct on PSA, Inerrancy, War and Marriage Equity?
2. That you can't prove your positions on these are equivalent to God's Word and that you COULD be mistaken?
3. That your positions on these issues ARE HUMAN opinions, not authoritatively what God wants us to think?
Can you answer these questions directly and clearly, please?
Or failing that, explain why you can't/won't answer them?
Is this freakin' deja vu, or what?
1. Aside from the fact that I might feel convicted to varying degrees on different issues (listing several makes my response a more general one), I know authoritatively and demonstrably that I am correct...until someone can prove otherwise.
2. I COULD be in a coma right now and all of this is a dream, so what "could" be is speculative and irrelevant. In the meantime, I've proven my positions are sound and correct understandings of Scripture, thereby being equivalent to God's word to the extent that Scripture IS God's word according to authors of and/or figures in Scripture. I agree with Christian consensus and tradition throughout all of history up until the last 150 years or so that Scripture is the Word of God.
3. They can be both depending upon what the human opinion is.
To further clarify, I'm open to any argument that might alter, bolster or disprove my position. Until that happens, I see no reason to pretend my position can't be 100% correct just because you might not agree. I'm far less inclined to pretend absent a compelling counter argument.
And I still wonder just how wrong a "sincere" Christian can be before he no longer is worshiping the One True God and thus is not saved.
Thanks for the answers. They are pretty direct.
Unfortunately, the are nonsensical.
So, according to your reasoning, the person who opposes Inerrancy and PSA are authoritatively and demonstrably correct... unless someone can "prove" otherwise. AND the person who believes the opposite is ALSO authoritatively and demonstrably correct... until someone can "prove" otherwise.
They BOTH can't be authoritatively and demonstrably correct, Marshall. It's rational nonsense.
Do you see that problem?
Also, "prove" otherwise? What does that look like? I used to believe as you do on Inerrancy, PSA and marriage equity and I was CONVINCED otherwise by better arguments that I found more rational and more biblical and more Godly. Does that mean it was "proven" to me? Or just that I personally found the arguments more compelling?
We can't prove something that is unprovable. We can't prove that the conservatives or the progressives have the better understanding of biblical interpretations and what God wants us to think on these questions. How can we authoritatively, objectively "prove" it?
Until that happens, I see no reason to pretend my position can't be 100% correct just because you might not agree.
Because YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT IT IS 100% correct. It is YOUR OPINION, not a fact. THAT is what I'm objecting to.
You can reasonably be CONVINCED of something or find the argument extremely COMPELLING for something that can't be proven, but you can't objectively, authoritatively "know" that you are "100% correct..." It's an opinion, not a fact.
That's just how words and reason work. And that certainty based on feelings and opinions - NOT FACTS - Craig, Marshall, THAT is what people find silly and offensive about conservative expressions of certainty like Marshall here is putting forth.
What you CAN say is that you are convinced and hold strongly to these opinions as the ones you find most compelling. What you can NOT do is say that you are "100% correct" because you believe it.
Not that your in answering questions mode, but are you really suggesting that “marriage equity”, the inerrancy of scripture, and the atonement are all equally essential?
First Dan presumed to tell others what we “should NOT” do, now he’s telling us what we “CAN say”. Not that he’s established any authority to do so, just because.
It sure sounds like he thinks he’s right.
No, I'm not saying that they are equally essential. I'm saying that, clearly to many, inerrancy and PSA are NOT essential teachings of Jesus at all. While many others DO hold that opinion. And that neither group can authoritatively prove their opinions.
Understand?
And YES, Good God in Heaven, YES, of course I think I'm right! Are you really just unable to understand? Seriously, what is the difficulty Here?
If I had to guess, I'd say conservative fear of admitting reality - that they do not authoritatively know their opinions as facts - has caused some fundamental understanding problems for them.
Dan
If you’re not saying they’re equally essential, why the constant attempts to link them.
Just to be clear, I’ve not said that PSA is essential, I’ve said that the atonement is essential.
No, I completely understand that you think you’re right. What baffles me is that you think that you have the authority to tell all “Christians” what they “should NOT” do and what we “CAN say”.
I guess those are just more of the contradictions we have to just accept.
The link is that these are all ideas that some people find in the Bible that they think are clear... that they are clearly talked about... Or that the ideas behind them are clearly taught.
Marshall and you think in your opinions that inerrancy and PSA are clearly taught. I totally disagree. People like me and my church think that pacifism and marriage equity or clearly hot.
THAT is what links them.
Do you understand that Craig?
Dan
I do, but to compare the scriptural case for inerrancy (one which your only cited source embraces) or of the concept of the atonement is sketchy to say the least. I mean there are holocaust deniers and flat earthers out there as well.
At one point indulgences were a thing also. Just because you and a few other folks hold an opinion doesn’t give it credibility.
"They BOTH can't be authoritatively and demonstrably correct, Marshall."
This is true, and I never said otherwise. You simply choose to pretend that's the implication of my comments. But my comments were in direct response to your question about "people like me" and how we come to believe we're not mistaken. I have no problem with those who are wrong believing they are right. My problem is with your unwillingness to fully defend yourselves as well as your unwillingness and inability to prove I'm wrong while insisting I musn't presume I'm right.
"I used to believe as you do on Inerrancy, PSA and marriage equity and I was CONVINCED otherwise by better arguments that I found more rational and more biblical and more Godly."
And yet you have failed to provide those convincing arguments, preferring instead to leave us with that which does not rise to that level. This has been proven by the fact that each attempt has been met with critiques for which you fail to provide any compelling response. It continues to this day.
"Does that mean it was "proven" to me? Or just that I personally found the arguments more compelling?"
I can't honestly, objectively and truthfully answer these questions without you taking it as a personal attack.
"We can't prove something that is unprovable."
The issue is more about what is regarded by you as that which cannot be proven. You regard everything as beyond proof if you find those things inconvenient to your ideology, and ignore that which does prove.
"Because YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT IT IS 100% correct. It is YOUR OPINION, not a fact. THAT is what I'm objecting to."
There you go defaulting to the "opinion" trope again. "Opinion" doesn't equate to "not a fact".
"That's just how words and reason work."
Prove it. That's just your opinion. What's more, it's a bad one given that it requires you include that which is factual as only opinion if it is personally uncomfortable. Can I prove Jesus died on a Roman cross? I wasn't there. No one I know was there. I have to rely on what historians say. But I say without hesitation that it is a fact. If you want to dispute it, it puts your claim to be a devout Christian in jeopardy.
"What you can NOT do is say that you are "100% correct" because you believe it."
But of course, I'm not doing this at all. I believe what all available evidence supports, just as I believe fire burns. It is my opinion that fire burns, but it is also a fact. This is how words and reason works.
Art, of course they both can’t be true, but you are proposing that there is a measure that would point to which is True. You’re arguing that the concept that has the most in common with scripture is the one more likely to be true. Dan, is suggesting that (fallible, fallen) human reason is the standard.
So much of what you've said is so wrong... wrong about my opinions, wrong about my intent, wrong about what about the point being made... that it becomes difficult to re-clarify the missed point that I had to re-explain and clear up what you failed to understand or got wrong... repeat, repeat, repeat... that it's difficult to know where to begin, but let me begin with this...
My problem is with your unwillingness to fully defend yourselves
Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "fully defend yourselves..."?
After all, I've written repeated and cited here my defense of Christian peacemaking and marriage equity (thousands of words over years and years) and at least to some degree, my disagreement with PSA and Inerrancy... and yet it appears that it doesn't meet YOUR definition of "fully defending" my positions.
I've explained pretty precisely how I moved from Here to There in my positions, or why I hold my positions. When I've done that, I've given you THE REASONS that I hold those positions. Those ARE the actual reasons I hold those positions. In the real world.
And yet, that isn't enough. What does it take to constitute "fully defending" my positions? You go on to say...
yet you have failed to provide those convincing arguments, preferring instead to leave us with that which does not rise to that level. This has been proven by the fact that each attempt has been met with critiques for which you fail to provide any compelling response
So, what you APPEAR to be saying is that I have not offered evidence that seems reasonable TO YOU. And, TO YOU, there are not "compelling responses" to critiques you think you've offered.
The problem is that LIKEWISE, for you and your positions, you have failed to offer to me compelling responses to the holes in your arguments.
I have failed to convince you. You have failed to convince me.
What is the difference?
That you think I have holes left in my arguments? But I think YOU have holes left in your arguments, so what?
If we both think the other has holes in their arguments that remain unaddressed and that, at least in my opinions of your arguments, they are HUGE holes, gaps in reason and biblical support... then who gets to say "THAT answer is authoritatively lacking and thus, is objectively wrong?"
Does anyone have that authority to make that call on behalf of God and the Church?
I say, clearly, factually, in the real world, Hell No. No one DOES have that authority.
So, the questions to you are:
1. What constitutes a "compelling response..."?
2. Who says you get to determine what is and isn't a compelling response for everyone else?
3. Or do you recognize that it is only your opinion, and not an authoritative declaration on behalf of the Church, the Bible and/or God?
Craig...
You’re arguing that the concept that has the most in common with scripture is the one more likely to be true. Dan, is suggesting that (fallible, fallen) human reason is the standard.
No, I'm noting the REALITY, the fact that Marshall holds HIS OPINIONS of interpretations that he reached using HIS REASON (what else do you think he's using, if not his reasoning?) and that I do the same thing.
I'm noting this as an observable fact and noting that we're in the same position, in that regards.
And I'm further noting that Marshall is arguing the concept that HE THINKS in HIS OPINION has "the most in common with Scripture" is more likely to be true, but that is relying upon HIS INTERPRETATIONS of scripture. Also, it's begging the question of "says who?"
Who says that "scripture" is what decides these questions? Scripture? It does no such thing, not as a point of fact in the real world. And if one fails to recognize that one is using their reasoning and NOT scripture alone (which is, in fact, what you all are doing), then one is, in a very real sense, conflating their opinions with Scripture. A point which you all continue to fail to even understand you're doing, it appears.
1. What constitutes a "compelling response..."?
For starters, one that is founded in explicit, clear scripture.
2. Who says you get to determine what is and isn't a compelling response for everyone else?
No one. You can tell because we've never actually said anything like that.
3. Or do you recognize that it is only your opinion, and not an authoritative declaration on behalf of the Church, the Bible and/or God?
I realize the difference between me stating my opinion and me simply agreeing with scripture. I do have to wonder why you feel free to make authoritative declarations and imperative claims about what all "Christians should NOT" do.
I can't be totally sure, given how convoluted that last comment is, but it seems like you are agreeing with me that you believe that the "REALITY" is that "REASON" is the final arbiter.
"Who says that "scripture" is what decides these questions?"
Well, there's Jesus. He regularly responded to all sorts of things by quoting scripture.
As for the rest, it's clear that nothing short of divine revelation is going to help you understand the difference between the REALITY of what we are saying and your preconceptions of what you want us to be saying, are so far apart as to render explanation hopeless.
I'm low on time right now, but....
"Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "fully defend yourselves..."?"
First of all, it shouldn't have been plural. It should be "yourself". What it means is that when a point or "piece of evidence" is critiqued, you rarely go any further than to insist that we're free to believe what we like, as if that isn't a given. If you say, "I believe XYZ", and I respond, "But Scripture says "HIJ", you aren't fully defending "XYZ" by telling me, "That's you hunch". Actual conversations have rarely gone further than the extent of this example. You quickly default to the "your opinion" dodge. If we're both seeking truth, that's no way to get to it. Rather, it suggests you nowhere near it...at least not compared to me if I'm standing behind an opposing position.
"I've explained pretty precisely how I moved from Here to There in my positions, or why I hold my positions. When I've done that, I've given you THE REASONS that I hold those positions. Those ARE the actual reasons I hold those positions."
As suggested above, those reasons only compel more questions that are left unanswered or answered with the default responses. Again, such suggests that you prefer the truth was different than what it is, not that you've arrived at something that is a sincere attempt to know what the truth is. IF you're so sure, or sure to any degree at all, why bail so quickly in the face of scrutiny? Shouldn't truth, even "your" truth, stand more firmly against scrutiny?
Conversely, you've never put much effort in explaining why "our" truth (what we recognize as THE truth) isn't truth after all. Thus, the following isn't a true representation of reality:
"The problem is that LIKEWISE, for you and your positions, you have failed to offer to me compelling responses to the holes in your arguments."
You don't do a thing to explain where the holes are or why they're holes at all.
"then who gets to say, "THAT answer is authoritatively lacking and thus, is objectively wrong?""
Those, like me, who depend on an actual authoritative source for such things...Scripture. And no, you've NEVER shown why my position is not supported by Scripture OR lacking in reason. You DO, however, spend an inordinate amount of time merely asserting such.
more...
"So, the questions to you are:
1. What constitutes a "compelling response..."?"
One that gives pause...makes me stop and reconsider my position...one that leaves me unable to respond in kind with evidence from Scripture. Those are just a few ways I determine a response by you was compelling. Don't recall EVER encountering any response that rises to that level...never a one that didn't merely result in more questions that result in your default responses indicated above.
"2. Who says you get to determine what is and isn't a compelling response for everyone else?"
Don't believe I've ever made such a judgement. I only know that it isn't compelling to me and always explain why. That means you haven't provided a compelling response even if you satisfy yourself that it was. Those who offer the response don't get to label it compelling. Only those to whom the response was given get to and then you must supply more to convince that it is compelling.
"3. Or do you recognize that it is only your opinion, and not an authoritative declaration on behalf of the Church, the Bible and/or God?"
I recognize that this is exactly the default response I reject as cowardly and a sign of surrender to a more legitimate position, without actually raising the white flag. In other words, it proves the weakness of your position, but you won't admit it because you prefer the position over truth and reality.
One that gives pause...makes me stop and reconsider my position...one that leaves me unable to respond in kind with evidence from Scripture. Those are just a few ways I determine a response by you was compelling. Don't recall EVER encountering any response that rises to that level.
Okay, so you have never offered me anything that gives me pause or makes me reconsider my position.
So it would seem that by YOUR measure, your opinions are objectively wrong.
Is that what you're saying?
Those who offer the response don't get to label it compelling.
So then, by your measure, YOUR arguments are not compelling.
Is that what you're saying?
I repeat, Marshall:
Or do you recognize that it is only your opinion, and not an authoritative declaration on behalf of the Church, the Bible and/or God?"
Do your recognize that your opinion IS an opinion, NOT a fact, on these unprovable claims you're making?
It is a reasonable question.
It is reasonable because you sound, at least at times, as if you don't understand the difference between opinion and fact and on these unprovable questions, there IS a difference. A HUGE difference.
Answer this question clearly and directly. You don't have to like the question, but if you want to demonstrate that you're not delusional, you DO have to answer it.
You don't do a thing to explain where the holes are or why they're holes at all.
Of course I have, over the years. I almost always have explained why a particular human opinion that I disagree with is a problem.
Briefly, I can do it again, perhaps remind you of the larger arguments I've offered ad nauseum before:
Inerrancy: The Bible doesn't teach it. It's not necessary. It is ambiguous. Reading any text RELIES UPON human interpretation and human interpretation is prone to being errant. YES, the Bible contains words that tell a story about God commanding the enslavement of people, or the forced marriage of teenaged girls... but what does that MEAN?
Human opinions are required to interpret the MEANING.
Does it mean God is okay with slavery and forced marriages? God forbid! Does it meant that SOMETIMES in history, God was okay with it, but that times have changed and what was okay and acceptable then is not acceptable now? Maybe, but perhaps troubling... at least for those who advocate that morality does not change. Does it mean that this was the understanding of the people telling the story, but it doesn't necessarily mean that God is or was okay with it? Maybe...
The point being that inerrancy is not only unbiblical (the Bible NEVER TAUGHT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT "The Bible."), but given that you can't divorce reading the Bible apart from interpreting the meaning then it is wrong headed to think that "the Bible" is inerrant when you're talking about human interpretations.
Also, there is the problem of treating the Bible as an idol.
GOD is inerrant (if you believe in a perfect God) and, by extension, God's literal Word (and by this, we mean, what God Wants, what God WILLS) would be inerrant, but the Bible itself is a collecting of stories and teachings and these all require interpretation.
What does it mean to say, "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth... and on the first day... and on the second day..." is "inerrant..."? Does it mean that God created the world in six literal days and that THAT is God's Word and perfectly without error? Or does it mean that there is a creator God who created/started the creation process and that this creation of God's was and is Good and THAT is without error? It's all about interpretation and you just can't get away from that.
Treating the bible as "inerrant" is treating it as a little paper god (or, at times, a little magic 8 ball rule book) and just isn't consistently rational.
THAT is the problem that i've expressed over the years with "inerrancy," so you can't say that I've not done a thing to point out the holes. I've said this endlessly over our conversations.
I can do the same thing for PSA, surely you recognize that I HAVE put forth the holes we find in these human opinions over the years, right?
Which gets us back to the question put to you: Do you RECOGNIZE that these theories are human opinions, not facts?
Those, like me, who depend on an actual authoritative source for such things...Scripture. And no, you've NEVER shown why my position is not supported by Scripture OR lacking in reason.
WHO SAYS that "Scripture" (and more specifically, YOUR HUMAN INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE) is the "actual authoritative source for such things"?
And, as I just showed you, I HAVE explained why I find holes in your argument IN THE BIBLE and in reason. That you don't find my arguments compelling isn't to say that I/we haven't offered them.
If you say, "I believe XYZ", and I respond, "But Scripture says "HIJ", you aren't fully defending "XYZ" by telling me, "That's you hunch".
And THIS would be an example of treating the Bible like a magic rule book (or as "sola scriptura," a non-biblical human theory). WHO SAYS that just because Scripture says, for instance, that "God commanded Israel to destroy every living thing in X-landia, even the cows, oxen and infants... but spare the virgin girls so that you can take them home and make them your wives..." WHO SAYS that this is an authoritative source for supporting slavery or forced marriages as a possible option at some points?
You are skipping a step or two: NOT EVERYONE agrees with your treatment of the Bible. So, you can't say to, for instance, Joe Scientist, "give me biblical support for your opinion about the age of the earth..." because he'll laugh at you and say, "Why? The Bible is not a valid science book..."
NOT EVERY OPINION needs to be based upon first accepting YOUR opinion about the Bible and what it does and doesn't say.
Do you understand that not every argument NEEDS a biblical starting point? In fact, many do not. In fact, the only arguments that NEED a biblical starting point might be those that begin, "What does the Bible say about...?" THEN, yes, we can start with what the Bible says (but we can't/shouldn't stop there).
Do you understand this reality?
Craig...
1. What constitutes a "compelling response..."?
For starters, one that is founded in explicit, clear scripture.
See my last response to Marshall. You all make extra and anti-biblical presumptions and then try to force them on others who don't agree with your presumptions. In order to argue a point, you have to begin with common ground and not everyone accepts your magic 8 ball bible approach.
2. Who says you get to determine what is and isn't a compelling response for everyone else?
No one.
Marshall did. Others have.
For instance, Marshall just said a few comments ago...
" Until that happens, I see no reason to pretend my position can't be 100% correct just because you might not agree."
IF his position were 100% correct about these human theories he holds, THEN all others are wrong. He can't be 100% correct unless he first insists that everyone else is 100% wrong.
Or remember Marshall and Glenn and others have said that THEY CAN NOT BE MISTAKEN on marriage equity question. That is an insistence that all others are wrong.
Or see, in this comment from Marshall...
I believe what all available evidence supports, just as I believe fire burns. It is my opinion that fire burns, but it is also a fact.
Fire burns IS A FACT.
God opposes gay marriage IS AN OPINION about an unproven and unprovable theory.
They are not the same.
What Marshal, et al CAN say is that they are convinced of the arguments for their positions about marriage equity, peace and war, PSA, Inerrancy... that they find the arguments compelling. What they CAN'T say is that they are 100% right about "facts" that are not established facts, but human opinions about an unproven human theory.
See the difference?
Are you both willing to admit that reality?
...That one CAN'T say "I know it as a fact" about ideas like these human theories that are NOT PROVEN?
...that one can't say, "I can't be mistaken" about ideas like these human theories that are not proven?
Do you agree the "right" position on these issues are NOT PROVEN?
1. On what planet is it extra biblical to ask that answers to questions of theology be grounded in scripture?
2. Re read Art’s actual words, he didn’t say what you think he said.
I agree that you haven’t come close to “proving” your case using scripture, I also agree that given your flexibility in what you accept as proof means that you’ll never accept anything as proven.
Fortunately for us all, you aren’t the arbiter of reality, despite your frequent claims otherwise.
You can’t prove your claim about what “Christians should NOT do”, nor do agree with the philosophy underpinning the one bit of support for your hunch you offered. You can’t provide one single specific biblical mention of homosexuality that is either neutral or positive (even if you expanded your search beyond the Protestant canon).
That is the reality.
"Okay, so you have never offered me anything that gives me pause or makes me reconsider my position."
Get serious. Saying "I don't buy it" isn't an indication of legitimate consideration of an opposing view if it isn't followed up with some detailed explanation of why you don't buy it. You're trying to suggest that we're identical in how we both explain our respective positions as well as how we critique an opponent's. That's not even within light years of reality.
"'Those who offer the response don't get to label it compelling.'
So then, by your measure, YOUR arguments are not compelling."
Again, merely saying, "that's not compelling" isn't what I'm saying at all. For you it's a dodge to avoid confronting the argument you find inconvenient.
Or do you recognize that it is only your opinion, and not an authoritative declaration on behalf of the Church, the Bible and/or God?"
IF you can prove the opinion I hold on a given topic or issue is NOT an accurate representation of the position held by the Church, the Bible and/or God, I'd not only recognize it, I'd withdraw the opinion entirely. The mere assertion that because YOU want to regard it as mere opinion is worthless as an argument. Why would I or should I knuckle under to such weak and petulant demands?
Out of time.
Art, great point. Simply announcing “I don’t find your argument compelling” means nothing. It doesn’t speak to the truth or falsehood of anything. It doesn’t actually refute anything. It doesn’t account for the preconceived notions or biases of the respondent.
It’s really the perfect position. The “I don’t have to prove my position and I don’t have to disprove your position.”
1. On what planet is it extra biblical to ask that answers to questions of theology be grounded in scripture?
Earth. Where does the Bible say that information about matters of morality and thoughts on God and God's opinion are limited to "scripture..."?
Answer? It doesn't.
Do you recognize that reality?
Simply announcing “I don’t find your argument compelling” means nothing. It doesn’t speak to the truth or falsehood of anything.
Who has done this?
I've not "simply announced" I don't find his arguments compelling. I've offered the reasons I don't find them compelling.
Do you understand that reality?
F you can prove the opinion I hold on a given topic or issue is NOT an accurate representation of the position held by the Church, the Bible and/or God, I'd not only recognize it
Prove something that is unprovable? We can't prove GOD's opinion on these questions. We can't.
We can't prove "the Bible's" opinion on these questions, that's just silly. The Bible doesn't have an opinion.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?
I will gladly agree that your human opinions agreeing with the human opinions of traditional church are the same, that's not in question.
YOUR OPINIONS on these topics ARE YOUR OPINIONS, not provable facts.
Do you recognize that reality?
Yes, it’s clearly wrong to ground theological inquiries in scripture.
Really, where have you offered specific rebuttals to specific arguments. All I’ve seen is “I don’t find it compelling”, and ad him attacks.
And Dan gets to decide what reality is.
I repeat:
I've not "simply announced" I don't find his arguments compelling.
I've offered the reasons I don't find them compelling.
Thus, if in reality, I have noted that the Bible does not specifically teach "inerrancy of the bible," then until someone begins by recognizing that reality and finding some way to address that problem, that remains a hole in the argument for Inerrancy.. ESPECIALLY for those who cling to the human opinions about sola scriptura!
And since I have further noted that since all reading is dependent upon human interpretation, then the notion of "inerrancy" is fundamentally flawed because of the problems interpretations raise. Sure, Genesis 1 might be "inerrant," but which INTERPRETATION of Genesis 1 is "inerrant..."? The mythic take on it? The literal, scientific take on it? Some of the options in between?
What does it mean for Genesis 1 to be without error?
Until someone addresses this fundamental hole in the Inerrancy argument (for instance), then that REMAINS a hole and a problem to accept that human theory.
Do you understand that reality?
Do you also understand the reality that Inerrancy IS a human theory?
Until you all address these questions and holes, then I'm left with very literally NO COMPELLING REASONS to accept the human theory of Inerrancy and it is for COMPELLING REASONS, not merely saying "i don't find it compelling..."
Do you understand that reality?
Yes, you’ve offered your personal ad him attacks on the unidentafied authors of the alleged things you’ve allegedly read decades ago. That’s just bias.
As long as you won’t explain where your authority to dictate what all “Christians should NOT” do, and how you square your anti inerrancy stand with your provided “source” relying on inerrancy (and several other doctrines you deny), I see no reason to comply with any more of your demands.
? What are you even talking about? What authors? I have not cited any authors here, today.
Instead, I'm looking at what I see to be holes in the human theory. I'm pointing out those holes as why I can't accept that human theory. I'm asking the very reasonable question:
DO YOU EVEN RECOGNIZE THESE ARE HUMAN THEORIES?
And still, until you address the holes, I have no compelling reasons to accept this human theory.
Do you understand that reality?
Also would you please quit with the idiotic "your authority to dictate what all “Christians should NOT” do" line of attack. You have misread what I wrote, and thus are asking a silly question that is not based on what I wrote, but based upon a wrong interpretation of what I wrote. Same for your other point about my "source" relying upon inerrancy.
And if you can't read and understand my words written today in your same culture and language, on what basis do you have any faith in your ability to understand the Bible?
So, my questions remain. Answer them or not, but NOT answering them points to an inability on your part to address holes in your reasoning and perhaps, to even understand reality, at least on these points.
Any responses that begin without answering these questions will be ignored and perhaps deleted.
What does it mean for Genesis 1 to be without error?
Until someone addresses this fundamental hole in the Inerrancy argument (for instance), then that REMAINS a hole and a problem to accept that human theory.
Do you understand that reality?
Do you also understand the reality that Inerrancy IS a human theory?
Until you all address these questions and holes, then I'm left with very literally NO COMPELLING REASONS to accept the human theory of Inerrancy and it is for COMPELLING REASONS, not merely saying "i don't find it compelling..."
Do you understand that reality?
Not engaging in conversation, answering questions respectfully in a give and take dialog, and instead, relying upon attacks and silly nonsense is trolling and spam, and spam gets deleted.
Answer the questions or move on, and your non-answers will be answer enough.
And, because you two have a history of not understanding what I have written that I think was very clear, let me be more precise in the open questions to you:
1. Do you recognize that God has not told anyone, "I endorse something pretty close to the PS human theory of Atonement?"
2. Do you recognize that God has not told anyone, "I endorse ANY theory of Atonement, and if you believe in me, you MUST affirm the notion of Atonement or otherwise, you are not a God follower..."?
3. Which is to say, do you recognize the reality that Atonement theories ARE human theories, not something authoritatively, definitively, objectively without question from "God..."?
3. Do you recognize that Inerrancy is NOT anything that authoritatively, definitively, objectively without question from God, but that it is a human theory that is an attempt to look at some passages in the Bible and offer a theory to help us understand it?
Those are some basis reality-based starting places that people need to recognize to demonstrate that they are operating from a position of reality, not delusion.
This is important because if one can't distinguish human opinion theories and facts, then how can they be expected to reliably make sense in their arguments they may offer later?
If the ground they build upon is quicksand, what hope is there for their house of reason?
Just for starters, I'll do this.
1. Please demonstrate conclusively that God hasn't "told anyone" anything about The Atonement?
2. Please demonstrate that your "question" is based in reality.
3. I realize that the term "Atonement" and the various theories are attempts to come up with a shorthand term (as is common in Christian doctrine) that allows people to communicate scriptural precepts without having to repeat multiple verses every time it is discussed.
3. I understand that the doctrine of inerrancy is shorthand term that encompasses multiple scriptural references.
For example, if you had any scriptural references that explicitly and positively (or were neutral) referring to homosexuality, you would most likely come up with a single term that was shorthand for those scriptural references.
You continually cite "Weak and irrational arguments" as your reason why things aren't compelling. Yet, no where have you actually cited the specific arguments you find "weak and irrational". Nowhere have you identified the specific persons who made these "weak and irrational" arguments. Nowhere have you demonstrated what are the specific holes that these "weak and irrational" arguments represent. All the while, you expect us to somehow defend these arguments or deal with the "holes", without knowing what they are.
"Christians should NOT go to war...”.
Please explain how this means anything except, Christians should NOT go to war?
"Binding each of the statements together was biblicism, defined by Christian Smith as a “theory about the Bible that emphasizes together its exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability.”"
Please explain how the very source YOU cited (I'm ignoring the fact that it doesn't actually agree with your radical total pacifism position for now)means something other than what the simple, plain, direct, common understanding of the words used?
Or, please explain how you can cite a source that bases it's conclusions on the "exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability.”, while you then specifically argue against virtually the whole list. It's almost like you're source is appealing to a "magic rule book" or something.
You didn't answer, Craig. So, most of your non-answer comments are gone. I'll leave this one to point out what should be obvious:
1. You appear to be making a rather astounding claim (it's hard to tell with you because you so rarely give straightforward answers, preferring to go with the vague and unsupported casual sort of assertions) that God is telling people about Atonements.
Understand: You think there IS a god and that God is out there passing out information to people about the notion of Atonement.
YOU are making the astounding claim, then. It is incumbent upon the person making an outlandish and unproven claim to support that claim, NOT the critic for noting the obvious and observable.
As a point of fact in the real world, observable to all rational adults, God is not speaking to people audibly. God is not handing notes down to people. If YOU want to claim some special knowledge from God, YOU support it.
If I were to claim that the martians were here on earth and that they were unicorn people who could fart cheese, I could NOT rationally say to the skeptic: Prove they AREN'T here!
Same for your non-answer response to 2.
As to 3 (and 4, sorry for my typo), you ALMOST answered it, but then passed and went for vague non-responses.
So, I'll repeat and clarify:
3. Do you recognize that Inerrancy is NOT anything that authoritatively, definitively, objectively without question from God, but that it is a human theory that is an attempt to look at some passages in the Bible and offer a theory to help us understand it? And that while it is an attempt to aggregate several passages (very few, actually) in the Bible to offer a theory about the nature of the Bible, IT REMAINS A HUMAN THEORY? That it was HUMANS who pulled these few verses together and formulated a human opinion about what they mean about "the Bible..."?
I'll leave that second comment, too, just to address what should be obvious:
You continually cite "Weak and irrational arguments" as your reason why things aren't compelling.
If you can't address the holes that I've pointed to in these HUMAN THEORIES, then those are weak spots in that theory, so far as I'm concerned. I'm addressing the absence of dealing with these holes I've pointed to as "weak and irrational..." at least for now. I'm sure I've dealt with other weak and irrational arguments specifically from you, but here, I'm speaking of the holes in the argument and the lack of strong and rational responses to THEM.
And to address what should be obvious...
What I ACTUALLY SAID (where you lifted a line out of context to make it mean THE OPPOSITE of my intent) was...
"So, if I say,
"This is what Scripture says... Christians should NOT go to war..., and they should live simply, thus saith Scriptures!"
you're okay with that?"
Can you see how the quote you offer is in QUOTATION marks? Do you see the QUESTION MARK at the end? That indicates it's a question, not a claim. Specifically, it's a question that contains a claim, but the point of the sentence was THE QUESTION, not the claim.
The point I was making, pretty rationally, pretty consistently is JUST WHAT I HAD SAID:
GOD has not told you this,
these are HUMAN OPINIONS,
interpretations of passages in the Bible that LEAD SOME to reach these conclusions.
The point I have been making is whether it's something that's obvious (to the anabaptist and many christians throughout the centuries, and non-christians, too) like pacifism or simple living...
OR it's something obvious to many evangelicals throughout the centuries, like Inerrancy or PS Atonement...
FOR BOTH GROUPS, they can't say that they speak authoritatively for God. "Obvious to me and us" is not the same as Objectively factual and 100% certainly known.
The point of your oft-lifted quote then is NOT that I'm saying that Christians authoritatively should NOT go to war... it's that the Anabaptists and others can't say they speak authoritatively for God on that point, JUST AS you can't say you speak authoritatively for God on your points.
Now, answer the questions put to you, please, or move on. I will not go on and on trying to make sense to you what I've already clarified (no doubt) dozens or hundreds of times.
"What are you even talking about? What authors? I have not cited any authors here, today."
You've consistently and repeatedly referred to "weak and irrational" arguments you've read. I can only presume that those arguments came from actual human beings. In a general sense, one could refer to those who promulgated these "weak and irrational" arguments as the "authors".
"And still, until you address the holes, I have no compelling reasons to accept this human theory."
Without knowing what these "holes" are, it's difficult to address them. Given the number of your objections that seem rooted in a poor or incomplete understanding of the doctrine, I provided you some links that might help you understand.
Do you understand that reality?
Yes, I understand the reality that you are not forced to believe anything that doesn't meet your standard of "compelling". I also understand that your standard of "compelling" has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of any proposition, and that it's entirely likely that you've found things that are actually true to not be
"compelling" while also finding the opposite.
"Also would you please quit with the idiotic "your authority to dictate what all “Christians should NOT” do" line of attack. You have misread what I wrote, and thus are asking a silly question that is not based on what I wrote, but based upon a wrong interpretation of what I wrote. Same for your other point about my "source" relying upon inerrancy."
I think the problem in inconvenience, not idiocy. I've re posted the actual quotes in question. If you can demonstrate that the actual quotes don;t mean what they say, I'll gladly accede. Until you can do that, I'll stick with the clear, plain Ehglish reading of the quotes.
Regarding your questions in bold, I copied them and will answer them when I have more time. Hopefully, you can hold of on making further inferences or deleting until then.
As to the (mis) numbered questions, I've made some clarifying comments/clarifying questions that will allow me to better deal with them.
And while I've deleted it, Craig, you posted a link to "answers in genesis," as if they were a credible source.
Please, bitch.
As it appears you are at least in the ball park of trying to deal with the questions put to you, I'll let that last comment stand. I'll deal with just one point, to make it clear to you...
Without knowing what these "holes" are, it's difficult to address them.
HOLE 1: These are HUMAN THEORIES, not "words from God." Not "a clear and authoritative rule/ruling from God." If you don't recognize that reality, then you are not beginning from a place of reality, so any further arguments are rather pointless, as how can one reason with a delusional person?
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THESE (just inerrancy and PSA, for now) ARE HUMAN THEORIES?
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THESE ARE NOT AUTHORITATIVE TEACHINGS FROM GOD THAT ARE OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL?
Okay, I'll deal with one other, as it's related:
I said: Do you understand that reality?
You responded: Yes, I understand the reality that you are not forced to believe anything that doesn't meet your standard of "compelling".
NOT what I asked. I asked you, I'm ASKING you if you understand that Inerrancy is NOT an authoritative teaching objectively, clearly, demonstrably and inarguably from God? That it IS a human theory?
Please answer the question asked, and not some other question. I want to know if you are delusional on these points or not.
While waiting for your responses to the questions in bold, I'll deal with the problem of Geisler's reasoning on Inerrancy (from a source you cited)...
Geisler (and many others) reason thusly:
I. God Cannot Err
II. The Bible is the Word of God
III.The Logical Conclusion: The Bible Cannot Err
Holes:
I. Geisler, et al, have not proven "God." Not "God" as Geisler understands God or God, at all.
i. Geisler, et al, have not proven that God does not err.
I. Geisler has not demonstrated that God might not, for instance, change God's mind, or "repent" (as the Bible cites God as doing) or, as already noted, that God even exists. Any God, much less God-as-Geisler-imagines-God.
[note: I'm not saying that Geisler is wrong on these points, IN MY HUMAN OPINION. Instead, I'm pointing out that these are HUMAN OPINIONS, not demonstrable facts.
II. Geisler has made this claim with no proof.
II. Geisler has not defined what he means by this. "THE ONE WORD of God... and there is NO OTHER AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE..."? "One of the ways that God communicates/has communicated to people...?" it's a loaded term and would need to be broken down more.
II. And, beyond which, Geisler has not proven anything, it's just a claim.
III. Whoa, whoa, whoa! That's a leap in logic.
III. IF this "God" were a God that communicated in woodenly literal stories and lessons, where each word always means exactly what it says, in whatever translation, culture, language and context... then that might be one thing, but then, Geisler would have to demonstrate that, PROVE it. He hasn't and can't.
III. But what if this were a trickster god? Or a god that inspired people to write in metaphors and imagery, myth and parable? Then what does it mean to say "the Bible cannot err..."? "Then the Bible is just a collection of Inspired stories and lessons and otherwise that requires interpretation and "the Bible," then, is just a collection of words, and it incumbent upon the human reader to err or not err. Thus, this is a meaningless assertion.
...for starters. THESE are more of the holes I have spoken of in all our years of communicating. Now, you can offer your human explanations of how you dig out of these holes and we could talk about it, but one of the points I'm making here is, "That's fine, but it REMAINS a human theory, a human explanation trying to make sense of an infinite God (which we have not proven...)
I'm not really wanting to get into a long debate on inerrancy or these other points. I'm not talking about the points. I'm talking about the human thinking that leads to these points and trying to understand if you recognize that it IS human reasoning, not an authoritative word from God that can not be mistaken.
Thus, the questions in bold.
OK, you win. You’re right! The big hole in the argument for inerrancy is the fact that it can’t be proven that God exists.
Which of course, leaves and equally gaping hole in your opinions about pacifism. If youCan’t prove that God exists, then your claims about pacifism, simple living, and homosexuality, are simply the random utteranc can’t prove that God exists, then your claims about pacifism, simple living, and homosexuality, are simply just pointless claims.
But well done, if you have to resort to a denial of the existence of God, I feel safe in simply dismissing you as one capable of rational disagreement.
Undercutting your position is a novel way to argue against others.
Craig, your non-answer questions/comments are not even making sense any more. Much less addressing the questions put to you. I'll leave the comment above in order to address some clear misunderstandings of reality and my positions...
The points I'm making are the same ones I've always made:
1. We can't prove that God exists. We can't. Not objectively, authoritatively.
If you can prove it objectively, please do so and you will amaze the world and change the course of history.
But you can't.
2. We can't prove our opinions and interpretations about God are authoritatively, objectively true and factual.
We may find the support for these interpretations and opinions compelling or convincing, but that is not the same as objectively and authoritatively factual. If you CAN prove them authoritatively and objectively, please do so. You will help me and many others who truly want to know God's Ways.
But you simply can't.
Do you recognize that reality?
NOT, "I recognize that YOU don't think so..." that isn't the question I'm asking. I'm asking if you understand the reality that you can not objectively, authoritatively prove your interpretations on these topics are factually correct?
What gaping holes in my arguments about pacifism do you think my acknowledging this reality creates? That all people would have to accept as a fact that Jesus opposed Christians going to war?
That is not my position.
I seriously don't think you understand what I've said and what my positions actually are, given your questions. They betray some fundamental misunderstandings of my actual positions on something as basic and much talked about as my position on war.
Blah, blah, blah. You keep repeating yourself. I get that your best argument against inerrancy is that we “can’t prove” God exists.
Your problem is, that “we can’t prove God exists”, is also a great argument against “God blesses gay marriage” or any of the rest of the positions you claim are biblically supported.
Look, I’ll answer your. big, bad, bold questions when I have time. But the fact that all you have to counter is “can’t prove God exists” tells me plenty. The fact that the only “source” you provided in this whole thread doesn’t say what you want it to say, and relies on a hermeneutic you’ve been arguing against to say it, tells me the rest.
The best part of you sawing off the branch which your pacifism hung from, is that it seriously limits your ability to try to ground pacifism in anything except the teaching of the Bible.
I seriously know that you don’t (or choose not to) understand or accurately represent my positions on multiple issues. Yours are pretty obvious, they’re just not well supported beyond some version of “It seem reasonable to me.”.
Still no answer. But I'll leave this here and respond to it, just to step by step deconstruct your misunderstandings of reality and/or my position.
You keep repeating yourself.
Indeed, this ONE point, you have correct. I repeat myself because you keep not understanding and so I clarify and try to find a way to help you understand.
I. I get that your best argument against inerrancy is that we “can’t prove” God exists.
NOT my "best argument." Never made that claim and it's not the fact.
It is my FIRST response to an Inerrancy Theory advocate because that advocate begins his defense with this claim of God.
It is ONE point in the rational thinking through of the holes in the arguments in inerrancy.
Here, you've read my words, then READ INTO my words the human theory that "we can't prove God exists" is my "best argument..." even though I never said that nor suggested it.
Strike one in your ability to read and understand my words.
II. Your problem is, that “we can’t prove God exists”, is also a great argument against “God blesses gay marriage” or any of the rest of the positions you claim are biblically supported.
My arguments in support of my positions on these various topics...
a. Do NOT begin with "God exists..." Not in my words, nor in anything I have ever said.
b. Do not rely upon the crutch of "they are biblically supported..."
c. I happen to think that my positions are aligned with and consistent with the teachings of Jesus, but they do not rely upon "God exists" and
d. Thus, are not hampered by the reality that we can't prove God
e. Thus, I have no problem acknowledging that reality and
f. "we can't prove God exists" is not a strike against my arguments as I make them.
Here again, you've read my words and then read INTO them something that I have not suggested, nor do I rely upon.
Strike two in your ability to read and understand my words.
III. But the fact that all you have to counter is “can’t prove God exists” tells me plenty.
It's not all I have to counter the poor arguments against, for instance, inerrancy. It's not even a major component of my argument against that human theory.
Here again, you've read my words and then read INTO them something that I have not suggested, nor do I rely upon.
Strike three in your ability to read and understand my words.
IV. The fact that the only “source” you provided in this whole thread doesn’t say what you want it to say
You've misunderstood the point of that source. I've corrected you at least once and you STILL misunderstand the point of my citing that source. The point of the source was merely to point to others who disagree with your human opinions on what is and isn't a vital teaching of Jesus, NOT to say that I agree with these people on every point.
Here again, you've read my words and then read INTO them something that I have not suggested, nor do I rely upon.
Strike four in your ability to read and understand my words.
V. The best part of you sawing off the branch which your pacifism hung from, is that it seriously limits your ability to try to ground pacifism in anything except the teaching of the Bible.
My belief in pacifism/Just Peacemaking is based upon reason and the teachings of Jesus found in the Bible. Whether or not there is a God or Jesus is the son of God are irrelevant to that "branch" of my argument. For people like you and me who do believe in the human theory that there is a God and that Jesus is God's son, then the teachings of Jesus are a legitimate source of understanding.
Here again, you've read my words and then read INTO them something that I have not suggested, nor do I rely upon.
Strike five in your ability to read and understand my words.
To clarify that point V a bit more:
I think that Jesus and those who, like him, taught a more pacifistic/just peacemaking/NVDA approach to solving problems with an enemy (as opposed to killing, rape, maiming and war to settle issues) make sense in their arguments and teachings.
I think Jesus and those like him ((King, Gandhi, Dorothy Day, etc, etc) and their teachings make good reasonable sense because of notions like "an eye for an eye leave the world blind" and "only light can overcome darkness" and "overcome evil with good," etc, ...because of the fundamental SOUNDNESS of the reasoning.
Thus, I'm NOT saying, "Jesus was the son of God and WAS God, therefore, obey these teachings as I understand them..."
I'm saying "Jesus, Gandhi, King, etc, and their methods, teachings, approach make good reasonable sense because war is hell and who wants to embrace hell?"
Thus, it is NOT a strike against my understanding/belief in Just Peacemaking to say that I can't prove that God exists. And I don't MIND saying that I can't prove that God exists because it is reality.
ANY argument, it seems to me, that begins with an assertion that we MUST rest the argument upon something we can't prove is an argument based upon sinking sand.
Don't have time right now to address all that has been said in the last several comments. Indeed, my schedule makes it difficult to keep up where conversation proceeds without me, so where I might have failed to address a response, simply ask again. Otherwise, I may just jump in to where the conversation has gotten.
In the meantime, I must insist that you, Dan, correct your ongoing nonsense that manifested in the following:
"I think that Jesus and those who, like him, taught a more pacifistic/just peacemaking/NVDA approach to solving problems with an enemy ****(as opposed to killing, rape, maiming and war to settle issues)****"
To use YOUR preferred form to express my outrage, who the F**K has EVER so much as hinted anything that suggests such things as that in bold print above??!!! I'll tell you: NO-F**KIN'-BODY!!! That's who. ESPECIALLY rape and maiming!! So I demand you apologize for the clear and unmistakable implication that any one of us who objects to your weak arguments for pacifism has ever supported such...even when war IS the answer. Don't try to pretend you're once again misunderstood, because you could not be more crystal clear. You do this crap all the time and for someone who would then dare do a post on "lying liars", this is the height of hypocrisy.
With that all having been said, and the point understood by those like Craig and myself to be an absolute fact about you, I now turn to the issue at hand and state that it really doesn't matter what anyone else believes about violence (such as your arguments try to convey), such as Ghandi or whomever else. It only matters what Christ says, and assuming you're not lying about believing in God and Jesus, to even bring up the question of God's existence is disingenuous to say the least. Do you or do you not believe that God exists and that Christ is God? If so, then cut the crap. We're dealing with YOUR beliefs and positions, not those of "other Christians in good faith" (assuming there are such). So when YOU are asked, are there any essential beliefs about which Christians in good faith cannot disagree, we're asking about YOUR understanding, not of any other Christian. For example, as Bubba tried to get across, can one who calls himself a Christian insist (in good faith) that there is no God? We're not asking about those who don't believe but like Christ's teachings. Those are NOT Christians as WE'VE ever used the term, and since we're talking about the positions of all of us involved in these discussions in these various blogs (except where specified otherwise), why would this be a question? Presumably we all believe in God and that Christ is God as well (I don't know about Hiram at this point).
Please stop this. IT only leads to massive amounts of wasted keystrokes.
Marshall, because you've been away, I'll let your comments stand, but here's the deal: You two need to demonstrate to me that you understand some basic reality and some basic differentiation between subjective human opinion vs objective fact.
The questions put to you...
1. We can't prove that God exists. We can't. Not objectively, authoritatively.
If you can prove it objectively, please do so and you will amaze the world and change the course of history.
But you can't.
Do you recognize that reality?
2. We can't prove our opinions and interpretations about God are authoritatively, objectively true and factual.
We may find the support for these interpretations and opinions compelling or convincing, but that is not the same as objectively and authoritatively factual. If you CAN prove them authoritatively and objectively, please do so. You will help me and many others who truly want to know God's Ways.
But you simply can't (nor can I, and I've always been quite clear about that).
Do you recognize that reality?
This is crucial to proceeding because if you all are starting from a point of self-delusion on the STARTING point of your reasoning, then all that you build from there will be nonsense, from a rational point of view, not to mention from a biblical point of view.
As to your concern about my point about war, I think you misunderstand.
I'm saying that those who believe in war as an acceptable, even moral option, do so believing that sometimes killing, maiming and warring against another people... sometimes even including - deliberately - innocent bystanders (as in Hiroshima), is an acceptable thing.
Now, by all means, tell me that you DON'T find these actions to be prices that you're willing to pay and even find to be moral options, and I can correct it for you, but by and large, people who support war, by default, accept that killing and maiming are reasonable costs to pay to settle issues/resolve problems/"stop violence..." (I put it in scare quotes because, of course, war actions are NOT stopping violence, they ARE violence... but with the note that they HOPE to eventually stop further violence).
I considered including rape in this and eventually included because evangelicals like you tend to believe that God has, sometimes in the past, at least, condoned forced marriages - what most of us would otherwise call rape - as part of the process of war in the Bible, so you all condone "forced marriages...," at least at times. Tell me I'm wrong and I'll change it.
Going over a few things, I came upon this article about inerrancy which shows the Bible does refer to itself as such in a variety of ways. If you want to suggest that it is only opinion, then you have to look at the verses cited to support the contention and explain why they actually don't...and if not, then what are those verses saying.
As to pacifism, I believe I've already offered a piece that provides all the passages and verses you ignore in order to pretend Scripture supports your "No Christian can participate in war" argument. And putting aside the irrelevant issue of whether or not God exists, there remains no legitimate argument that Christians musn't go to war when war is required that can be drawn from Scripture.
"1. We can't prove that God exists. We can't. Not objectively, authoritatively.
If you can prove it objectively, please do so and you will amaze the world and change the course of history.
But you can't.
Do you recognize that reality?"
Why do you keep bringing this up? I cannot answer the question without mine being addressed. It is a meaningless question when dealing with someone who claims to be a Christian...which is someone who believes that God exists. Either you believe He does nor not. Pick one, and if it's that God does exist, the question is moot and irrelevant.
"2. We can't prove our opinions and interpretations about God are authoritatively, objectively true and factual.
We may find the support for these interpretations and opinions compelling or convincing, but that is not the same as objectively and authoritatively factual. If you CAN prove them authoritatively and objectively, please do so. You will help me and many others who truly want to know God's Ways.
But you simply can't (nor can I, and I've always been quite clear about that).
Do you recognize that reality?"
That's not at all reality. If I'm quoting Scripture, it's not an opinion. If you wish to point to a particular point about which you think I can only hold an opinion and not know with complete certainty based on a clear reading of Scripture that a particular point is true and factual, name it and we'll discuss it. But as a broad question about every single point of contention between us, it is absolutely NOT reality. It is only that which you want to be reality so as to avoid defending your specious position on a given issue.
I can prove my point with Scripture on a number of issues. You dismissing my argument out of hand as opinion is bullshit, cheap and cowardly. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. Don't waste my time with this crappy "we can't know authoritatively" dodge. OR, as Craig says, prove this reality you insist I don't recognize. If you can't, then you're up the creek, which you pretty much are by continually defaulting to this ploy.
Said another way, there's no "delusion" on my part merely because you say so, just as my arguments aren't compelling for the same reason. Stop pretending this crap. There's nothing wrong with my comprehension. The problem is with your position on these issues being so weak. The fact is that you need me to be delusional, not compelling and unable to comprehend. The real problem is that you need to borrow a spine and a pair of testicles and stop tap-dancing. It's OK to find you're wrong again. I'm more than willing to sit here and find out I'm wrong if only you'd come across with a clear, Scripture-supported argument that will hold up to scrutiny without you bailing out at the first question or critique.
Put yet another way, you've not proven yourself qualified to determine what is rational, compelling, delusional or within the realm of reality, so don't use those terms without some substantive explanation for why you choose to use those terms, and not just to bail on your obligation to explain yourself.
"I'm saying that those who believe in war as an acceptable, even moral option, do so believing that sometimes killing, maiming and warring against another people... sometimes even including - deliberately - innocent bystanders (as in Hiroshima), is an acceptable thing."
Screw the mythical "those who believe" and stick with you and me. Because there's nothing "acceptable" about that which the word "regrettable" more accurately describes. I don't know how many people actually think even killing bin Laden was "acceptable" rather than something that had to be done. I don't how many believe that the deaths of civilians is ever "acceptable" even if one feels it can't be helped in order to save far more lives for such collateral deaths to occur at our hand. Most importantly for our purposes, I don't think that way and never have expressed anything that someone rational, dealing in reality and possessed of decent comprehension skills could interpret as what I think or believe.
But yes. If all other options have been exhausted, then the total destruction of an enemy nation is on the table if it means saving the lives of MY people and ending the war. There is NO Scriptural support for denying this option as viable in the face of potential destruction by despotic forces. Killing in self-defense is NOT denied the Christian ANYWHERE in Scripture.
"I considered including rape in this and eventually included because evangelicals like you tend to believe that God has, sometimes in the past, at least, condoned forced marriages..."
No. This is you corrupting the text to put it in those words, when this issue has been explained by far more knowledgeable Biblical scholars than anyone who comments here. I've rendered such explanations in the past and you insist upon this bastardization all the while claiming to care about context, the original language, etc. So you're wrong, you've been shown to be wrong several times over this point over the years. I don't care if you change it now. Just don't do it anymore.
re: your source for Inerrancy, I'll note what I said to Craig: If you want to engage in a mature study on the point, you can do better than the Answers in Genesis guys.
You say, "If you want to suggest that it is only opinion, then you have to look at the verses cited to support the contention and explain why they actually don't...and if not, then what are those verses saying. "
Setting aside the source, here is some of what they argue and it REALLY does not need to involve "looking at the verses cited," as it has more to do with their reasoning, their presumptions and whether or not we recognize the reality that those presumptions are guesses on their part, NOT authoritatively correct facts...
In other words, God did not “breathe into” (inspire) all Scripture, but it was “breathed out” by God (expired). Thus, 2 Timothy 3:16 is not about how the Bible came to us but where it came from. The Scriptures are “God-breathed.”
Okay, but so what? What does "GOD-BREATHED" mean?
Did God LITERALLY breathe into humans and if so, what would that do?
Did God figuratively breathe specific words into humans? If so, then support that claim.
They offer their OPINIONS about it, but they do not have an authoritative answer.
They go on...
To know how the Bible came to us, we can turn to 2 Peter 1:21 where we discover that “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” The Greek word used here is pherō, which means “to bear” or “to carry.”
Okay, but so what?
They continue...
The human writers of the Bible certainly used their minds, but the Holy Spirit carried them along in their thinking so that only His God-breathed words were recorded. The Apostle Paul set the matter plainly in 1 Corinthians 2:13: “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches.”
"ONLY" God's Words were recorded? How do they know that? Is it just a presumption that they're guessing, NOT a statement of fact?
OF COURSE IT IS. It is a human theory, a hunch, a guess. They don't know that.
What does it MEAN to be God inspired?
There is NO Authoritative answer to that.
They pick a verse here and a verse there and then form a HUMAN theory about what it means, but it IS a human theory.
cont'd...
And you'll note in that last quote, they offered as some sort of "proof" 1 Cor 2:13. But if you look at that text, in context, you'll see that it's NOT speaking about "the Bible," NOR is it even speaking of Scripture. A few verses earlier, leading up to the verse they picked out of the blue, Paul says...
" we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
None of ithe rulers of this age understood this, for jif they had, they would not have crucified kthe Lord of glory. But, as it is written,
“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has mprepared nfor those who love him”—
...these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God..."
or who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
In other words, THIS passage that they use/cite is NOT a passage citing knowledge via "the Bible" or even "scriptures," but knowledge from the SPIRIT of God.
So we see their cherry picked verse there does not say what it says they suggest it was saying. At all.
And even if it did, they STILL are offering human interpretations about what the text means.
It goes on like that and I don't have all day and I'm hoping you can see the point I'm making.
Are they looking at verses in the Bible to form an opinion? Yes, they are.
But are they then extrapolating out OTHER opinions BEYOND what the text actually says? Are they saying, "and when it says 'God-breathed...' what that MEANS is..." and offering extra-textual opinions and guesses/theories about what it might mean beyond just what it says? YES, they are.
And are those extra-biblical opinions Facts? OR, do you recognize the reality that they are human opinions, human theories?
THAT is the question that is in your court, Marshall.
As to your questions about what should be obvious if you have been reading my words over the years, "Do I believe in God?" Yes, but that is neither here nor there in this conversation.
You're suggesting that these opinions are FACTS, not opinions. IF one is making a fact claim, then the onus is on them to prove it with data, not mere subjective opinions.
I believe in God, but I recognize the reality that I can't "prove God." I say it is important to recognize reality because if one begins with a presumption that is not proven, then other theories that proceed from there are not grounded in factual reality. It's a rational flaw.
or, more briefly and returning to my point, I had said t
We can't prove our opinions and interpretations about God are authoritatively, objectively true and factual.
To which Marshall responded...
If I'm quoting Scripture, it's not an opinion. If you wish to point to a particular point about which you think I can only hold an opinion and not know with complete certainty based on a clear reading of Scripture that a particular point is true and factual, name it and we'll discuss it.
No, Marshall. JUST BECAUSE you point to a scripture, quote it accurately AND OFFER YOUR OPINION about what it means, that does NOT make it a fact.
Just because someone quotes Genesis 1 and says, "on the first day, God made light and darkness..." does not mean that on Day One of the Universe, factually speaking, lightness and darkness were created. Nor that on day two, skies were created apart from water on the earth. Those would be OPINIONS, not facts. And further, it would be an opinion based upon a reading of an ancient text, written before modern scientific understandings of the natural world, as opposed to based upon data.
Genesis 1 is NOT data on which one can assume scientific facts, as a point of fact. It's not written as a science textbook. By all appearances, it's written in an ancient mythic style, but even that is an opinion.
And that someone CITES and reads those passages correctly does NOT make it a fact.
Do you understand that reality?
I don't know how else to put this in ways that can be any more clear.
What does "thou shalt not steal" mean? Does it mean not to take something that belongs to others without their permission, or is that just an opinion? Do pretend that we can't know what the text means at any given place in Scripture requires that you come up with a different explanation that you can support with facts of your own. My example requires no further explanation if one understands what each of those four words means. It indicates clearly something we can insist is true about God and His will regarding personal property. How much more authoritatively must it be? What more do you require to regard this knowledge as authoritative? This is the problem with this particular dodge...actually one of two main problems. They are:
1. What constitutes "authoritative" if not Scripture itself, and
2. What value is there in your objections without your explanation for what a verse, passage or collection of either means without supporting evidence to back it up?
The questions you pose about the interpretations aren't unreasonable, but lacking a firm answer does nothing to diminish in any way the accuracy of the argument put forth by the source.
As to the source itself, you engage in a false tactic employed by feo routinely, which is to attack the source and not the message. The argument isn't weak simply because you have no faith that the source is a good one. It can only be considered weak if a better, more solidly supported alternate argument is put forth. You have yet to do that.
I'm out of time and it could take the rest of the week before I can dive in in detail, and which time I'll address more directly your responses.
1. Here, you're begging the question and engaging in circular reasoning.
But the answer to the question is that "authoritative" is literally what the author intended. Or one speaking as a dependable authority on a topic.
The definition, of course, is "possessing recognized or evident authority : clearly accurate or knowledgeable"
So, IF we're talking merely about, for instance, the Catholic church, then the Catholic Church has the authority, and within the Catholic Church, the pope, I reckon, has authority.
In Baptist circles (and most evangelical circles), there IS no one definitive authority.
And, beyond religious traditions, there simply is no factual authority on God. No one person or group that speaks with authority on God's behalf.
Understand? Agree?
So, to your question:
What constitutes "authoritative" if not Scripture itself
What constitutes the authority to say what Scripture means is Scripture itself?
???
Is that what you're saying? That answer seems nonsensical, on the face of it.
What more do you require to regard this knowledge as authoritative?
Someone who can say, definitively, objectively, "When I say Genesis 1 means X, Y and Z," that we can know that this is what God thinks/means/what the passage means.
Someone who can say, definitively, objectively, "When I say that the handful of verses that touch on some form of gay behavior in the Bible mean that God is opposed to gay guys marrying..."
But there is no such person or group. There IS NO AUTHORITY who can speak on behalf of God, definitively, with God's authority that THIS is what God wants you to think on these topics...
That is a simple reality.
Do you recognize that reality?
you engage in a false tactic employed by feo routinely, which is to attack the source and not the message.
I addressed the irrational arguments put forth by your source. I'm just pointing out that if you offer a silly, unreliable and disreputable source, you're starting with a credibility problem. Nonetheless, I humored you, I dealt with the first part of the argument in such a way as to point out the reality that these people are offering OPINIONS, not objective facts.
Do you understand that reality?
What does "thou shalt not steal" mean?
Clearly, I think we can both agree that some points in the Bible are clearer than others.
The point that I continue to make is that none of us have access to An Authority who can tell us with certainty what God wants on any given issue.
We both can think that clearly, if there is a God and if that God is a good God, and even that this good God inspired the Bible, that this God would not want people to steal, as a general rule.
But what does this God think about stealing bread to stop someone from starving if there are no other options?
What does this God think about stealing the tires off of a Nazi car to stop them from chasing down some escaping Jews?
Is there anyone who can tell us with the authority of God IF there are ever exceptions to this "Do not Steal" rule? If so, is there anyone who can tell us with the authority of God what the list of exceptions are?
The answer is no.
Do you recognize that reality?
And that is something as straightforward as "do not steal..."
What about something slightly less clear, like "Does overcome evil with good and love your enemies, etc, indicate that Christians should never go to war...?" Is there anyone who can tell us with the authority of God what the answer is to that question?
No.
Do you recognize that reality?
What about something MUCH less clear (some would say not clear at all, in the Bible) like "inerrancy" or "PSA"?
Can anyone tell us with the authority of God that God approves (or disapproves) of these human theories?
No.
Do you recognize that reality?
"But the answer to the question is that "authoritative" is literally what the author intended."
You suggest that such is difficult to determine. I'm saying it isn't in the lion's share of cases, and in discussions we've had over the years, not difficult at all to understand what the author intended. Generally, you simply don't like what the authors intended.
"Or one speaking as a dependable authority on a topic."
i.e. church leaders, Biblical scholars, and also the prophets, various authors of the Bible, the apostles, etc.
But the point isn't that authorities differ, or that we do. It's how you defend your position. You do it extremely poorly and have yet to prove that I do.
"In Baptist circles (and most evangelical circles), there IS no one definitive authority."
"Definitive authority" isn't the issue here. It's how well you defend your position. Diverting attention from that obligation to demands for definitive authority is a dodge.
"'What constitutes "authoritative" if not Scripture itself'
What constitutes the authority to say what Scripture means is Scripture itself?"
You'll no doubt play this game until all opposition to your baseless positions retreat in frustration. But your question ignores the point, which is that within Scripture is usually (if not always) evidence to support an understanding of a single verse or passage. This shouldn't be a newsflash to someone who has spoken of viewing verses in context and with an eye to the entire Bible.
"Someone who can say, definitively, objectively, "When I say Genesis 1 means X, Y and Z," that we can know that this is what God thinks/means/what the passage means."
That depends upon the verse or passage in question. For some that is absolutely the case, for others not so much. You would insist that can NEVER be the case and you do this in order to deflect any and all criticisms of your positions.
"There IS NO AUTHORITY who can speak on behalf of God, definitively, with God's authority that THIS is what God wants you to think on these topics..."
Again, this depends upon the verse or passage in question. If a verse begins with, say, "Don't" or "Thou shalt not", I see that as a clear indication of what God thinks. Unless you can find some verse that later mitigates in some way the "Don't" or "Thou shalt not", what God thinks is crystal clear on the issue at hand. That is the reality that you consciously reject in order to adhere to your preferred positions.
"I addressed the irrational arguments put forth by your source"
"Addressing" is not equal to refuting or proving error. Your "addressing" did neither.
"I'm just pointing out that if you offer a silly, unreliable and disreputable source, you're starting with a credibility problem."
And here you double down on your feo like ad hom on the source rather than on that which the source discusses. Even if the source is truly "silly, unreliable and disreputable", it doesn't mean that the particular point being expressed is false in any way. A liar might be telling the truth now and then, and while one might be suspicious of the truth due to who's telling it, one can't simply dismiss it outright simply due to reputation (assuming the importance of the situation is high).
" Nonetheless, I humored you, I dealt with the first part of the argument in such a way as to point out the reality that these people are offering OPINIONS, not objective facts."
I think the real problem here is your determination to avoid defending your position or arguing against mine by running this false dynamic "opinions are not facts". While that itself is not an absolute by any means (my "opinion" happens to be fact as well, for example), the more important consideration is whether or not an opinion is true, or closer to the truth than another opinion.
Just as an aside, and I haven't counted characters or words to support this suspicion, but I think if I post a comment from my phone, I can go way beyond 4096 characters and it will post. Just sayin'.
"Clearly, I think we can both agree that some points in the Bible are clearer than others.
The point that I continue to make is that none of us have access to An Authority who can tell us with certainty what God wants on any given issue."
Well, either it's clear or it's not. Can't be both. If you personally aren't confident in the clarity of any given verse, that doesn't necessarily mean Scripture isn't clear in that case. It could by your own inability to comprehend what is indeed clear.
"But what does this God think about stealing bread to stop someone from starving if there are no other options?"
That's been addressed in Scripture. Think David and his hungry troops. So exceptions to some clear commands CAN be found in Scripture. (Notably, there are no such exceptions so much as hinted at with regard to Lev 18:22)
"What about something slightly less clear, like "Does overcome evil with good and love your enemies, etc, indicate that Christians should never go to war...?" Is there anyone who can tell us with the authority of God what the answer is to that question?"
That's not only less clear, it's not Biblical at all as demonstrated above. There is no teaching that Christians should never go to war. Period. There's no teaching that indicates that position at all. There is your eisegesis, however.
"What about something MUCH less clear (some would say not clear at all, in the Bible) like "inerrancy" or "PSA"?"
But this is just you playing word games. It's not "MUCH less clear" simply because you don't like those teachings. You say that about everything with which you disagree as if that's an argument. It isn't and that's my whole point.
Well, either it's clear or it's not. Can't be both.
Spoken like a true fundamentalist. OF COURSE things can be more clear and less clear.
"I SEE NOW AS THROUGH A GLASS, DARKLY, BUT THEN I SHALL SEE CLEARLY."
Or, just look in a tub after a bath. IT IS NOT TOTALLY CLEAR, but it is mostly clear. Unless you've been working in the garden and mud all day and then, it may be LESS clear. But of course things can be more or less clear.
What is true for water is true for ideas.
The intent of an author who says, "Don't kill people" SOUNDS pretty clear (of course, you allow for exceptions, so even that's not perfectly clear, to you). On the other hand, the author who says, "Love your enemies, do GOOD to those who hate you... overcome evil with good..." sounds PRETTY CLEAR that he is generally speaking about NOT killing your enemies (which would be neither loving, nor doing good to them, for instance), but the author's intent may be seen as less clear than, perhaps, "Don't kill people..." Finally, the author who uses the word "atonement" in a sentence in a book with various ideas of salvation offered is much less clear what specifically he means.
Of course things can be more or less clear.
Agreed?
If you personally aren't confident in the clarity of any given verse, that doesn't necessarily mean Scripture isn't clear in that case. It could by your own inability to comprehend what is indeed clear.
Indeed, this is true. Conversely, what MAY SEEM CLEAR TO YOU may not necessarily be clear and you may not be understanding the point correctly... your inability to comprehend what should be clear does not mean that it wasn't clear, just an indication that humans are prone/capable of getting things wrong.
For instance, CLEARLY, Jesus is speaking of not taking part in war... but you aren't confident that's the case (indeed, you think it is the opposite of the case). Doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't clear or that others are misunderstanding Jesus' clear teaching.
It could be you (and in that case, I think clearly, it is).
But enough of this, I will not go beyond 200 comments on this post. Especially if you're not even recognizing reality. So, I've clarified and clarified, it's time for you to answer the main line of questions put to you...
But are they then extrapolating out OTHER opinions BEYOND what the text actually says? Are they saying, "and when it says 'God-breathed...' what that MEANS is..." and offering extra-textual opinions and guesses/theories about what it might mean beyond just what it says? YES, they are.
And are those extra-biblical opinions Facts? OR, do you recognize the reality that they are human opinions, human theories?
...and...
1. We can't prove that God exists. We can't. Not objectively, authoritatively.
If you can prove it objectively, please do so and you will amaze the world and change the course of history.
But you can't.
Do you recognize that reality?
2. We can't prove our opinions and interpretations about God are authoritatively, objectively true and factual.
We may find the support for these interpretations and opinions compelling or convincing, but that is not the same as objectively and authoritatively factual. If you CAN prove them authoritatively and objectively, please do so. You will help me and many others who truly want to know God's Ways.
But you simply can't (nor can I, and I've always been quite clear about that).
Do you recognize that reality?
"OF COURSE things can be more clear and less clear."
When compared to something else, perhaps. But standing alone, a verse is either clear or it's not.
"What is true for water is true for ideas."
Not true for either. What are you looking at through the water? Can you see it clearly or can you not? If it is obscured by the cleanliness of the water, but can make out what the object is, it is clear enough to know what it is. Details on the object might not be clear though you know with certainty what the object is. So it depends upon what you're looking at through the water...the object generally, or details on the object.
Ideas are the same. One can be clear about an idea in a general sense, yet not grasp the full measure. In the former case we know enough to act, and it is about that which likely most matters. But we can only go by what is expressed. Your "love they enemy" example does NOT express, "don't kill them" as part of the idea. Killing an enemy might indeed be required in order to prevent greater suffering. Yet because you are forced to kill does not mean that you are in any way indicating hatred for the enemy. "Love they enemy" does not equate to "don't kill they enemy". It does equate to "don't hate they enemy", which can manifest in vengeful retribution while not be manifested in self-defense killing. There is enough that brings this clarity to those who look to see it. Thus, it is clear. And of course, when studying the original language (or studying explanations of it), we are given more clarity when learning that the commandment is actually, "Do not murder". We know that murder is a specific thing. It is clear.
""I SEE NOW AS THROUGH A GLASS, DARKLY, BUT THEN I SHALL SEE CLEARLY.""
This does not refer to God's will for us as revealed in Scripture. It does not refer to Scripture being mysterious and difficult to understand.
"Finally, the author who uses the word "atonement" in a sentence in a book with various ideas of salvation offered is much less clear what specifically he means."
I don't see various ideas of salvation offered. Maybe you're talking about a different book.
"Conversely, what MAY SEEM CLEAR TO YOU may not necessarily be clear and you may not be understanding the point correctly..."
That's fine and as I've said, I'm perfectly willing to accept that I'm wrong if you can provide a compelling case for a better and/or clearer understanding. Until then, I'm confident that what I now accept is truth.
"For instance, CLEARLY, Jesus is speaking of not taking part in war..."
He doesn't even come close to addressing war and you haven't come close to demonstrating that He does. As He never specifically mentions war and any command against taking part in war, you can't say with honesty that He is clear about it. And as my link above has demonstrated, Jesus had ample opportunity to address the issue with His several episodes of dealing with military people without ever so much as mentioning their career and that it might be in conflict with His teachings. To insist, then, that Jesus "clearly" speaks against taking part in war is disingenuous at best, and a far cry from "recognizing reality".
But are they then extrapolating out OTHER opinions BEYOND what the text actually says? Are they saying, "and when it says 'God-breathed...' what that MEANS is..." and offering extra-textual opinions and guesses/theories about what it might mean beyond just what it says? YES, they are.
Sez you. You are now expressing your opinion...more like your preference...that Biblical scholars or theologians are guessing as opposed to have determined the meaning of what "God-breathed" means. Based on what? Just because YOUR don't grasp the meaning of an unusual expression or phrase doesn't mean that there isn't a clear determination made to explain it to us. Reject it if you like, but your rejection doesn't "prove" that such explanations are not accurate. Not in the least.
And are those extra-biblical opinions Facts?
It's becoming clearer that to you, "extra-biblical" means ANYTHING that Scripture does say in a manner that isn't convenient for your argument. Researching the original language to determine, for example, what "lying with a man as with a woman" means is not the "extra-Biblibal". Pretending that you can insist it is only referring to "certain forms" of homosexual behavior IS extra-Biblical for there is nothing within the Book that comes close to implying that. It is YOUR personal preference based on what it does not say specifically. Yet, the teaching is quite clear that "homosexual behavior" is prohibited.
OR, do you recognize the reality that they are human opinions, human theories?
That's too general a question. Which "opinion" are you addressing?
response to last comment by you later...
Any opinion about what God wants, Marshall. They are ALL human opinions, not something that is provable or that you can demonstrate to be a fact but, instead, a subjective opinion.
Did God create the world? Yes? No?
BOTH would be subjective human opinions, not demonstrable facts.
Did God create the world in six literal days about 6000 years ago? Yes? No?
Yes would be an opinion, but one that is demonstrably not valid.
No, would be a fact, because we have the science that shows us that the world is older than 6,000 years old.
Does God approve of gay guys marrying? Yes? No?
BOTH would be subjective human opinions, not demonstrably factual.
Did Jesus teach his disciples not to engage in war, as his teachings are found in the Bible? Yes? No?
BOTH would be human opinions, not demonstrable facts.
Our theories about God ARE LITERALLY human theories, NOT established facts. ALL of our theories about God.
Do you understand that reality?
Continuing from where I left off, and on you comment of 3/27 @ 6:21PM:
1. I don't need to prove that God exists when dealing with anyone who claims to believe He does. Why you keep bringing this up is beyond me.
2. I not only can, depending upon the issue on the table, but I routinely do beginning with the use of Scripture wherein we find a host of clearly revealed revelations on a host of issues. That you claim you don't find arguments compelling doesn’t mean they aren't, particularly when objections lack Scriptural support of their own. It does suggest your desire to know and understand is less than sincere.
THAT'S reality.
I'll continue on to your last response later.
Marshall, just answer the question:
Do you recognize that you can't prove your human theories to be objectively demonstrable facts?
Don't tell me you can. You can't. That isn't the question.
The question is, DO YOU RECOGNIZE the reality that you can't prove your hunches to be facts?
If you don't recognize it (and it does not appear you do, given your "I not only can... I routinely do..." nonsensical and unsupported response), then just move on. I don't have time to deal with someone who doesn't recognize reality, who can't understand the difference between human opinion and simple facts.
You insist I don’t recognize reality. But that's a truth claim you can't support. You assert what reality is and expect me to accept your assertion as fact. To further complicate and cloud the issue, you ask general questions for which neither a "yes" or "no" answer is completely accurate. For that which I am certain, I have provided evidence in support. As such, it is indeed true and factual until such time you present countervailing evidence I cannot overcome.
I'm talking about definitional reality, Marshall. One can say that, "That man can literally sprout feathered wings from his back and fly away..." and I can say, as a point of fact, that no, he can't, because humans can't do that. That isn't within the standard factual understanding of what humans can do.
Similarly, if someone claims an obvious unproven and unprovable opinion is a fact, it doesn't MATTER that he calls it a fact, it's not, it's an opinion, by definition.
One can claim, "It is a FACT that the Bible says in Genesis 1 that on the first day God created light and darkness..." and that would be right, the Bible does say that.
BUT, if that person moves to "...and that MEANS that 6000 years ago on a Sunday, there was a creator God who literally separated darkness and light on that day, creating light and darkness..." THAT would be an opinion. When one moves from what the text says to what it means, one is moving from fact to human opinion.
That is the definition of opinion, and NOT the definition of fact.
Opinion: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
What you are speaking of are literally opinions, NOT known facts.
Now, it COULD be that you (or I) are right in our opinions and, as I believe we'll all see, one day we'll see that God DID support gay guys marrying or that God did oppose us going to war... but as of now, it is an unprovable opinion. These opinions about what God does and doesn't think are opinions, not provable, known facts.
Just like, maybe one day we'll see that a man CAN sprout wings and fly away, but as of right now, such a claim would be a rather silly opinion, not a known fact.
THIS, on the other hand, is NOT a fact, it's nonsense...
As such, it is indeed true and factual until such time you present countervailing evidence I cannot overcome.
By that measure, until such time as you convince me of your opinions about war or marriage, then my opinions are facts, too. By this measure, ALL of our opinions are facts, which is nonsense.
Dan’s last comment raises an interesting question. It seems that he is projecting his opinions in suggesting that we’ll see God approving of “gay marriage” or a radical pacifisctic position, yet it’s at least equality as likely that the opposite is true.
I’m willing to accept Dan’s opinion on either subject as being likely correct if he could provide the following.
1. A citation from the Jewish, Christian, or Apocrypha that specifically addressed anything referring to any aspect of homosexuality in either a positive or neutral manner. Bonus points if he can find something from Jesus. The be charitable, I’ll even include the Koran.
2. Provide a similar citation from the same sources specifically addressing the contention that Christians are not to engage in warfare (or violence in general).
"I'm talking about definitional reality, Marshall."
So am I. For example, it is reality that God disapproves of and prohibits engaging in homosexual behavior. Lev 18:22 does not come with caveats such as you insert into the verse by suggesting it isn't referring to all forms of such behavior. By not listing exceptions, it is indeed referring to the behavior no matter where, when or with whom it takes place, nor under what conditions, such as "committed, loving, monogamous, marriage-like" relationships. He simply says don't do it. THAT is the reality. THAT is the fact of it. There is nothing anywhere afterwards that mitigates this reality in the slightest without further corruptions or insertions of personal biases, as you do when you suggest "marriage" is meant as something other than a one man/one woman proposition anytime it is mentioned in Scripture.
As for things like the age of the earth, that is not something on which I've taken a definitive position beyond noting that I personally believe it's possible given God's awesome power. So again, I speak only on that which I feel certain and when referring to proofs, evidence, facts and reality, I'm dealing on that which I feel certain. There's no need for me to defend other points not in contention in order to be absolutely correct about that which I am certain until you can provide evidence that puts my certainty in question.
Conversely, you simply reject those things I put forth as evidence rather than match them with evidence of your own, quickly defaulting to "that's your hunch" and other such white flags.
More later...out of time.
I’m willing to accept Dan’s opinion on either subject as being likely correct if he could provide the following.
Whether you "accept" my opinion as likely correct or not is neither here nor there. The point is, neither you nor I can prove that our points are anything more than human opinion. What we DO KNOW as a fact is that our opinions ARE human opinions on all these matters. We do not know them to be facts and can not prove them to be facts.
Do you understand that reality?
And I don't NEED to cite a "sacred verse" that says gay guys marrying is cool because I don't think the Bible is a magic 8 ball and it doesn't MATTER if there is a verse there or not. Just like I can't point to a verse saying, "Don't be a fucking monster. Don't blow up towns full of women and children with nuclear weapons" to recognize the great immorality of that action.
Not everyone accepts your human opinions of the bible as a "sole source" for authority on matters of morality. I do not accept your human opinion as rational or as biblical and I don't argue with that approach.
It's wrong because it causes harm. It's right because it promotes good and health and love.
But if you WANT a fucking Bible verse that demonstrates why it's reasonable to support gay folk in marrying who they wish, then go to the main rule that Jesus cited: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
So, last time fellas, demonstrate you understand the nature of reality:
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR HUMAN OPINIONS ABOUT MORALITY, ABOUT WHAT GOD WANTS, ABOUT TENETS OF CHRISTIANITY ARE YOUR HUMAN OPINIONS, AND NOT ESTABLISHED FACTS?
Answer yes, demonstrate that you understand reality and the difference between fact and opinion or don't bother answering. I've allowed all the time I have to deal with foolishness if you two are both delusional.
You don't seem to understand that your insistence that we agree that opinion is not fact is false (and certainly requires harder dats than your insistence). While opinion most certainly isn't synonymous with fact, you absolutely cannot say that no opinion can ever also fact at the same time. It's my opinion that snow is cold. Is that not also a fact? Or are you going to equivocate on that point as well.
Worse is that it is such a weak and cowardly argument. The fact I present is not diminished in the least by your petulant demand that I not regard it as a fact when you insist I must only call it opinion. If it's not true, make the case.
I have not said that opinion can't be fact. I'm saying YOUR FUCKING HUMAN OPINION about what you can't prove about God IS A FUCKING HUMAN OPINION.
Do you recognize that reality?
"We do not know them to be facts and can not prove them to be facts."
Again, it depends upon what is put forth as a fact. Your self-serving notion of reality is not a fact...it is only the bludgeon you use to deny us our arguments when you have no argument of your own.
Most real Christians put great faith in the veracity and integrity of Scripture. You continue to prefer that it be untrustworthy in order to grant you the liberty to believe as you do, despite arguments that puts the soundness of your "opinion" in jeopardy. As long as we can't know with certainty, you're free to believe what Scripture in no way supports or teaches...as well as freeing yourself from the obligation of supporting what you believe against any and all objections, questions, criticisms, etc.
"And I don't NEED to cite a "sacred verse" that says gay guys marrying is cool because I don't think the Bible is a magic 8 ball and it doesn't MATTER if there is a verse there or not."
If this doesn't stand as proof that you reject Scripture, I don't know what does (other than you saying straight out, "I reject Scripture"). This demonstrates that your notion of morality is self-serving invention...not based on anything substantive and lasting. Thus, there's no "recognition" of a moral problem with dropping nukes on cities that include women and children (regardless of the reason the decision was made to do so). There is only your choice to regard such as immoral based on your subjective "harm" theory of what constitutes what is immoral. Indeed, you ignore the harm that would occur had not Hiroshima and Nagasaki been destroyed. You ignore the harm that didn't occur when the world's despots took notice of what might be their fate should they take up arms against us or our allies.
But I digress.
"Not everyone accepts your human opinions of the bible as a "sole source" for authority on matters of morality."
Clearly. But that has no bearing on whether or not the Bible IS the prime source and authority on matters of morality...at least for Christians.
"It's wrong because it causes harm."
This is both typical and absurd. The wicked are always put out by having their wickedness exposed and their liberties regulated so as to deny them the opportunity to engage in their wickedness. This is what God has done in both Testaments...denied the wicked by mandating their behaviors forbidden. The fact is, however, that there is no harm that befalls the sexually immoral by denying legitimacy to their immoral behaviors. None whatsoever. Certainly no harm about which the righteous need concern themselves or which the righteous need accommodate.
"It's right because it promotes good and health and love."
Nonsense. Abstaining from sexual immorality does that, not indulging in it, or having it enabled by those like you.
"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."
Your abuse of this Golden Rule (in what rule book did you find this?) covers pedophiles, polygamy, incest and bestiality, as well as a host of other sinful behaviors. Shame on you for this bastardization.
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR HUMAN OPINIONS ABOUT MORALITY, ABOUT WHAT GOD WANTS, ABOUT TENETS OF CHRISTIANITY ARE YOUR HUMAN OPINIONS, AND NOT ESTABLISHED FACTS?"
Possibly in some cases we've not yet discussed, but certainly not in any we have. You just don't find it convenient. It's certainly the reality you wish existed.
So, you can’t cite anything from any Judeo-Christian source that speaks of specifically of homosexuality in either a positive or neutral way. Yet your response to that is not to simply acknowledge the reality that your case is entirely extra biblical. It’s to engage in yet one more expletive filled rant.
Fruits of the Spirit Dan doesn’t show.
Love
Self Control
Come see my post on reality, delusion, opinion and fact.
Post a Comment