Stan at the Winging It blog recently posted the common evangelical trope about humanity being inherently evil/bad/not good. He was attacking the notion that humans could rightly be considered "good," and said, among other things...
The most common perspective today is that people are basically good. Sure, there's some bad ones, but, in general, we start out good.
There is a problem with that position. If humans are born good, why does no one end up good? Okay, that's one problem. The fact is that the Bible contradicts it.
From there, he did the standard conservative evangelical thing of cherry picking some verses from the Bible and offering that as "proof" of his position. As always, I'm not speaking about Stan himself in this post, just addressing this common conservative trope.
Here's
a challenge for people like Stan: support your premise/claim.
Prove that people are basically bad/evil/corrupt. Prove not only that
people, in general, are not good... but that they are SO evil that the
only proper response is to torture them for an eternity to punish them
for their evil.
Prove it in some
reasonable way. Don't merely saying, "Hey, there is a line in the bible that I
personally think we should take literally - even though other lines in
the Bible, I don't take them literally and I fully recognize that the
various biblical authors use metaphors and hyperbole and imagery all the
time... but THESE verses in the Bible should be taken literally..."
Don't merely say that, but
offer some rational, reasoned support for it.
For instance, merely citing some verses in the Bible with the suggestion that they represent literal facts is not enough... not when you, yourself, recognize that at least some verses in the Bible are metaphors, some are hyperbole and some are otherwise figurative. So, the presence of one line that says something about the four corners of the earth is not "proof" of a square, flat earth any more than one line saying something about "babies are evil from birth and they speak lies" is sufficient proof of evil, lying babies.
In the real world, for such a claim as "humans are inherently evil... and not only that, but they are ALL (everyone of them) SO evil that, apart from some action, they deserve to be tortured for eternity to pay for their crimes (which, of course, can never be paid, since they'll be tortured for eternity). If you don't like the "tortured for eternity" language, we can substitute it for the more "biblical" (ish) language of "burn in hell forever, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth..."
The Bible, taken literally, COULD be said to "contradict" the notion of "no one ending up doing good..." BUT, the Bible, taken literally, could also contradict the notion of the earth as a globe. That there is a line in the Bible that says something like that is not, in and of itself, sufficient proof of anything.
Contrast that with this claim: I see good people every day. I see good people being kind, working for justice, helping people find homes or jobs or respect. People DO in fact do good things and I know this because I see it.
So, we can accept the notion that all people are utterly wicked and deserving of eternal torture because there are lines in the Bible that some people think indicate that OR we can accept the notion of "I see good people in the world and I know they're good because I see them doing reasonably good actions..."
Which is more reasonable?
So, aside from some lines in an ancient text that SOME people say means that there are no good people, anywhere, what is the proof for such a hard to believe claim?
And note: Saying that I believe that clearly there ARE good people around because I see them is NOT the same as saying that there are no bad people nor is it the same as saying that there are perfect people. Just Good, as good is commonly understood.
I'll wait for some kind of proof more than "I got a hunch..."
41 comments:
Stan fails the Bible test in more ways than one, Dan.
Genesis 1
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Psalm 82
Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
they walk around in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
I say, “You are gods,
children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince.”
Psalm 139
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
that I know very well.
Stan also fails in understanding Orthodoxy when he tried to define it as “believing in the right things” when Orthodox tradition defines Orthodoxy as “believing in the right way”, i.e. the liturgy of worship. “The way we pray shapes the way we believe.” Further, and regarding your critique here, Dan, Stan is ignorant of the Orthodox theology of the capacity of human beings due to our being made in the image and likeness of God and the potential we have in Christ: which is to be so good that we are co-participants with God in divine activity (2 Peter 1:4). And so Stan, as do all of the radical Protestant descendants of Calvin, rejects the life of Christ within us, the union of ourselves with the Son of God, our calling as children of God. That is the anti-Christian degree in which Stan and Marshal and Craig live their professed Christian ignorance, and, therefore, the reason they so easily assume brutality.
St Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, 'if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods’ and then added, "Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High." ... For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality.
St Clement of Alexandria "Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god."
Saint Athanasius's saying, "The Son of God became man so that we might become God…. if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God. . . . His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, 'Men are gods, and gods are men.’
Theophilus of Antioch "For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God…"
Hippolytus of Rome, "If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead.”
Gregory of Nyssa ""Since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminated Himself in every believer.”
Basil of Ceaserea "becoming a god is the highest goal of all"
St. Symeon the New Theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, 'He who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face.’
In the Latin Church's liturgical prayers, when pouring wine and a little water into the chalice: "By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”
Jesus clearly knew Ps 82 when he rebukes “the Jews” in John 10
"The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law,[d] ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
John 17
As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us,[f] so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Romans 8
But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you. So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God
Galatians 4
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.
2 Peter 1
Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may *become *participants *of *the *divine *nature.
For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love.
Not only are human beings generally good, created in the image of divinity - how else could there be civilizations and marvelous cities - Christians can co-participate with God along with Christ as a true brother. True Christians believe in the incarnation... and the deification of human beings that Christ’s incarnation brings.
Mark 10:18
Since you accept Christ's words literally when He mentions "the poor and marginalized", no doubt the above verse is all the proof you need.
No one cherry-picks anything which simply repeats the clear teaching of Scripture. That's just a lame ploy used by those who don't like what Scripture says when another reminds them of what Scripture says.
But the problem here is that you wish to put YOUR notion of what constitutes "good" above God's. When any of us refers to another person as "good", it's relative to other humans. When Jesus speaks of who is or isn't "good", He's speaking relative to the only True Measure of Goodness: God Himself. By that measure, no one of us is "good". Basic Christianity 101.
What I'm saying, Marshal, is, support your claim. Prove it.
Give us your personal definition of good. Explained why it is the one true definition of good. Support it with data.
For my part, I'm not talking about my notion of good. I'm talking about good as it is commonly understood. If you have some other definition for good, please provide it. Clearly, there are good people in the world as we can see people taking good actions on a regular basis.
Perhaps you're defining good as perfect, for instance. If so, then it makes sense to say the people aren't perfect because we can see that. It's demonstrable and can be supported with data.
The problem then is that you're defining good in some non-standard way. So, by all means, provide your definition of good and show why it is the one true definition. And then supported with data.
That's all I'm asking. Here's your opportunity. Make your case.
Marshal... When Jesus speaks of who is or isn't "good", He's speaking relative to the only True Measure of Goodness: God Himself
Let me help walk you through what I'm looking for.
1. I doubt that you can prove this authoritatively. That Jesus is speaking of good only relative to God.
2. So if I'm reading you correctly, buy good, what's your defining as like God, I assume you mean perfect? That is you don't mean good literally. You mean the people aren't perfect. Is that right? If so, you and I can agree. People are not perfect. Boom. Done.
3. On the other hand, given what good means in the English language, and what the word that was translated from Hebrew for the word good, we just mean good as it is normally defined. Helpful, kind, considerate, honest, you know, good. So, by the normal understanding of good, then can you read that, yes of course, people are good. Lots of people are good. Can you agree?
4. So your hunch, then, which is a hunch common to Calvinists and other modern evangelicals, among others, is that if you're not perfect then you are truly evil in comparison to God. That is, being less than perfect is, in your mind, the equivalent of being evil and utterly depraved. Is that right?
And therefore, you think, in your opinion, that are fewer evil - being redefined to mean merely not perfect - then you are deserving of eternal torment and torture? Separation from God and cast into a lake of fire, weather metaphorically or literally? Is that right?
5. You think this even though God did not make us to be perfect. That is, you think that God made us as imperfect human beings, just a little lower than God according to the psalmist and being created to do good works according to the Bible, but not perfect... that God made us this way, but then deemed us worthy of Eternal torture because we were imperfect. And that indeed we couldn't be perfect. Is that correct?
If that correctly sums up your calvinist beliefs, do you at least see how irrational, unjust, unloving that seems? Especially for a perfectly just and perfectly loving God?
"What I'm saying, Marshal, is, support your claim."
And I did with my reference to Mark 10:18. Again, it's Jesus' own words and unless YOU are into cherry-picking, then you must accept His words on this subject as you do when He says He brings the Good News to "the poor". And unlike explaining what He means by "the poor", there is no need to define "good" as He is merely saying there is no one who is but God.
"Give us your personal definition of good."
To what end? My personal definition doesn't do a thing to mitigate Christ's own words regarding the fact that there is no one good but God. My definition is likely not much different than yours, but that's not the point of Christ's words or of Stan's post. And keep in mind, I doubt you'd deny that there are many who do good works that you would still not regard as "good". I can think of a US president you would surely reject in this manner. All human definitions are subjective. Mark 10:18 suggests Christ's is specific and definitive, and as such, we don't qualify. Thank God He sent Him to us.
"For my part, I'm not talking about my notion of good."
Actually, for your part, you most absolutely are. Whether or not your notion is of your own making or a dictionary definition to which you subscribe, it's your notion either way, even if shared by others. Christ's words suggests His notion is different.
"The problem then is that you're defining good in some non-standard way."
The problem is that I'm not defining it at all, but recognizing that clearly my definition doesn't make me good in the eyes of Christ, but only in the eyes of myself or others. There's no human definition or standard that makes us good if Jesus says only God is good. My definition simply doesn't matter against that. I'm "good" with that. Why aren't you? Because you want to be good. So do I. But only God is. Jesus said so.
Response continues...
"1. I doubt that you can prove this authoritatively. That Jesus is speaking of good only relative to God."
But again, I just did. Mark 10:18 is exactly that. "No one is good but God alone" is absolutely Jesus speaking of good relative to God. How is this not obvious to you? Or are you doing the usual thing and rejecting this fact because He didn't say the exact words, "I'm speaking of good only relative to God."? I know that's a favorite ploy of yours, but it really doesn't work when it's so clear.
"2. So if I'm reading you correctly, buy good, what's your defining as like God, I assume you mean perfect?"
But I'm not doing ANY defining here. Like Stan, I'm merely pointing out what Scripture says. If you can authoritatively and with data provide a superior explanation for what Scripture/God/Jesus means when the condition of man is described, have at it.
"3. On the other hand, given what good means in the English language..."
...doesn't matter. What man's definition is as applied to man is relative to other men and what they do or don't do. We use the term as a reference to distinguish between each other and our behaviors. By the standards of man, lots of people are indeed good. But by the standards of God? By what authority and with what concrete evidence can you insist that God's standards are the same as man's?
"4. So your hunch, then, which is a hunch common to Calvinists and other modern evangelicals, among others, is that if you're not perfect then you are truly evil in comparison to God. That is, being less than perfect is, in your mind, the equivalent of being evil and utterly depraved. Is that right?"
No.
"And therefore, you think, in your opinion, that are fewer evil - being redefined to mean merely not perfect - then you are deserving of eternal torment and torture? Separation from God and cast into a lake of fire, weather metaphorically or literally? Is that right?"
Given that your "since" was wrong, it only follows that your "therefore" has no basis. It seems you're going out of your way to impose as extreme a meaning to my position as you possibly can to more easily reject it as absurd. But rejecting what I didn't say doesn't put points on the board.
"5. You think this even though God did not make us to be perfect."
But I don't think that. But at this point it's clear that your questions and comments lean toward a works-based salvation. Being "good"..."Helpful, kind, considerate, honest"...gets you a seat at the Big Table.
We have a sin nature. We are inherently sinful..."born in iniquity"...and there is none who are good but God. This last part especially affirms our need for Christ, without Whom we are indeed destined for less than heavenly admittance...regardless of our "good"...Helpful, kind, considerate, honest...we are. I think Jesus words in Mark 10:18 remind us that there is nothing we can do without Him. It's that "boasting" think about which Paul speaks. We AREN'T good and are in desperate need of Christ. When we realize that, we realize we are "poor in spirit" and it is for us that He came to bring the Good News.
Marshal, there is a verse in the Bible where God references the four corners of the Earth. We could take that literally. We could have assumed that the Earth must be a flat square since God said four corners of the Earth. But all we have to do is look in the real world and see that the Earth is not a flat Square.
The real world observation overrules a literal interpretation of Four Corners. Clearly that text is metaphorical, not literal.
Presumably, you have no reason to take that verse literally and you recognize it as a metaphor or figurative. Given that, then you realize there are passages that are figurative. Of course.
So you've leaped over that with the verse or verses that say there is no one who is righteous.
Just like with the four corners passage not being reasonable to assume literally, given that we can see in the real world evidence arguing against a literal interpretation, so too, in the real world, we can see good people.
The point is, merely pointing to a verse in the Bible for anything is insufficient proof to support your position.
So once again, support your claim. Prove it with data and reasonable support.
Your argument fails as it struggles to make a false comparison between a "four corners of the earth" phrase and the statement of Christ's regarding no one but God being good. They are not in the least bit similar, except that you need them to be for some strange reason...that reason revolving around your personal discomfort with the notion that someone YOU regard as "good" isn't as far as Jesus is concerned. As such, you demand I "prove" that He meant what He said.
Also, "four corners of the earth" in the context the expression is used is not a description of the shape of the earth. That is, the point being made when the phrase is employed has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual shape of the earth.
But "none good but God" IS a distinct reference to the condition of man. So if your problem is that despite your best efforts, or the many works of another, neither you nor anyone else can truly be good, then you're getting it and understand just how much you need Christ.
Marshal, don't tell me. Support it.
Saying, "four corners is an expression that is figurative, obviously," and "infants tell lies and everybody is bad is not an expression that is figurative..." is not sufficient.
That is the question. Prove your point. Hint: no amount of saying here's a line that I think proves it will prove it. It's not sufficient to point to a line in a book.
I could point to a line in Harry Potter or the Quran or any other book and say look that proves this point. But the mere presence of a line in any book, even the Bible, is not sufficient to prove a claim like everyone is bad. Especially when we can look and see good people.
Saying when Jesus said, no one is good except God in heaven MUST be assumed to be a literal claim by Jesus simply does not prove it. It's an empty claim. This is what I've been saying forever. Just support your claim with something other than your opinion.
"Saying when Jesus said, no one is good except God in heaven MUST be assumed to be a literal claim by Jesus simply does not prove it."
Yet, it's sufficient for you when Jesus says "bringing good news to the poor" that He means the materially poor rather than "poor in spirit". Yet, "no one is good but God" is FAR more ambiguous to you somehow? Nonsense. It's far less so, and quite direct.
"I could point to a line in Harry Potter or the Quran or any other book and say look that proves this point."
Absolutely you could, and you'd be right to do so depending upon the point you were trying to prove. The point here, which is the point of Stan's post that has your panties in a twist, is what Scripture says about the goodness/wickedness of men. To support what Scripture says REQUIRES searching Scripture for evidence, for which Mark 10:18 stands as an excellent example.
But you remind me of all those who bristle at being referred to as a sinner, when it's Scripture that reveals to us that each of us is. As such, your response is the same..."but, but I'm a nice guy and I know plenty of people who are as well!" It's natural man failing to understand the Scriptural as well as those who feel they are not in need of redemption.
Furthermore, it is more than a bit problematic that you insist that anyone who defends Scripture you find troubling must prove to you that what Scripture says is true, accurate or properly interpreted, instead of you offering up an actual argument for an alternative understanding...complete with evidence and data you demand of the defenders. But then, it's not the source of the evidence with which you have a problem. It's the evidence itself, particularly any that indicts your position in a negative light.
I fully believe in this case you're simply in defense mode, deflecting attention from the character flaws and sinfulness of friends and family and possibly yourself. But that misses the point. It has nothing to do with works, to which you point in your counter to Stan's almost universally accepted and understood interpretation of Scripture on this matter. Bad people do good things. Imperfect people do good things. Nice people do good things despite not being nice all the time. Does doing good things make them good? To us humans, sure. Why not? It makes sense for us to discriminate on the basis of deeds done by an individual or group. But does that make them "good" in the sense discussed in any of the verses and passages Stan highlighted? No. Not in the least. Indeed, the deeds people do don't matter in that context.
And as such, you demand for a definition from me doesn't matter, either. Your demand that I prove what Christ means in Mark 10:18 is absurd and frankly, if it doesn't mean what it clearly says, it is up to YOU to prove it means something else. It's not for use to prove it means what it says.
Marshal... it's sufficient for you when Jesus says "bringing good news to the poor" that He means the materially poor rather than "poor in spirit". Yet, "no one is good but God" is FAR more ambiguous to you somehow?
First of all, I'm not saying that "no one is good but God" is ambiguous. I'm saying it's clearly hyperbole. Just like "four corners of the earth" is figurative language, not a physical description of the earth.
Beyond that, when we are talking about what Jesus said in the Bible and wondering if there is a consistent message there, then the way we assess that is by reading those words and see what they say.
When we are talking about the nature of humanity, we are not limited to the Bible's words when it comes to assessing that, any more than when it comes to talking about the age of the earth we are not limited to the bible's words on the topic. The Bible does not TELL us that we are limited to Scripture when talking about topics like the nature of humans.
Indeed, Jesus affirms that the good tree bears good fruit... if you want to safely know whether a person is a good person, observe their actions and that will generally tell you. Not perfectly, not objectively, but reasonably so.
Of course,
You are making a claim about the nature of all humans. You need to support it with SOMETHING more than "I read some words in this ONE SOURCE and, beyond that, did not look at human nature in the real world or read what others have to say about it... nor have I even spent much time considering what other people have said about what the Bible has to say about human nature. I'm limiting my source for understanding and making claims about the nature of humanity to WHAT I THINK SOME FEW PASSAGES IN ONE TEXT say about the topic, MY OPINION and interpretation of those words..."
The nature of humanity can be observed, tested, weighed, and otherwise considered in the real world. When we do that, we find people who are generally good, by what most people consider "good" to be.
Answer a simple question, Marshal... Given Miss Sue...
an elderly lady who all her life has been kind and considerate to other people, generally;
who worked as a teacher in a poverty-stricken school and giving above and beyond to educate her students;
who was faithful to her husband and adopted three orphaned children not her own to give them a chance to have parents;
who gave of her meager teacher pay to various causes to help those in need;
who was a kind neighbor who regularly welcomed new people into the neighborhood and kept in touch with old neighbors;
who had no overt mean actions in her life, no murder, no theft, no cheating, no beating, etc...
Given Miss Sue, do you have ANY reason to disagree with what most people would agree with: That she is a good person...?
We can see Miss Sues all around us. We have them in our lives. Sure, they're not perfect. They tell little lies ("Oh, I'm too tired to go out tonight... I'm going to tell my cousin who is asking for help that I have a meeting to attend...") and are at times greedy or selfish or otherwise imperfect. But still, generally speaking, Miss Sue IS what most people would consider a good person.
Do you have any reason at all to disagree with the general agreement about such a person?
If so, based on WHAT DEFINITION of Good?
Marshal... he point here, which is the point of Stan's post that has your panties in a twist, is what Scripture says about the goodness/wickedness of men. To support what Scripture says REQUIRES searching Scripture for evidence
Stan made an assessment claim about the nature of humans. He said...
The most common perspective today is that people are basically good. Sure, there's some bad ones, but, in general, we start out good.
There is a problem with that position. If humans are born good, why does no one end up good? Okay, that's one problem. The fact is that the Bible contradicts it.
Aside from Scripture, Stan made a claim, in the form of a question, "WHY DOES NO ONE END UP GOOD...?" The question is rhetorical and assumes that there are no such thing as good people. From there, Stan THEN GOES to cherry picked passages to support this theory of his. But he begged the question, as are you:
WHO SAYS that there are no good people?
Support the claim.
Marshal...
it is more than a bit problematic that you insist that anyone who defends Scripture you find troubling must prove to you that what Scripture says is true, accurate or properly interpreted, instead of you offering up an actual argument for an alternative understanding
Stan made a claim - apart from the Bible - that there are no good humans. I find that suggestion to be a problem because clearly, there ARE good human beings. Not PERFECT humans, but good ones.
Can you support that claim?
Now, Stan makes a lame attempt to defend it NOT by pointing to A SINGLE SHRED of real world data, but instead, appealing to HIS INTERPRETATION of some passages from the Bible. "No one does good. No, not one."
Okay, but why is this not hyperbole or figurative?
That question goes ignored. By Stan. By you. By all of your type. It's as if you think that merely asserting "the Bible says..." is sufficient to stand as an uncontested fact. But YOU ALL agree that the Bible says "the four corners of the earth" but you don't think the earth is a flat square. YOU RECOGNIZE that the Bible has figurative language. IF we all agreed that there was no figurative language in the Bible, then maybe that would stand. But we all agree that there IS figurative language in the bible. Given that, it's insufficient to merely point to a verse and presume that says it all.
Do you not understand the rational and biblical problem you face?
So, before you comment here any more, you must answer these questions/explain yourself:
1. DEFINE GOOD, as you are using it.
2. EXPLAIN WHY your definition of Good is the one we must all embrace.
3. ANSWER: Do you have some reason to disagree with the notion that Miss Sue is a good person as we humans generally understand Good?
4. Do YOU think Miss Sue is Good?
5. If not, explain in what sense is Miss Sue NOT Good.
Go, do your homework. Support your claim. I've been patient thus far.
If you're truly not understanding somehow what the problem you're having with your position or what the questions mean, feel free to ask for explanation. They seem pretty clear and straightforward to me, but maybe you've been so indoctrinated that you can't even understand the questions being asked of you. you tell me.
Marshal...
Does doing good things make them good? To us humans, sure. Why not?
A. We ARE humans and we're talking about Human behavior. Why would we not try to make sense to we humans? Who else are we going to make sense to?
B. Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruit. A good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit." You will recognize bad actors (in that case, "false prophets") by their bad actions and good people by their good actions.
Jesus appeared to think that doing good demonstrated a good nature. Do you disagree?
So, at least in the parlance of normal humans, yes, doing good things does tend to indicate a good person.
Now, there can be exceptions and this is why it's a more subjective measure. There can be people doing good actions with bad intent (being kind to an elderly person, for instance, in hopes of taking advantage of them and stealing their money...). People can be deceptive.
Still, I know plenty of Miss Sues and know them well. I know that there is not any serious deception on their part. They are genuinely good people, as we humans understand Good.
On what basis would we NOT consider them Good and by what definition of Good?
I totally missed an entire comment from you. I now respond to it here:
"Aside from Scripture, Stan made a claim, in the form of a question, "WHY DOES NO ONE END UP GOOD...?" The question is rhetorical and assumes that there are no such thing as good people"
You know as well as I do that 99% of Stan's post are related to spiritual matters. Why would you therefore assume that his question isn't referencing spiritual matters here? With that in mind, he's absolutely correct. We can't all be sinners and good people at the same time. Not in the spiritual sense to which Stan refers...constantly. His appeals to Scripture...what you disparagingly refer to as "cherry-picking"...provide evidence to support the contention...a contention influenced by the teachings of Scripture. Thus, his "cherry-picking" is no worse than providing examples of Scriptural teaching on the subject of total depravity, otherwise known as "we're all sinners". Basic Christian stuff.
"WHO SAYS that there are no good people?"
Asked and answered...more than once. Jesus said so. (Mark 10:18) Why that's not good enough for you is a question about which I no longer much care.
"Now, Stan makes a lame attempt to defend it NOT by pointing to A SINGLE SHRED of real world data..."
Nor does he need to in order to respond to your lame demand that he do so. He's NOT speaking in terms of worldly understanding of what constitutes goodness, but in Scriptural terms. Where else would one seek data for the spiritual? In Merriam-Webster? Stan is saying, people think they're good. Scripture says none of us are. Scripture says we're all sinners. If one is a believer, if one seeks the Kingdom of God, one is best served by referencing Scriptural teachings on such things.
"Okay, but why is this not hyperbole or figurative?
That question goes ignored."
First off, there's no reason to suspect it might be that can easily be inferred by reading the text. Secondly, the reverse question is NEVER addressed by you, EVER, with regard to interpretations with which you disagree, find problematic or inconvenient. You simply don't like them, so you put the burden on us to prove the sky is blue, water is wet and fire burns.
"But we all agree that there IS figurative language in the bible. Given that, it's insufficient to merely point to a verse and presume that says it all."
But we certainly don't agree on what is or isn't figurative, and less so on when one might suspect it's one or the other. To us, what's figurative is clearly so. We do NOT question whether "four corners of the earth" type expressions are, as it's plainly obvious to honest people of even modest intelligence. But you would have pretty much anything that troubles you be regarded as such with no real, legitimate argument to defend the proposition. Thus, if you think "we're all sinners" is hyperbole or figurative, make your case. You never do...you just insist that we make ours in defense of these and other verses and passages that conflict with your personal beliefs.
continuing....
Marshal, I've copied your post you just put up and may put it back up. But right now, I want you to answer the questions you have pending. Your comment may or may not make sense, but FIRST I need you to answer questions.
What do you mean by Good? Define it.
Who says YOUR definition is the right one?
On what basis would you say Miss Sue is NOT a good person?
Answer the questions before you post any more.
"Do you not understand the rational and biblical problem you face?"
No, because you haven't truly established any real rational or biblical problem WE face. You've only established that YOU have a problem with the passages in question and the entirely traditional interpretation of them. I don't think you could possibly defend your position without moving the issue from its spiritual plane to the material plane from which you've been drawing all your reasons to object. You can't get beyond what people do when the point being made by Stan is what people ARE spiritually...sinners, wicked by nature, not good because only God is good.
"So, before you comment here any more, you must answer these questions/explain yourself:"
Oops!
"1. DEFINE GOOD, as you are using it."
God.
"2. EXPLAIN WHY your definition of Good is the one we must all embrace."
Because Jesus said only God alone is good (Mark 10:18).
"3. ANSWER: Do you have some reason to disagree with the notion that Miss Sue is a good person as we humans generally understand Good?"
Nope.
"4. Do YOU think Miss Sue is Good?"
By human standards, sure.
"5. If not, explain in what sense is Miss Sue NOT Good."
She's not God, so by the standards set forth by Jesus, she's not good.
See how this works? Perhaps if you'd have done YOUR homework this distinction might not be so lost on you. By Christ's standards, no one is good but God. By human standards, Trump is good because he's improved our economy, moved our embassy to Jerusalem, put many constitutionally sound judges and justices on the courts and provided free room and board to Jennifer Hudson and family members after her mother and brother were murdered in Chicago. By human standards, Martin Luther King, Jr. is not good because he was a serial adulterer and abuser of women. By human standards its all relative. It's all subjective. By Christ's standards, it's pretty cut and dry and clearly defined. Both are true at the same time because they deal in different realms.
So clearly, there's absolutely nothing about this issue about which I don't understand. It's all crystal clear to me and there is nothing about it I find troubling, except should I decide I don't need Jesus. Then I'd have real problems. That's not the case. Because of Him, I'll be regarded as good without actually being so. That's what redemption, sanctification and atonement through Christ is all about. I don't have to perfect like God. I couldn't possibly be. You might want to get with this program before it's too late for you. OR, you could bring real world data to convince me that what Jesus says isn't really what He said or meant. I don't want to be wrong about matters of eternity, so I'd appreciate a convincing argument.
Just noticed you bounced my comments again. Typical cowardice and fascism on your part. There's something seriously wrong with you in doing this so often for no rational, mature reason. Just sayin'.
Okay, we're getting somewhere.
Marshal:
"1. DEFINE GOOD, as you are using it."
God."
Okay, IF we're defining Good as "God," then yes, NO HUMAN IS GOD.
So, then, since no human is God, humans (who did not choose not to be God) are so flawed that they "deserve" to be sent to hell forever.
Is that what you're saying?
In other words, as I said VERY early on in all of this (and as I've said before), you all are defining Good to mean Perfect or God, and NOT using the standard English understanding of Good.
And you are then going on to say that no one who is not perfect or not God is, therefore, SO HIDEOUSLY AWFUL that they DESERVE to be tortured in hell forEVER. And that is what a just and loving God does.
Is that what you're saying?
Please answer.
No human is Satan, either. So, if Marshal were ever able to understand what consistent reasoning is, he'd have to say no human is evil.
Reasonable point. If he were consistent.
Of course, the other question remains: Who is Marshal to insist that his non-standard and irrational definition of Good is the One True Definition?
And no, Marshal. Merely saying "Jesus" does not mean that Jesus approves of your definition. "Jesus" is not a magical incantation.
"So, then, since no human is God, humans (who did not choose not to be God) are so flawed that they "deserve" to be sent to hell forever.
Is that what you're saying?"
No, but that's clearly what you need me to be saying for some reason. However, Jesus clearly states that no one comes to the Father but through Him, so without Jesus, there's nothing we can do...that is, we do enough "good" things to make a difference. We NEED Jesus, not works.
"In other words, as I said VERY early on in all of this (and as I've said before), you all are defining Good to mean Perfect or God, and NOT using the standard English understanding of Good."
No. We're not. That's the point. Scripture/Jesus/God is saying that. Over and over, in fact. It's the reason we need Christ...because we CAN'T be "perfect" enough on our own to overcome our sin natures. Again, basic Christian stuff.
"And you are then going on to say that no one who is not perfect or not God is, therefore, SO HIDEOUSLY AWFUL that they DESERVE to be tortured in hell forEVER. And that is what a just and loving God does.
Is that what you're saying?
Please answer."
I'll answer it this way: you're being completely sinful in describing a truth about Christian teaching in the most HIDEOUSLY AWFUL manner you can in order to maintain your false God that you've created as opposed to accepting reality about the God of Scripture...the only God there is. More specifically, it is your focus on the reality and your presentation of it in such a way as to suggest it is not the truth that is sinful. You mock it and those who believe this clear and unmistakable teaching of reality. I'd provide several verses that support this reality, but you'd only demand I find a Harry Potter book or some such crap to back up this position. C'mon. You either believe Christian teaching or you don't. And if you want to again pretend there's something wrong with my "interpretation", present a fact-based counter argument.
I say again that you accept God on YOUR terms. He's only "a just and loving God" if He acts according to YOUR terms, and YOUR definitions and YOUR standards of what constitutes "just and loving". I...and I assume Stan and Craig and others who no longer spend their time with you...live according to God's standards as so clearly revealed to us through Scripture.
More coming...
"No human is Satan, either."
And no Christian suggests there's some equivalency between God and Satan. A more accurate Christian representation is that God is good and anyone or anything that isn't God isn't good. Satan is the yang to God's yin, little feo. He's not God's opposite. He's not God's evil twin. But hey, regardless of how far up your backside you ram your arm, you'll not pull out an argument that smells any better than this one. Thanks for playing.
"Of course, the other question remains: Who is Marshal to insist that his non-standard and irrational definition of Good is the One True Definition?"
Again Dan, it's not my definition. If you have a problem with the definition Jesus put forth, bring forth an actual argument that justifies holding an opposing interpretation. Mocking me and condescending to me isn't an argument at all. It's childish petulance.
"And no, Marshal. Merely saying "Jesus" does not mean that Jesus approves of your definition. "Jesus" is not a magical incantation."
And no, Dan. Merely dismissing my theologically correct position by suggesting I'm using it as if a magical incantation is not a rebuttal, not a counter argument and not the least bit what you would and have been demanding of me, Craig or Stan. Try showing some honor and integrity for a change. Do for us what you expect us to do for you. Sound familiar at all, or have you rejected that teaching as well?
I think it's pretty clear at this point that you have in mind some person or people who have not accepted Christ but are, by human standards, "good people". You know full well that their eternal destination won't be pleasant and you can't bear the thought of it given your personal attachment to them. I get that. I have a friend of 48 years who is facing that sad reality...likely within the year...and it grieves me to no end knowing he may never see the light before his end comes. Inventing my own god won't help him one bit.
"... equivalency between God and Satan." No one has suggested it. I was following Dan's summary of your *argument that God is good and human beings are not god, so not good. By the same reasoning of comparing human beings to God, when compared, human beings are not Satan. There has been no attempt to compare Satan to God.
That's just your instinct for diversion when you sense, like an animal who hates humans, you've been caught not understanding your own claims. You fail reason, but your are superlative at diversion (though Craig is an expert).
But if you could clean up your diffuse scat and clarify what you mean - if you know - in terms of Christian theology what Satan's yang to God's yin actually means? Not evil twin. But what?
Marshal... Again Dan, it's not my definition.
Sorry, but it very literally IS YOURS. Or yours and those who agree with you.
Fact: JESUS NEVER SAID "here is the definition of Good, and it's NOT the normal definition of Good..."
Fact: Jesus never hinted at that.
Fact: You are PRESUMING that this is a fact without supporting it.
Fact: EVEN IF you could support that "here is Jesus defining Good," (and you very literally can not) you would also need to indicate that Jesus was speaking authoritatively of every use of Good in all times and places.
Again, returning to the point of this post: IF you want to claim "all humans are bad," you need to support such a claim with something more than "I interpret a passage from the Bible to mean that, in my opinion."
If you want to make the claim as an unsupported personal opinion, then make that clear. Regardless, it IS clear to everyone else that this is YOUR opinion, not a fact.
The reality is, there are Good people in the world, as Good is normally understood.
That's sort of the end of all that.
+++++++++
Now, moving on from that point, you are left with your personal hunch that to "deserve" heaven, one must be "good," which YOU define to be "perfect" or "God."
You further (you calvinists and calvinist sympathizers) theorize that if you're NOT perfect (and we agree, no one is) THEN you "deserve" to be tortured for an eternity as punishment for not being perfect.
Which, if a parent did to their child, that parent would be recognized as a monster ("My child told me a lie to my FACE when she was 3, so I locked her in a torture chamber for the last 20 years and regularly tormented her...") who is monstrously evil and insane.
Can you agree with that in the case of a parent doing it? (Good Lord, I hope so!)
If so, then why does God doing is make it okay?
Lord, have mercy.
You see, part of the notion of Justice is reasonable and equitable punishment for wrong. A punishment should fit the crime.
This is a reasonable understanding of Justice common to humanity, generally speaking. I would suggest that, like our notions of good, our notions of Justice are consistent with God's notion of Justice, generally speaking.
We are created in the image of God. A little lower than God, God is quoted as saying in the Bible. There are not two types of good. God's good and human good. There are not two types of Justice, God's justice and human Justice. The Bible doesn't say so. God has not told you so.
There's just Justice, Goodness. And if you start redefining words like good and justice to a supposed and imaginary alternative meaning that you're assigning to God, you're undermining the notion of goodness and justice. It's a blow against goodness and justice to redefine them to your own human understandings about what you think God might think.
Yes, you appear to be saying. "Miss Sue is good as we understand it. But I think God has a different opinion of good."
Yes, you appear to be saying. "normally, it would be a great atrocity to torture a child for years and years for telling some lies and stealing a piece of candy... but God hates sin so much, that God would be justified in torturing that child not just for years but for an eternity for those mistakes."
Do you have a sense of how insane that sounds?
It's as if you are redefining good to mean bad and just to mean unjust and love to mean hate. It's a very bad thing that you're suggesting that, in your mind, God stands for.
First, I noticed a typo in my last comment. It should have read, Satan is NOT the yang to God's yin. feo tried to put Satan on God's level. I was pointing out that stupidity.
"Sorry, but it very literally IS YOURS."
Sorry, but it is not. But rather than simply go back and forth (Yes it is, not it's not), I'll just correct and clarify the following:
"Fact: JESUS NEVER SAID "here is the definition of Good, and it's NOT the normal definition of Good...""
Fact: There is no requirement that Jesus has to specifically say "here is the definition of..." to define a word. This is a common ploy of yours win the day, but it's mere petulance in lieu of a real argument and reflects poorly on you.
"Fact: Jesus never hinted at that."
Fact: You're right. He came right out and blatantly defined "good" when He said "no one is good but God alone".
"Fact: You are PRESUMING that this is a fact without supporting it."
Fact: I supported it by citing Mark 10:18 wherein He actually said it.
"Fact: EVEN IF you could support that "here is Jesus defining Good," (and you very literally can not) you would also need to indicate that Jesus was speaking authoritatively of every use of Good in all times and places."
Fact: I DID support it...literally, Jesus ALWAYS speaks authoritatively (being God and all) and He is free to use any word in any manner to further His purposes...such as "good"...and still not contradict Himself when He says only God is good. As Mel Brooks might say, "It's GOOD to be the Son of God."
"IF you want to claim "all humans are bad," you need to support such a claim with something more than "I interpret a passage from the Bible to mean that, in my opinion.""
First, it's really more than any single passage that supports the truth. As Craig put it, the Bible is...at it's core...about Creation, the Fall and Redemption.
Secondly, despite your desperate need to believe otherwise, repeating the exact words of ANY passage, as Stan did in the post that troubles you so, is NOT "interpretation" and even less "opinion". It's merely reprinting what Scripture says. Interpretation is what you're suggesting but never doing, when you say, "I know you said 'don't eat my sandwich', but I didn't interpret it that way when when I ate it." while never explaining how you could possibly believe it meant anything other than "don't eat the damn sandwich".
Thus, based on the teachings of Scripture, and the words of Jesus, no one is good but God...we are all sinners (which isn't "good").
continuing...
"If you want to make the claim as an unsupported personal opinion, then make that clear. Regardless, it IS clear to everyone else that this is YOUR opinion, not a fact."
When I put forth an opinion, it's easy to tell it's an opinion because I'll say something like, "In my opinion" before or after submitting my opinion. If I disagree with another, I will say something like, "that's your opinion, BUT..." and provide an actual argument, replete with an alternative point of view supported by facts and/or evidence. OR, I'll simply request, and hopefully receive, an explanation for why what the other person said should be taken as fact or reality before I render an opinion on whether or not it is no more than opinion. I don't simply write off something I don't like as opinion and leave it at that. At this point in the discussion, I've provided all necessary support for my position and your simply reject it all in your typical "nyuh uh" manner, and pretend "everyone else" agrees with you despite having provided no polling data to support the contention in the least. feo doesn't count and he's certainly not "everyone else".
"The reality is, there are Good people in the world, as Good is normally understood." ...by people. As such, I'm in full agreement with you, despite the real likelihood that we disagree on the details. The discussion is about what Jesus regards as good, and He said only God alone is good and you want to continue making it about how people define the term...something on which there is no general disagreement. Thus, you can't say we are wrong while pointing to that which isn't relative to the premise. Again, it's about how God/Jesus/Scripture defines "good", what God/Jesus/Scripture says about the nature of man...NOT about how these things are normally understood by man relative to each other.
"Now, moving on from that point, you are left with your personal hunch that to "deserve" heaven, one must be "good," which YOU define to be "perfect" or "God.""
Again, not a personal "hunch", but Christian teaching. Find something from Scripture that contradicts this basic teaching.
"You further (you calvinists and calvinist sympathizers) theorize that if you're NOT perfect (and we agree, no one is) THEN you "deserve" to be tortured for an eternity as punishment for not being perfect."
Why didn't you say in your first point something that describes eternal reward in terms that are the exact opposite of "torture"? Why must you play this game where you go out of your way to frame our position in a manner that suggests something untoward? Where's your sense of honor and embracing grace?
I'll just leave at this: if one is not "perfect" (as you put it) the result is no eternity in God's presence.
"Which, if a parent did to their child, that parent would be recognized as a monster..."
Another bad analogy that doesn't come close to presenting a valid illustration and thus I ignore it completely.
"If so, then why does God doing is make it okay?"
God is not your mother. Justice to God requires understanding fully just how He is offended. You clearly don't, while I don't even question it. I just try my best to do what I must to avoid finding out. More to the point, I absolutely do not attribute to God qualities that are human, as He is not in any way like us, nor are we worthy of pretending we can compare ourselves to Him. This, too, is basic Christian teaching, and another you routinely ignore, insisting God behave on human terms. Lord have mercy!
continuing...
"You see, part of the notion of Justice is reasonable and equitable punishment for wrong. A punishment should fit the crime."
But who are you to dictate to God what that looks like to appease HIS sense of justice? You're insisting He behave according to YOUR (or human) notions of justice. I don't presume to insist that He behave in a manner with which I am personally comfortable. I accept that people I regard as good might not be "good enough" and therefore won't go to heaven simply because they don't believe. I don't have to personally like it.
I also don't presume that the worst or least sin in MY mind is deserving of punishment according to MY notion of "equitable punishment". I'm not God. I'm not offended by human behaviors in the way He might be offended. I don't demand that if I see no problem having sex with a different woman every night that He also must accept such behavior out of me...especially if in every other area of my life I'm "good" as is commonly understood by my fellow man.
" There are not two types of good. God's good and human good. There are not two types of Justice, God's justice and human Justice. The Bible doesn't say so. God has not told you so."
Uh...yes it does...
Isaiah 55:8-9 New International Version (NIV)
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
"There's just Justice, Goodness. And if you start redefining words like good and justice to a supposed and imaginary alternative meaning that you're assigning to God, you're undermining the notion of goodness and justice. It's a blow against goodness and justice to redefine them to your own human understandings about what you think God might think."
But this is what YOU'RE doing, not me or Stan or Craig. We're accepting that what passes of Good in God's realm is not the same as what Good is in ours. That doesn't mean we don't have a concept that is tied...however loosely in your case...to what Scripture relates as goodness. It just isn't "perfect" and as such isn't truly "good", but only an imperfect human reflection of God's goodness and justice. This isn't a new concept at all. Again, this is basic Christian teaching. The standard is beyond our human capacity to meet.
"Yes, you appear to be saying. "Miss Sue is good as we understand it. But I think God has a different opinion of good.""
It's called, "a different standard" to which no human can achieve by works. BASIC. CHRISTIAN. TEACHING.
"Do you have a sense of how insane that sounds?"
I have a sense that you will use cheap rhetoric to portray your opponents in discourse as sounding insane, so as to avoid the heavy lifting of proving your position via Scripture, since our position is correct and for some reason you can't deal with what Scripture says. Again, I'm wagering you know some really good atheist you believe deserves heaven but won't get there because the "really good" atheist is an atheist. That's sad, but not our problem if he/she refuses to accept Christ as Savior.
"It's as if you are redefining good to mean bad and just to mean unjust and love to mean hate."
No. It's not "as if" anything but an accurate reflection of Christian doctrine. I'm not redefining anything. That's what you and all lefties/progressives/socialists do in order to further your agenda. But here, I'm simply stating what Scripture clearly and unambiguously teaches. I'm sorry you can't deal with reality. I'll continue to pray the Holy Ghost guides you to understanding.
You can point out the mistake of your fingers and eyes, Marshal. Good for you. But you double you mistake in thought and cannot see it. I didn’t compare satan to god. You compared human beings to god and found them absolutely unlike. The obvious corollary to your logic is to compare human human beings to Satan, also. I suspect you *think - mostly unconsciously- that human beings are like Satan. You need to in order to hold on to a brutalizing theology.
But you’d rather divert yourself than have even your own conscience killed off to openly defend such thinking.
The desire for diversion drives the thirsty need to lie. That’s you in a nutshell.
Again, and for the last time, Marshal: Prove it.
We GET that you think in your human opinion that there are NO good people.
We get that you have a nonstandard definition of good (perfect, God).
We get that you think that if a person is not perfect (or God) then they "deserve" to be tortured for an eternity, no matter how unjust, irrational or unloving that is (you holding alternatively definitions for those words).
But prove it with something more than your opinion.
I've clarified and corrected each of your misrepresentations of my position, yet you insist on repeating them and demanding I defend them. My position involves stating SCRIPTURAL points for which you have no alternative interpretation beyond asserting what Scripture clearly says doesn't mean what the words on the page plainly imply. You're basically demanding I explain why "fire burns" means fire actually burns. I've changed NO definitions. I merely accept that human standards of "Good" aren't the same as God's standards beyond a superficial similarity. I've provided yet another verse that backs up this understanding beyond contradiction, while you provide absolutely no argumemt... backed by ANY evidence...to rationalize YOUR contradictory stance. Indeed, the number of verses in favor of my understanding grows. Clearly, you reject Scriptural backing of Scriptural concepts in favor of other sources due to the fact that none exist to mitigate the plain understanding of the clear words on the page.
So, taking each of your "we get" misinterpretations in order,
I do indeed regard many people as being "good" people. That doesn't mean they rise to the level of Christ's/God's standard of what truly constitutes "good"...and I'm "good" with that.
I have a completely standard definition of "good". The question is whether or not the human definition/understanding...the human STANDARD of goodness...is the same as God's. Scripture more than implies the answer is "no".
I don't spend much time pretending I know with absolute certainty who deserves what in God's estimation. We can take some cues from Scripture on that score, though you reject all of them that would suggest problems for people and behaviors you defend. I also don't worry about whether or not Scriptural teaching placates my personal sense of justice, knowing full well God's justice might not be crystal clear to me in all situations.
So, we're still.left wondering just how you would interpret Scripture differently on this issue and what evidence you have to support it. I've fully done my part.
It's your turn now.
You're begging the question, Marshal. It's a logical flaw. You lose.
The question - or one of them - is:
are there good people in the world? You point to a passage where Jesus says there is no one good but God and you presume...
1. That Jesus meant that literally, for all instances and times and places. That he was trying to offer an alternative meaning for Good;
2. That even if Jesus said that, and meant what you think he meant, that this would stand as evidence in and of itself.
The questions, then, are:
does Jesus saying there is no one good but God mean that he is defining good to be God? and is it a fact?
For you to point back to that passage and say "we know that's what he meant because there it is," is begging the question. It's a logical flaw.
At this point, I'll just point out what is obvious. You cannot support your claim with anything other than your claim. Meaning, it's worthless.
Beyond that, you have the crazy rational flaw of saying that God created an imperfect Humanity and, if that Humanity fails to be perfect, then that is just cause for your god to punish them for eternity. For merely being imperfect.
Your position, and the traditional calvinist position, is an affront to Justice, morality, and love. Your vision of your god is a monstrous one.
"No one ever seriously affirmed the literal freedom of will. Absolute liberty is absence of restraint; responsibility is restraint; therefore, the ideally free individual is responsible only to himself. This principle is the philosophical foundation of anarchism, and, for anything that science has yet proved, may be the philosophical foundation of the universe; but it is fatal to all society and is especially hostile to the State. Perhaps the Church of the thirteenth century might have found a way to use even this
principle for a good purpose; certainly, the influence of Saint Bernard was sufficiently unsocial and that of Saint Francis was
sufficiently unselfish to conciliate even anarchists of the militant class; but Saint Thomas was working for the Church and the
State, not for the salvation of souls, and his chief object was to repress anarchy. The theory of absolute free will never entered his mind, more than the theory of material free will would enter the mind of an architect. The Church gave him no warrant for discussing the subject in such a sense. In fact, the Church never admitted free will, or used the word when it could be avoided. In Latin, the term used was "liberum arbitrium,"--free choice,--and in French to this day it remains in strictness "libre arbitre" still. From Saint Augustine downwards the Church was never so unscientific as to admit of liberty beyond the faculty of choosing between paths, some leading through the Church and some not, but all leading to the next world; as a criminal might be allowed the liberty of choosing between the guillotine and the gallows, without infringing on the supremacy of the judge.
Thomas started from that point, already far from theoretic freedom. "We are masters of our acts," he began, "in the sense that we can choose such and such a thing; now, we have not to choose our end, but the means that relate to it, as Aristotle says." Unfortunately, even this trenchant amputation of man's free energies would not accord with fact or with logic. Experience proved that man's power of choice in action was very far from absolute, and logic seemed to require that every choice should have some predetermining cause which decided the will to act. Science affirmed that choice was not free,--could not be free,--without abandoning the unity of force and the foundation of law. Society insisted that its choice must be left free, whatever became of science or unity. Saint Thomas was required to illustrate the theory of "liberum arbitrium" by choosing a path through these difficulties, where path there was obviously none."
"Strange as it sounds, although man thought himself hardly treated in respect to freedom, yet, if freedom meant superiority, man was in action much the superior of God, Whose freedom suffered, from Saint Thomas, under restraints that man never would have tolerated. Saint Thomas did not allow God even an undetermined will; He was pure Act, and as such He could not change. Man alone was allowed, in act, to change direction. What was more curious still, man might absolutely prove his freedom by refusing to move at all; if he did not like his life he could stop it, and habitually did so, or acquiesced in its being
done for him; while God could not commit suicide or even cease for a single instant His continuous action. If man had the singular fancy of making himself absurd,--a taste confined to himself but attested by evidence exceedingly strong,--he could be as absurd as he liked; but God could not be absurd. Saint Thomas did not allow the Deity the right to contradict Himself, which is one of man's chief pleasures. While man enjoyed what was, for his purposes, an unlimited freedom to be wicked,--a privilege which, as both Church and State bitterly complained and still complain, he has outrageously abused,--God was Goodness, and could be nothing else. While man moved about his relatively spacious prison with a certain degree of ease, God, being everywhere, could not move. In one respect, at least, man's freedom seemed to be not relative but absolute, for his thought was an energy paying no regard to space or time or order or object or sense; but God's thought was His act and will at once; speaking correctly, God could not think; He is."
God is not free to be good. Human beings are. But human beings have an identity constructed out of realities that constrain that freedom.
"You're begging the question, Marshal. It's a logical flaw. You lose."
This might be true if what I said was what your poor (purposeful?) representation of my words suggest. I'd encourage you to actually deal with what I actually say, rather than perverting my words just to condemn the perversion. I don't lose (and you certainly don't win) when words I never said are being "destroyed".
"You point to a passage where Jesus says there is no one good but God and you presume...
1. That Jesus meant that literally, for all instances and times and places. That he was trying to offer an alternative meaning for Good;"
This is a common tactic of yours, to suggest that what is said in Scripture doesn't mean what the words on the page imply. You do this with Lev 18:22 when you suggest it means "some forms" of homosexuality. The problem with this angle is that there is no caveat of any kind in the text that suggests it doesn't mean what the words on the page suggest. What you're doing is simply carving out for yourself a loophole and doing so with absolutely no legitimate justification. You offer NOTHING to substantiate your suggestion that Christ wasn't speaking literally...telling us that despite our personal notions, no one is truly "good" except God Himself.
Said another way, He was not "trying to offer an alternative meaning for Good", He was explaining what "good" truly is. It's a simple concept to understand. If there is no one who is good but God alone, the "good" is God. This isn't at all a problem for those who recognize the vast difference between God and man.
"2. That even if Jesus said that, and meant what you think he meant, that this would stand as evidence in and of itself."
This is your forced meaning regarding why I used that verse. It was in support of Stan's contention regarding what Scripture says about the nature of man. I didn't offer Mark 10:18 to prove Mark 10:18. But Mark 10:18 clearly indicates what Jesus' notion of what constitutes "good".
"The questions, then, are:
does Jesus saying there is no one good but God mean that he is defining good to be God?"
Given that He is equating the two, why would you imagine He isn't? That's a better question and one for which you've thus far chosen not to answer for lack of Scriptural support.
"and is it a fact?"
Not sure what you mean. It's certainly a fact that He said it because "Mark" records Him saying it. And it's then certainly a fact because it's what Jesus said "good" is by virtue of the fact that there is no one else who is good but God alone. But to be more specific, the true state of goodness is the point of Christ's statement. No one has reached that state which is a defining attribute of God. You haven't. I haven't. Mother Theresa hasn't. feo certainly hasn't and doesn't seemed concerned with trying to.
"For you to point back to that passage and say "we know that's what he meant because there it is," is begging the question. It's a logical flaw."
It's not flawed to insist on the meaning of someone's words unless it can be proven something else was meant. There's no ambiguity in Christ's words, despite how badly your seem to want there to be some. He was quite specific in fact. "No one but God alone". The flaw is in your insistence that the plain words spoken don't mean what what was said. It's not my job to prove it doesn't mean any of an infinite list of possible alternatives. It's your job to prove that or that it doesn't mean "no one but God alone". Are we ever going to see that argument made with attending supportive evidence? Would I be wise not to hold my breath in anticipation?
"At this point, I'll just point out what is obvious. You cannot support your claim with anything other than your claim. Meaning, it's worthless."
Again, it's not up to me to prove Christ didn't mean "no one is good but God alone". It's up to YOU to prove He meant something else...that it was hyperbole or figurative. Until you do, your objection to the clear meaning of His words is meaningless. It's just a petulant objection for reasons such as that I've already put forth.
"Beyond that, you have the crazy rational flaw of saying that God created an imperfect Humanity and, if that Humanity fails to be perfect, then that is just cause for your god to punish them for eternity. For merely being imperfect."?
I never said that God created an imperfect humanity. Indeed, I would suggest just the opposite. The problem came when Adam sinned. That sin introduced sin and its decaying effect on the entirety of creation. Here again I'm talking about basic Judeo-Christian teaching.
"Your position, and the traditional calvinist position, is an affront to Justice, morality, and love. Your vision of your god is a monstrous one."
My position is absolutely in line with the teaching of Scripture. When you can prove me wrong on that score, that'll be the day. In the meantime, you again prove that you subordinate God's notion of justice, morality and love to yours. If He doesn't abide your notions, there's something wrong with Him, as opposed to there being something horribly wrong with you. That level of arrogance is incredible to me, but you demonstrate it time and time again. You demand that He be offended by the things that you find offensive, and insist He tolerate what you tolerate. It astounds me to read you insist that you have spent your life in "serious, prayerful" study of Scripture, only to ignore basic teachings...and then to insist you don't reject any of it. "It's the interpretation of some people" you say, while NEVER, EVER demonstrating how they go wrong by EVER citing Scripture to make your case.
And you do it again with this issue. We're all sinners. Only God alone is good. Basic Christian teaching. Prove it wrong.
“The problem came when Adam sinned. That sin introduced sin and its decaying effect on the entirety of creation. Here again I'm talking about basic Judeo-Christian teaching.”
Nope. Original sin is not a Jewish belief. And neither Catholic nor Orthodox theology applies the Fall like evangelical protestantism does: no absolutely corrupt nature. The very reason Saints are to be venerated and prayed to.
And so Marshal is ignorant of what constitutes “Basic Christian teaching.”
So, in this post and the last one, it seems to come down to this for you, Marshal:
1. You AGREE that TO HUMANS (i.e., you and me), we can agree that there ARE good people in the world. This really isn't in debate, by human understandings of Goodness, there ARE good people in the world. You agree to that.
2. AND YET, you hold an OPINION - one that you flatly can't prove in the real world - that, IN YOUR OPINION, you think that God made up a different definition of Good. For God (you think, in your human opinion that you absolutely can not prove), that God defines Good as "god" or "perfect." You have no reason to think this other than YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of passages in the Bible that YOU TAKE TO MEAN that this is what God is doing.
3. And as stated, you flatly absolutely can't prove it. It's just a wild ass hunch based on YOUR hunches about how YOU want to interpret some passages and the meaning that YOU are assigning those passages.
4. And thus, TO YOU, God thinks that we are all "not god," and thus, all "not good," and thus, being less than god means that you deserve to be tortured for an eternity.
5. And this IS crazy-sounding, monstrous-sounding EVEN to someone like me who IS educated in theological matters and who does NOT "reject the sound clear teaching of Scripture," only YOUR HUNCHES about theology. So, on that point, you are again, flatly wrong and flatly unable to prove your false claim, given that it is a false claim.
I will give you this, Marshal: At least you have the courage to put out there your crazy and monstrous-sounding hunches and answer questions in a relatively clear and relatively direct manner. So, good for you for that. Stan and Craig and many others can't stand up under direct reasonable questions to insane theories, but you'll just answer and stand by the crazy.
But, that doesn't help you when your theories about your monstrous and unjust god are not provable or rational or consistent with justice and goodness and love and grace.
I get that's not a problem for you. You just redefine goodness to be "not perfect" and justice to be "unjust" and go with your human traditions and theories.
But unless you can come up with some proof to support your theory that Good should be defined as "God," or "perfect" and that it's reasonable and just to punish someone to an eternity of torture for the "sin" of being imperfect, even if they are nominally good "as humans understand it," you've answered all you need to answer.
So, don't bother commenting further UNLESS and UNTIL you come up with some answer to the demand to prove objectively that Good should be defined as God or Perfect and that it is reasonable and just to punish someone for an eternity for being imperfect.
Thanks for your answers, crazy and unsupported as they are.
Post a Comment