Stan, on his blog, lamented with Craig recently how "they..." those "others" who call themselves Christian but who refuse to agree with his wisdom and human traditions - how they never even try to give reasonable responses to explain why they disagree with Stan and his human traditions.
The post was "Who Says?" and was written in response to my regular question to him (and he may have been writing with other people in mind who disagree with him, but there were so many near-direct quotes from me that he was clearly referencing conversations we've had.
And when I say, conversations, I mean where I've written to him explaining an alternative view and which he rarely responds to and never directly responds to anymore. At best, we may occasionally see Stan say something like, "Dan tells me..." (and then proceeds to say something that I haven't said, because he has, again, failed to understand what I was actually saying... but that's another post).
With conservatives, I regularly push back when they say that we can "know" that this position or that position is the "right one" because The Bible. By which, they mean, that THEY READ the Bible and THEY INTERPRET the Bible to be saying something that agrees with their particular human traditions. When they say, "But we know that God opposes gay people getting married..." I will regularly ask, "Says who?" Because God has not said that. Ever. Literally.
Who says is a reasonable question to answer, but Stan and Craig, etc, really hate it. They often will try to mock it by comparing it to the "devil" saying, "Did God really say...?" to "Eve" in the Creation story. The difference that they never seem to get is we are not questioning God. We're questioning them.
Beyond that, a rational, powerful and secure God can handle us asking questions, one would assume if one doesn't have a rather boxed in and limited view of God.
In this post, Stan concludes with what he says is the difference between people like him and people like me, saying...
Which brings us down to the fundamental difference. It is not merely a different understanding of the nature of sin. It is a different source of truth. I am not following some "set of human traditions." My source is the words of Scripture. My authority is the Father in the Old Testament and the Son in the Gospels and the Holy Spirit as the One who inspired the Scriptures as a whole, since the Scriptures, as a whole, maintain this position. I don't begin with "consensus" or "everyone understands ..."
And here, I would respond with, Says who? He clearly is following a set of human traditions. His source are the words of Scripture as he and those who agree with him interpret them. And THAT is the actual difference between he and I. And just because he doesn't agree with my conclusions (any more than I do his) doesn't mean I don't also read Scripture (and use my reason, as he does) to make conclusions.
By way of example, he offers his human opinions and interpretations of Matthew 18 that includes the verses about "plucking out your eye if it offends you, cut off your hand if it offends you... it's better to enter heaven maimed than be cast into a fiery hell for ever..." Stan concludes we can KNOW that there is an eternal punishment for all sinners (except for the "saved") because Jesus said so. And he cites this passage.
In the comments, Craig lamented...
A while back I raised a question something like, "If our reward for doing good (ie minimizing our typical sins) is eternal, and that eternal reward is "fair", then why wouldn't eternal punishment be "fair" also?". I never really got much of an answer for that either.
And Stan responded...
It feels like I rarely get reasoned answers to questions like that. But maybe that's just me.
[chuckle, chuckle...] those guys sure think they have them liberals on the ropes... They can't even answer their questions.
Except, I do. I did. I have and I regularly do answer these sorts of questions.
Here is my response to Stan's Matthew 18 "Jesus said there was eternal fiery hell for sinners" idea. It was the third or so time I'd answered it just in this post.
+++++++++
Instead of complaining that you "rarely get reasoned answers" - why not share the answers you HAVE received and have a reasoned discussion about the matter?
ETERNAL FIRE: in the context of the Matthew 18 passage, we see Jesus using what appear to be several clearly hyperbolic phrases to make a point. I suspect that most Christians agree that Jesus wasn't literally calling for plucking out our eyes or cutting off our hands.
Agreed?
Likewise, even amongst traditional conservative Christians, there is a fair amount of doubt about whether or not passages like this are suggesting a literally fiery hell/punishment. So, even conservatives treat many of these verses in Matthew 18 figuratively.
Agreed?
Do you think "hell" is a literal eternal fire or do you think the "fire" part might be figurative?
In the case of literal bodily mutilation, I suspect that most of Christianity does not think this is a literal command. The point being, then, a hyperbolic reminder to watch out for the trapping and harmful nature of sin.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4569/did-jesus-teach-people-to-literally-pluck-their-eye-out-and-cut-their-hand-off
Agreed?
Why then, when we see Jesus flip over to a mention of "eternal fire" as torture/punishment for at least some sin*, do we think it might be literal promise as opposed to hyperbolic emphasis, as is more rational and (at least some of us think) a natural, simple direct understanding of the text? Isn't a hyperbolic explanation of ALL of these examples the very clearest, simplest, most obvious interpretation?
Further, when Jesus used these seemingly clearly hyperbolic language, it is in the context of "one these little ones" this seems to many of us to be clearly connected with the on-going themes of justice for and siding the "least of these," the poor and marginalized to whom Jesus said he'd come to preach good news and release and Jubilee. This concern for the poor and marginalized to whom Jesus literally said he'd come to preach good news is in contrast with the Pharisees and rich and powerful whom Jesus regularly butted heads with. This passage clearly SEEMS IN KEEPING with this concern... it's yet another warning to powerful oppressors and those who cause harm to the poor and marginalized.
Is that not reasonable and biblical, even if you may not agree with it?
* In THAT clear context, Jesus gives this strong warning. This passage is literally not saying "Any sin will cause you to be thrown into hellfire forever, if you don't repent just right..."
Do you agree that it literally isn't a blanket warning for any and all sins to cause one to be "sent to" a "fiery hell" forever?
Now... EVEN IF you don't ultimately agree with my reasoning, how is that NOT a direct and clear reasoned response to the question of "eternal fire" as mentioned in Matthew 18? How is that not both reasoned and biblical?
++++++
Of course, Stan didn't answer, as he rarely does the actual questions I ask him. And so, I've posted it here, just to be clear that Stan et al ARE getting reasoned responses, in spite of their protests.
