I've been doing a little reading in the Bible about Immigrants/Foreigners/Strangers. As hopefully we all know by now, the term is used frequently in the Bible, almost always in defense of those sojourning in a nation not their own. We see “alien” often listed with widows and orphans as people who we should be especially welcoming to and supporting of. And why was this? Because then, as now, the widowed (often, the poor woman with limited resources), the orphaned (those with no familial support) and the foreigner were all people with limited support and prone to being maligned and abused and taken advantage of, especially in a culture where support was almost exclusively linked to family.
I'll probably be posting more eventually, but wanted to share one new insight I had today...
Interestingly, I found that the very first appearance of the word, alien is the Lot story (Genesis 19), where the “all the men” of Sodom (recall that town?) were angry at Lot for welcoming in strangers (very strange, they were considered angels in the story, so VERY foreign...) and for being “judge-y...” You see, they wanted to gang rape the visitors and Lot dared to refuse to remove his protection from the visitors.
The word, “alien,” is used in this story by the men of Sodom as a sneering epithet towards Lot (“...this OUTSIDER comes and acts all self-righteous!...”) as the outsider being all moral and defending the angel/visitors (also, very much “aliens” or sojourners).
This use of “alien” as an epithet, is very much the same way that our current administration and the anti-”illegals” crowd uses “immigrants” and “Mexicans” and other “outsider” words as an epithet, to suggest that being an immigrant is akin to being a monster, a rapist, a threat.
So, in this first use of the word “alien” in the Bible, we see its embrace as an epithet by some of the people who are now-famous for being evil. And, as we see later in the Bible (Ezekiel), the Sodomites were NOT known for being evil for “being gay” (contrary to popular wisdom,) but for refusing hospitality to strangers/immigrants/foreigners.
Of course, good, reasonable, moral people should - in contrast to these evil ones - embrace the outsider and the immigrant – especially those merely seeking safety and refuge – because, as God often reminds the people of Israel, “YOU, too, were once aliens, and mistreated... don't do that!”
53 comments:
Clearly, the truth is not in you. You again lie about details of the Sodom story...the same lies I've corrected for you in the past. I'll be posting a link that does much of the job for me this time, but for now I'll simply point out yet again that an honest reading of the text does not imply any intention of gang rape until after Lot attempts to dissuade the Sodomites of their desire to engage in homosexual behavior with the angels.
Now, you want to pretend that the Sodomite's reference to Lot as an outsider or foreigner is an epithet rather than merely indignation that an alien would dare suppose he has any right to interfere. Again, the text doesn't suggest what you need it to suggest in order to make your case.
Further, your libelous charge against this administration and those who rightly oppose the ignoring of our laws by unlawfully crossing our borders is reprehensible and a willful, purposeful distortion of reality that belies your posturing as a Christian concerned with "embracing grace" and for which you should be ashamed but no doubt aren't in the least.
You then go on to falsely claim that Ezekiel ignores the homosexual behavior of Sodom simply because it isn't first on the list of sins of Sodom. This is incredibly absurd given that, as my link will note, there is no hint of the refusal of hospitality being a capital crime worthy of death, much less the total destruction of an entire town and the ground upon which it sits. Good, reasonable and moral people don't spread crap so thick in an attempt to appear more caring for those in need.
https://www.str.org/articles/what-was-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah#.Wsey2Jch1PZ
You are welcome to your human opinion. I think you are clearly mistaken and that an honest reading of the text demonstrates the intent of gang rape.
We can't prove it either way, but I think you are clearly mistaken and vice versa.
So be it.
~Dan
You then go on to falsely claim that Ezekiel ignores the homosexual behavior of Sodom simply because it isn't first on the list of sins of Sodom.
But just to point out the obvious: There IS no "homosexual sin" in the literal text. That is something you are reading into it.
There IS clearly an attempted rape and the mistreatment of immigrants and the sneering demonization of immigrants.
And again, neither of us can prove authoritatively that our interpretation is correct, so we'll just have to leave it to all other readers to make up their minds for themselves.
~Dan
I have indeed proven my case, but you choose to ignore it and reject it because you're too up the butt of the world to care about God's will. And your cheap default to "neither of us can prove authoritatively" ploy is no more than giving yourself liberty to believe what you prefer rather than what Scripture teaches. You fool only yourself on this point, but no one else.
The fact is that YOUR preferred "interpretation", which is no more than corruption of the text, is of recent vintage. NO ONE before the last 100 years at best EVER "interpreted" any of the passages as you do and as other pro-LGBT agenda people do. Your "interpretation" does not represent "an honest reading", but rather a clear case of your reading into the text that which you prefer to infer from it.
So once again you run from the truth in your pretense that your "interpretation" could possibly be as likely as that which has been understood for thousands of years. The fact is clear: you don't care about truth. You care about what appeals to you personally. If it were not so, you wouldn't stand down from defending your position or proving mine is wrong. Your position doesn't stand up to scrutiny in the least. Mine withstands it firmly.
It’s interesting that no where in the mythic text dies the word hate appear in relation to the angels, and the word “alien” only appears in relation to Lot. Specify in relationship to them perceiving that Lot (as an alien) would presume to “judge” them for their wicked desire to engage in homosexual rape.
Of course as a “myth” or “revenge fantasy” it really can’t be taken seriously. Besides, what sort of loving God would really send angels ( which can’t be proven to exist) to destroy an entire town for wickedness.
What kind of fool would try to fob this kind of mythic nonsense off on people who value Reason?
Myths aren't nonsense. As I've said and clarified repeatedly.
I'm sorry I can't help you understand.
Good luck, sir.
Dan
I never said “myths are nonsense”, I said that you are trying to fob off mythic nonsense to cover your political views.
I’m sorry you missed that.
But I don't think of myths as nonsense, so I'm not, from MY point of view, passing off mythic nonsense for any reason. I'm passing on what I think of as profound ancient wisdom on the importance of immigrants and loving them.
Do you disagree with my actual point?
WHO is calling it mythic nonsense, if it's not me? You?
Dan
Your insistence, that the behavior in Sodom was motivated by hate, is clearly nonsense because nowhere in the text is the word hate used. I know it’s important for you to be able to impose your 21st century liberal sensibility on whatever biblical text you choose , But to insert the motivation that you’ve made up out of whole cloth certainly does seem to be nonsense.
1. I didn't say that the behavior in Sodom was motivated solely by hate, but certainly did suggest that actions like gang rape are motivated, at least in part, by hatred of the Other. It is certainly not from a place of love and it is certainly a hateful thing to do. I'll leave it to God to sort out the exact motivations.
2. If you disagree with that opinion, you are welcome to do so. If you think that gang rape and the narcissistic and toxic self interest attributed to those in Sodom are NOT at least partially motivated by hatred, I think you will one day find that you are mistaken. But you are welcome to your hunches, such as they are.
Good luck, sir.
And, just in case it helps, the point of THIS post is that some of history's greatest villains are amongst those who displayed hateful, atrocious, evil actions towards immigrants/sojourners/visitors. We ought not be like those villains.
Thanks, I realize that your point is that you infer hatred in order to make your point. Of course ignoring that Lot (who that didn’t want to homosexually rape)is the only one referred to a an alien doesn’t help your case either.
To recap.
“Hate”, not mentioned in the passage at all.
“Alien”, not used to refer to the targets of the homosexual rape.
So other than your two main points not actually being explicit in the myth, you’ve done a great job.
I reiterate: Rape IS hateful. Gang rape of unknown visitors/foreigners/immigrants IS hateful.
I can't imagine you disagree, but if so, so be it, but clearly, you'd be in the wrong.
I'm sorry if you can't understand that.
Good luck, sir.
Marshall, you are free to think that those seeking safe refuge are amongst the greatest criminals if you want, but you won't post that sort of comment here. That is part of the problem, not part of the solution and, at least here, you won't post that sort of nonsense, as it contributes to attitudes that cause harm.
I get that you may not understand that and you probably don't agree. Tough.
I'm sorry that I can't help you understand it, but that's just the way it is.
Good luck, sir.
The act of homosexual rape is hateful, but that doesn’t mean that this specific proposed act of homosexual rape was motivated by hate in general nor specific hate for “aliens”. It’s too bad you choose not to acknowledge the reality that the passage doesn’t say what you want it to.
Craig, again YOU ARE FREE to think whatever you want about the motivations of the Sodomites. You can say that they were stand up guys who just wanted to make friends, if you want.
I think CLEARLY the text suggests people who were hatefully wanting to do evil things. That is the point of this post. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.
Good luck, sir.
Hate comments will not stand here, Craig. I'm sorry if you don't understand, but just know that they won't.
If you truly want to defend the notion of turning away those seeking refuge, if you want to defend the poor misunderstood Sodomites as only wanting to gang rape people in love, or WHATEVER you want to say on this notion, why don't you say it on your own blog.
In your ignorance, you're drifting into hate commentary, and that will not stand here.
Move on.
On topic, Craig. I insist.
And you misunderstanding my words and assigning some other meaning to them is regrettable. I'm sorry you don't understand them but I can't help you any further. IF you have a question, you can ask it respectfully and if it is close to on topic or related to something I actually said, I'll answer it. But at this point, I'm dubious that you'll understand the answer, any more than you've understood anything else.
Good luck, sir.
The fact that all you have is to delete my comments and lie about them is so much more powerful of a statement than anything I could say.
"Marshall, you are free to think that those seeking safe refuge are amongst the greatest criminals if you want, but you won't post that sort of comment here."
I never said anything remotely like that, so you're just lying again in order to avoid dealing with what actually DID say. Why not instead be an honest, stand-up guy and leave the "offending" comment up so I can clarify whatever it was you found "offensive". You dare insist WE don't understand YOU, but it's clear that you are the one with the comprehension issues. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt given you so easily choose to delete comments and then lie about what was in them. Shame on you.
There is no hatefulness but that which emanates from your own dark, world-pleasing heart. Craig and I are patiently trying to get to the truth and you're playing your typical games again because the flaws of your thinking are being exposed for all to see. Why must you be so cowardly? Are you so vain that you can't stand to be wrong?
Getting back to the point, perhaps you can show some verse or passage that suggests death for those who abuse refugees, aliens or sojourners. Can you do this? I can't think of a single one that prescribes such a punishment. So to pretend Sodom was destroyed for being bad hosts is absurd. I don't know. Perhaps there is capital punishment for being arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; or for those who do not help the poor and needy. I just can't think of any such verses.
Yet, Sodom was destroyed. And sure, it wasn't for the desire of ALL THE MEN of Sodom to have sex with the visitors, the intended desire that turned to an attempt to gang rape them only after being turned away by Lot. But as homosexuality was widespread and commonplace in Sodom (the fact that ALL THE MEN were present for this episode is just one piece of evidence for this truth), the decision to destroy the city had already been made before the angels showed up BECAUSE of the rampant sexual immorality that HAS a death penalty attached to it.
Said another way, it is reasonable to assume, given what the Bible DOES say about penalties for various sins, that had not the men of Sodom been given over to their homosexual tendencies, the city would never have been destroyed EVEN WITH their arrogance and sorry treatment of the needy. Go ahead and try to argue against that!
Getting back to the point, perhaps you can show some verse or passage that suggests death for those who abuse refugees, aliens or sojourners. Can you do this?
? Do you really not realize how insane that is?
I guess you don't, or you wouldn't ask it.
WHY would I need to point to a single verse like this? What does that have to do with a single thing? With the point of the post?
WE DO NOT NEED TO FIND A BIBLE VERSE TO JUSTIFY ACTING MORALLY.
IF we DID find a Bible verse that suggested slavery was okay or that selling your children was okay, WE SHOULD NOT TREAT THAT VERSE AS AN AUTHORITATIVE TEACHING, because we are surely misunderstanding morality if we did.
We ought not idolize the Bible, friends.
I get that you probably don't understand the point, I'm sorry I can't help you understand.
Good luck, sir.
perhaps you can show some verse or passage that suggests death for those who abuse refugees, aliens or sojourners. Can you do this? I can't think of a single one that prescribes such a punishment. So to pretend Sodom was destroyed for being bad hosts is absurd.
? That's the point of the Ezekiel passage that we've oft talked about. And it's a common theme of especially the OT, that failing to take care of the poor, oppressed and foreigner leads to judgment.
“Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely,
against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages,
the widow and the fatherless,
against those who thrust aside the sojourner[foreigner/immigrant],
and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.
Malachi 3
Your iniquities have turned these away, and your sins have kept good from you. For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait.
They set a trap;
they catch men.
Like a cage full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; therefore they have become great and rich;
they have grown fat and sleek.
They know no bounds in deeds of evil;
they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and
they do not defend the rights of the needy. Shall I not punish them for these things?
Are you not aware of this whole line of biblical stories? God punishes nations for not acting on behalf of the widow, the orphan, the poor, the immigrant. Over and over.
And what of Jesus, our Lord, who said to those who did not welcome the stranger, "DEPART FROM ME, into the pits of hell prepared for the devil and his demons..." (going from memory)?
The punishment of those - especially those rich oppressors - who take advantage of and fail to welcome and support the poor, including specifically immigrants - is a constant throughout the Bible.
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me.
God has sent me to preach good news to the poor,
to proclaim release to the prisoners and
recovery of sight to the blind,
to liberate the oppressed,"
~Jesus
THE MEN of Sodom to have sex with the visitors, the intended desire that turned to an attempt to gang rape them only after being turned away by Lot.
Again, you are welcome to your hunches on this point, no matter how ludicrous they may be. I'm quite confident that one day, you'll find that you were grossly mistaken.
Until then, you've made your point, no need to dwell on it. I'm sorry I am not able to help you understand what I think is clear any better.
Good luck, sir.
I’m intrigued by what you mean by “God punishes nations” and “the pits of hell”, “the devil and his demons”. Are you suggesting that God actually “punishes” nations? Are you suggesting that “the pit of hell” “the devil and his demons” are a real place and real beings?
In the stories, GOD punishes nations that do not support and give refuge to the needy and oppressed. THAT is what I mean.
Do I think God actually punishes nations, like sending floods or plagues? Probably not, certainly not that we can prove. But there is punishment and there is punishment.
I think God allows the natural consequences of bad actions to happen to people, and that those who oppress DO have natural consequences that serve as punishment. Self-inflicted punishment. That much we can see. I have not seen God demonstrably actively punishing people or nations.
Have you?
Yes, hell is real. Hell is created and enlarged with each evil and oppressive action. With each refusal to side with those who are oppressed. Hell is starving children. Hell is people without meaningful work. Hell is oppression. I'm sure you've seen hell, if your stories are true about what you do.
Do I think there is a burning pit somewhere? Probably not. Certainly not one that we can prove in any serious way.
Do you think we can prove that there is a burning pit of hell fire for the wicked? Or do you recognize that it's a human tradition, not a provable reality?
Got it. So, it’s not so much that you believe those things as that you believe in your version of those things.
“Have you?”
Yes, I’ve heard a number of things that purport to be God punishing nations, I personally think that it looks different now than it might have back in the day.
I never said I could, in fact I didn’t bring it up, you did.
But.
1. Francis Chan, makes an incredibly well reasoned, thoughtful, thouroghly biblical case for the reality of hell. Rob Bell, makes a ridiculously superficial, emotion driven, personal experience based case against it. Jesus spent an inordinate amount of time talking about hell and so I’d be inclined to believe that if Jesus thought it was that important, that maybe I should also.
So if it’s merely a human tradition, it’s one that Jesus promoted, which gives it some weight.
I’m simply trying to understand what you mean when you say things.
And I'm simply explaining what I mean. Hope it helps.
Yes, I’ve heard a number of things that purport to be God punishing nations,
Not asking what has been "purported." I'm asking you if you seen God demonstrably, provably punishing nations? That is, that "nations were punished" in a way that you can prove were punishments from God?
I say almost certainly, you can't, but you tell me what you think. Note: I'm NOT saying you think one way or the other, I'm ASKING what you think and what you think is demonstrable, provable.
I didn't ask you what Chan says, nor am I asking you if you think hell is real. You and I appear to agree that it is. I'm asking about the traditional fire pit where people are tossed for eternal torment. About THAT, I'm asking...
Do you think we can prove that there is a burning pit of hell fire for the wicked? Or do you recognize that it's a human tradition, not a provable reality?
I'm simply trying to understand what you are thinking when you ask questions about what I mean.
"? Do you really not realize how insane that is?"
Not insane at all. If you insist on pointing to Sodom as an example of a city destroyed for its lack of hospitality to foreigners, then I'm assuming you're speaking of the Book you reject and how it describes the story. As such, I ask you for any examples from that Book that indicates capital punishment is the sentence for not being hospitable to foreigners. Or perhaps there are other stories that show towns or cities destroyed for that crime. Or maybe there's a story of a guy being stoned to death by the priests or whose life was taken by God for the crime of refusing to take in a refugee, foreigner or even just a hungry poor guy.
Clearly, when the Book is useful for defending your ideology, you have no trouble citing it, as you do with the Sodom story to defend your position on loving immigrants. Yet, you aren't willing to use the book to demonstrate that your preferred explanation for why Sodom was destroyed is even possibly correct. Of course you'd be searching in vain since there are no such punishments prescribed for the crime you find so objectionable. In the meantime, death is the sentence for most sexual immorality, particularly homosexual behavior. But you want us to believe that God destroyed Sodom for a "crime" which nowhere in Scripture carries a death penalty? That's quite a stretch.
And then, when you try to cite Ezekiel, you ignore references to that which is detestable/abominable (depending on which Bible you're using) as well as references to the depravity of Sodom (Eze 16:47--"You not only walked in their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they.") Where in Scripture is lack of hospitality ever referred to as depravity? But the sexually immoral are still referred to as deprave to this day.
Your interpretation of the Sodom story doesn't even rise to the level of a hunch. It demonstrates no use of reason, but instead a willful corruption in order to support your preferred "morality". Don't you dare suggest that we are the ones denying reality and reading into Scripture that which isn't there.
So clearly my question isn't the least bit insane. You merely want it to be so as not to face your willfully false "understanding" of the Sodom story and it's message regarding immigrants.
"WE DO NOT NEED TO FIND A BIBLE VERSE TO JUSTIFY ACTING MORALLY."
I have absolutely no trust that there is any better source for determining what is or isn't moral. Without Scripture there is no basis beyond what is fashionable for a culture or a time. Without Scripture, morality is subjective. While you think doing no harm determines morality, another believes it is doing that which grows one's wealth and comfort. Without Scripture, morality is just a word people use to label behaviors they prefer people perpetuate for reasons that appeal personally. For people like you, who were born and raised in a part of the world greatly influenced by Christian thought, morality is what Scripture teaches minus that which you find inconvenient with greater emphasis on that which you personally feel makes you seem more holy. For people like me, who care about what Christianity is really all about, morality is what Scripture teaches without regard for how I personally feel about it.
"We ought not idolize the Bible, friends."
We ought not idolize our own notions of morality, friend. Living by Biblical teaching is not "idolizing" the Bible. I get that you probably don't understand the point, I'm sorry I can't help you understand.
" That's the point of the Ezekiel passage that we've oft talked about. And it's a common theme of especially the OT, that failing to take care of the poor, oppressed and foreigner leads to judgment."
Yet nowhere in Scripture will you find an example of capital punishment for it. "Judgement" is not "sentence" for conviction.
"God punishes nations for not acting on behalf of the widow, the orphan, the poor, the immigrant. Over and over."
So over and over one should see examples of nations destroyed for it, but that is not the case, nor was it for Sodom and Gomorrah.
"Again, you are welcome to your hunches on this point, no matter how ludicrous they may be."
"Ludicrous" is inserting intention where the text does not. The only intention one can infer of the men of Sodom was that they wished to have sex with the men in Lot's house. If you stop the story at their request, there is nothing to suggest it was more than that, or that rape would have occurred had Lot not denied them the men. If rape was the intention, rather than just homosexual sex with the "men", then Lot's daughters would not have been rejected as a less wicked alternative. The fact that they got pissed off and chose to force themselves on the "men" is because Lot denied them, not because their intention was to rape them. Can one truly be raped if one is giving consent? How does that work, exactly? If that is true, then the radical feminists are correct in saying you rape your wife every time you have sex with her regardless of her consent. Maybe that's what you're thinking, in which case it is truly you who is being ludicrous. You want so badly for the story to be about bad treatment of foreigners that you'll ignore the constant references to the rampant homosexuality of the Sodomites every time the city is referenced in Scripture. You so badly want to defend sexual immorality that you'll pretend no homosexual practice in places like Sodom, Gomorrah, Egypt or Canaan was ever "loving, committed, monogamous" unions, but only cheap sex. You'll tell yourself anything.
"Yes, hell is real. Hell is created and enlarged with each evil and oppressive action."
There is absolutely no description of hell such as this anywhere in Scripture. No hint by any Biblical character, Christ included, that hell is like this. This, too, fails to rise to the level of "hunch", as it is complete invention by you personally because you reject the teachings of Scripture that you find inconvenient.
"I didn't ask you what Chan says..."
That's particularly funny given how often you cite "some people" or "reasonable people" or other groups when asked directly about YOUR position, belief or opinion.
1. Yes,I believe that God punishes nations in various ways, can I prove it to the degree you seem to demand, probably not.
2. Clearly you don’t care what people who don’t agree with you might have to say. So, I repeat, Chan makes an excellent case for the historic, Orthodox view of Hell. I see no reason to try to summarize it here when it’s readily available. Further, Bell’s case against hell sucks. So, I’m going to stick with Jesus, who spent a significant amount of time talking about and warning people about hell. Again, can I meet your (unstated, undescribed, subjective) burden of proof? Probably not, but neither can you, so that doesn’t bother me.
I’d suggest that given Jesus’ constant teaching on hell and how he treats hell, is suggestive of its importance. So, if you’d like to characterize a subject Jesus spent so much time teaching on a mere human tradition, that’s your choice. But I’m not sure I’d characterize Jesus as a mere human.
1. When I note the reality that you can't prove it, as a point of fact, I mean simply that you can't prove it as a fact. To THAT degree. ( ie, prove it as the word is normally used in English.)
Hope that helps.
2. I DO take the teachings about hell seriously.
I hope that helps you understand.
The traditional religionists' treatment of hell (As opposed to Jesus' teachings about it) ARE a mere human tradition. And there's nothing wrong with that. We are, after all, mere humans.
We just ought not conflate our opinions and traditions with fact and God's word.
Dan
1. Yes, that’s what I said. I don’t believe it’s possible to prove it to you, given your unwillingness to define what level of certainty you regard as appropriate.
2. Thank you for making more assumptions. If only you’d stop doing that.
We just ought not conflate our paraphrasing of an out of context line from a myth with a direct quote attributed directly to “God”.
1. No, Craig. YOU. CAN'T. PROVE. IT. PERIOD.
Not to me. Not to scientists. Not to reasonable people. Not to fundamentalists.
You can't prove as a fact that hell exists as a burning pit or however you fantasize it.
You. Can't. Do. It.
When you say, "Yes," and then change the premise, you are indicating that you don't understand reality or what I've said (or that you understand what I said, but are ignoring it and answering ANOTHER question that I didn't ask... and that you don't understand reality.)
I'm sorry I can't help you understand that. No need to keep repeating answers to other questions or other points.
The point in question is that YOU CAN'T PROVE that hell exists, as a fact. Not to anyone. That's just reality.
I'm getting that you don't understand that reality.
Good luck.
~Dan
Did you actually read my comment? My point was that, despite your mysterious standard of proof, other people have different standards of proof, and I’m being incredibly precise and specific that the issue here is proof to your mysterious, shifting, subjective standard of proof regarding these issues. Given your unwillingness to quantity what level of certainty you consider proof, and what standard of evidence you’d accept, actually trying to prove something to you is a waste of time and pointless. So, the starting point with you, is that it’s impossible to prove anything to you.
I’m really sorry that you don’t understand the reality that you don’t speak for others (although you feel comfortable speaking for God). I’m really sorry that other people might be able to look at things and draw different conclusions from you.
Like I said, Chan makes an incredibly compelling biblical case for hell, I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. My suggestion, if you want some credibility, is to take a complete of his arguments and definitely prove them wrong.
Bottom line, I’ll stick with Jesus view of hell, rather than yours.
Can't prove the reality of hell? Who, besides you, brought THAT up?
We're back to "Did God really say...".
Dan talks about hell as if it's real, he just doesn't believe it can be proven. What do they call people who talk about imaginary things as if they are real?
Again, I've explained and explained. You don't understand.
I BELIEVE in hell. I believe we create metaphorical hellish situations way too often. That is observable.
I DON'T believe in a Dante-like fiery hell. I believe that is not biblical. I believe where you find that sort of language in the bible, it is clearly metaphorical.
Regardless, I recognize the reality that you two can absolutely not prove that a literal "fiery pit of hell" exists (something like Dante's vision), not as a demonstrable, observably factual objective reality. You can't do that. If you think you can, you are mistaken.
You can say, "Here's why WE BELIEVE it's real..." but you can't prove it as a demonstrable fact, not as an objectively proven reality.
What do I mean by "objectively provable..."? Proving it in such a way that the data is observable to ALL observers.
I can prove Minnesota exists. I can take pictures, interview people, establish a written record of its existence. I can't, you can't, no one can prove that hell exists, not a "fiery pit of hell" as evangelicals tend to envision it.
I'm sorry if you can't understand this. Find someone you trust to explain it to you, as clearly, you're not understanding my words.
~Dan
And Craig, GOD LITERALLY DID NOT TELL YOU THAT A FIERY PIT OF HELL exists.
It hasn't happened. You can't prove that God told you - or otherwise passed that info on to you - as an objectively proven reality. You can't.
Sorry if you don't understand that. I've tried to help.
Good luck, sirs.
~Dan
Francis Chan, makes an incredibly well reasoned, thoughtful, thouroghly biblical case for the reality of hell. Rob Bell, makes a ridiculously superficial, emotion driven, personal experience based case against it.
Out of morbid curiosity, I've tried to find Chan's argument online. Doesn't appear to exist. Just attempts to sell his books and trash talking Rob Bell (who I know nothing about, but who I guess argued against hell). What info I did find about Chan was not impressive. At all.
Again, out of morbid curiosity, I'd like to see somewhere his written arguments to "prove" something that he can't prove as an objectively demonstrable fact, or in what sense you think he is "proving" something if it's not demonstrably and objectively proven. If you'd like to point to a source for this argument, I'd be game (although, I certainly won't be buying or reading a book on the topic - if someone can't make the argument in a few paragraphs/pages online, I'm extremely doubtful that they can prove it in 1,000 pages.
At a guess, I think you are probably saying something like, "IF you accept a bunch of premises and agree with us on a bunch of unproven and unprovable theories, THEN we can 'prove' hell exists and 'prove' God wipes out/punishes nations..." but you tell me.
Or just save your time.
The reality is that you can't prove this. You can't support the claim. If you could, that sort of information would be everywhere. Fundamentalists would for sure be spreading such "proof" far and wide, IF it existed.
It doesn't.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-proof-of-heaven-or-hell
~Dan
Dan,
Many people who make extended complex arguments, do so in these things called books. They do so, because they can’t teadonably condense a complex subject down to something short enough that you won’t get bored or lost.
But, I do agree that it’s completely fair and reasonable to draw conclusions about the quality of the case being made on a complex subject, by engaging in a cursory google search. That sort of deep, in depth, extended, scholarly analysis explains why you have so much credibility.
Fact remains, you can't objectively prove to anyone your human hunches on these points. The complete absence of even an attempt to make a case says it all.
Dan
If I wasn’t clear enough, his written arguments are contained in a novel contraption called a book. Books are, historically, where people have compiled their written arguments or thoughts in order to allow others to peruse them. Personally I’ve always found value in reading the entirety of someone’s work, not the cliff notes version. But that’s just me, I also don’t let my prejudices affect how I respond to people’s actual arguments, like dismissing them before I actually know what I’m talking about.
But clearly, you’ve developed the ability to make those kind of judgments in an infallible manner after a cursory google search.
Thank you for your open minded and fair approach, I only wish we all could be that unbiased and free from preconceptions.
The facts are, that I never claimed I could. I’m not the one who brought the “firey pit of hell into the conversation.
So, the fact that you expect me to provide support for things you’ve made claims about seems quite backwards.
But if those two basic indisputable facts have managed to elude you, then adding more will just confuse you.
The man appears to be a charlatan, if he's suggesting what you say he's suggesting. Where are those throughout Christian history making the case? Are you suggesting this guy, alone in all of church history, has found this secret evidence to "prove" what no one else has?
You've been duped. Sorry.
Dan
One choice, then. Let your next comment be a clear admission: "I cannot prove that hell exists, not as an objective fact."
If you're not making the claim, it should be easy to do.
That, Or no more comments.
Dan
We're back to "Did God really say...".
That is a VITAL place to be. Anytime someone claims, with some sort of authority, that THEY KNOW "God said..." and they are not mistaken on the point, we should ask, "Did God really say...?" And anytime someone suggests, "And when God said that, he clearly was suggesting THIS... and I can't be wrong about it..." red flags should be flying and we should ask "Did God really say...?"
Very important question to ask. I hope you realize that (as it seems as if you, like Stan and others often do, are mocking the notion of asking that vital, reasonable and biblical question).
~Dan
One choice, then. Let your next comment be a clear admission: "I cannot prove that hell exists, not as an objective fact."
If you're not making the claim, it should be easy to do.
That, Or no more comments.
More importantly than asking, as the serpent did, "Did God really say...?", is the question, "On what basis am I asking the question?" That is, am I asking to know the truth, or because the truth, as presented to us in Scripture, is inconvenient? Clearly for you, Dan, it's the latter.
Man, if you all want to defend the Truth and if your notion of the Truth sounds out there and unbelievable, then you'd better be prepared to answer, "Did God really say?"
But yes, of course, the intent is important. My intent, as well as probably most people's intent when you say something that suggests that maybe God is okay with commanding people to wipe out whole villages, including the babies, is moral outrage at the suggestion and we are asking with a bit of righteous indignation... are you serious? Do you REALLY think a good God would order the destruction of a whole village, babies included?!!
The basis is an appeal to basic goodness, decency and justice.
Unfortunately for your, Marshall, your human guesses about my motivation are simply factually wrong.
Good luck.
But all I have is your word that your motivations are honorable. Just can't accept that as proper defense for your positions, anymore than I offer such for mine.
It's easy enough to respond to the question, "Did God really say...?" when Scripture clearly shows that He did. Then, of course, your response is to question the integrity of the passage and the author who wrote it...something I suppose you can do, but having some data to support the implication would be nice. You just never provide anything other than your poor understanding of other verses that you misapply.
For example, as you just recently wrote, "God won't command us to do evil." You use this to defend your position that OT stories of God punishing entire cities through human agency can't be true, as commanding the nations of Israel to wipe out entire cities is tantamount to commanding Israel to do evil. This ignores that life belongs to God to do with as He pleases. How He chooses to punish is up to Him and your perfect knowledge of how He determines such things aside, there is a great deal of arrogance to suppose you can dictate to Him as to the morality of His methods.
It's one thing to speculate as to God's motives. But to presume that you can insist that certain stories are false simply because it offends your personal sensitivities and desires about how a "good, decent and just" God should behave is another thing entirely.
It's not a matter of whether or not I'm "OK" with how God operates. It's a matter of whether or not He operates the way Scripture describes Him operating. On what basis can you insist that it's false in these situations, while in those where He operates in a way you personally find it appealing it's accurate? Clearly, because of your own personal feelings about how YOU insist He SHOULD act. If He doesn't act in a manner you find pleasing, the story is false. If He acts in a manner you find pleasing, the story is true.
"Do you REALLY think a good God would order the destruction of a whole village, babies included?!!"
This question is disingenuous. An honest version would be, do you really thing a good God DID order the destruction of a whole village, babies included? Clearly, according to Scripture, He did. To presume it alters notions of His goodness requires the perfect knowledge you insist can't be had by mere humans. As such, we must satisfy ourselves that His goodness, decency and sense of justice conforms with such an action in ways we're not capable of understanding. You clearly have no trust in Him. You more certainly have no trust whatsoever in the Biblical authors where you don't like what you read. Picking and choosing in a most clear cut and self-satisfying manner.
Post a Comment