I often hear conservative Christians pushing fear like a drug.
"We should FEAR God!"
they say.
"We ALL should fear God!"
they say.
"And by 'fear God,' I don't mean respect God, I mean FEAR A TERRIBLE, DEATH-DEALING GOD!" they say.
In the Bible, we see that John says,
"God is love.
Whoever lives in love
lives in God,
and God in them.
This is how love is made complete among us
so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment:
In this world we are like Jesus.
There is no fear in love.
But perfect love drives out fear,
because fear has to do with punishment.
The one who fears is not made perfect in love."
In this world, we are like Jesus.
Wow!
The one who fears is not made perfect in love. And yet, too many conservative Christians regularly are counseling people to fear. And when they're not counseling it directly, they're listing all the ways we (they) should be afraid.
"The government is going to take our guns!"
they say.
"They're going to put Christian bakers in prison!"
they say.
"They're trying to steal our elections and take away our way of life!!"
they say.
"They're going to let transgender women actually use the women's bathrooms!"
they say.
In countless ways, they continue to counsel and promote and try to instill fear.
But John says there is no fear in love and that
perfect love drives out fear and
the one who fears is not made perfect in love.
The reason so many conservative types counsel fear is because, in the Bible, while there are numerous instances of words of reassurance and "do not fear," there are also some places where the exact opposite is written.
The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
Do not fear those who can harm your body,
but fear God who can destroy your soul.
Like that.
I think the point is clear - whether we reach this conclusion biblically or rationally:
For those who oppress,
who cause harm,
who denigrate and attack or
even just ignore
the poor and the least of these,
there is reason to fear awful repercussions.
We see this in Jesus' parable about the sheep and the goats:
The Goats who did not listen to or help with the needs of the least of these,
they were cast into a burning lake of fire.
Damn.
Literally.
But, those who loved, those who sided with and helped the poor
the marginalized
the hungry
the foreigner
the least of these...
For those people, there was no fear. For they were living in love and in grace.
Do not fear.
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?
Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside of God's care.
And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
So don’t be afraid;
you are worth more than many sparrows.
~Jesus
74 comments:
“And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”
“… for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.”
The "Do Not Fears" of the Bible are many and widespread. One source says, 365 times!
from The Christian and Anxiety
by Hans Urs von Balthasar
"Only a Christian who does not allow himself to be infected by modern humanity's neurotic anxiety—even though it tries to transfigure itself into the centerpiece, indeed, into the real treasure of existence, even though anyone who does not adore the image of this beast is excluded from the commerce of the anxiety experts (Rev 13:17)—has any hope of exercising a Christian influence on this age. He will not haughtily turn away from the anxiety of his fellow men and fellow Christians but will show them how to extricate themselves from their fruitless withdrawal into themselves and will point out the paths by which they can step out into the open, into faith's daring. But not one whit, either theoretically or in practice, will the Christian stoop to compromise. He will know that "anxiousness" belongs among the things the Lord has forbidden (Mt 6:25– 26), that guilt is not the fate of a Christian, and that, through Christ, death has lost its sting (1 Cor 15:55).
Only when this is established unambiguously and irrevocably, adamantly and trenchantly, can one go on— really advancing along the same path, under no circumstances going back or turning aside. Christ has borne the anxiety of the world so as to give to the world instead that which is his: his joy, his peace. But precisely what is his. And this is absolutely inseparable from his earthly life, from his Cross and his descent into hell, and from his Resurrection. All grace is the grace of the Cross. All joy is joy resulting from the Cross, marked with the sign of the Cross. And Cross means anguish, too. When sin-anxiety in all its forms (which comprises everything that throws a person back upon himself, closes him off, constricts him, and makes him unproductive and unfit) has been fundamentally removed from a man and hence has been forbidden him, then from the Cross opens up something completely different: grace, and, in the measure granted by grace, permission to suffer anxiety as a share in Christ's anguish.
It is evident how thoroughly this grace revalues anxiety, starting at its basis, and even turns it into its opposite. For if the anxiety of man who is closed in on himself and isolated amounts to a constriction and a loss of communication, then the anxiety granted from the Cross is, on the contrary, the fruit and result of a communication: it is an expansion, a dilatatio of the love found on the Cross. As such, it in turn can produce nothing other than a broadening in the person who participates in it. This is not to maintain that the objective opposition will be entirely visible within the subjective experience. It can even happen that, for the sake of an authentic participation, both the participation itself and also its fruit and its structural opposition to sin-anxiety must remain hidden from the person experiencing it. For now we are speaking only about the objective structure of this participation, reserving for later a more in-depth discussion of the laws governing how it is applied, appropriated, and experienced….
…. There is an objective basis to the sin-anxiety that is forbidden to the Christian, and in that anxiety the properties of sin delineate themselves: a turning away, flight, a rigidity of life, sterility, desolation, the plunge into the abyss, constriction, incarceration, withdrawing into self, banishment. In contrast, the basis for the anxiety of the Cross is nothing other than the love of God, who takes this entire world of anxiety upon himself in order to overcome it by suffering, a love that is in all respects the opposite of the sinner's experience of anxiety: it is instead a turning toward, an availability, life, fruitfulness, security and support, expansiveness, liberation. The first set of properties appears as a function of the second. This is true to such an extent that these properties, as anxiety that is borne, are not like a compact bundle that is moved externally while remaining unaffected inwardly; rather, the properties in and of themselves, and even as they are experienced, undergo a profound transformation. The change in the structure of anxiety is as far-reaching as the change in the structure of death and of suffering in general. This is already evident in the fact that genuine Christian fear can spring from courage alone, just as the Cross itself of the Son of God sprang from his extreme courage in braving as a solitary man all the powers of hell. The courage of the Christian, which can be loaded with anxiety, is in turn nothing other than his act of faith, in which he dares to place himself and the whole world in the hand of the One who can dispose of him for death and for life.
In the Gospels the anxiety of Jesus' women friends can serve as a paradigm for this Christian anxiety. Their friendship with the Lord and their conduct toward him (Jn 11) prove that they believed with a perfect faith. Their anxiety is imposed upon them directly by the Lord, who, in response to their urgent prayer that he come and help them, remains silent and delays so as to give Lazarus time to die and to allow them time to fear, "so that the Son of God might be glorified". Bereft of their dearest earthly good and in their deprivation seemingly abandoned by their beloved in heaven, the sisters are like the suffering Job, whose anxiety reaches so far into the New Testament. And yet this burden of anxiety (laid upon them as a participation in the Cross even before this had been endured! laid upon the members even before the Head had suffered!) is profoundly different from the anxiety of Job, because it is anxiety within incarnate love; anxiety in patient, albeit uncomprehending, surrender; anxiety without rigidity or rebellion; anxiety without pathos: drawn directly from the fountain of the anguished Lamb who opens not his mouth as he is led to slaughter. Everything reminiscent of Job's argument with God about the law, all the stormy questions—the Why? and the How much more?—fall away; all that remains is readiness and trembling without seeing. Even more characteristic is the fact that this anxiety is laid upon the women in the midst of their concern for their neighbor. Job is alone because it is not possible for him to relate his suffering to any other person. The sisters are isolated in the midst of an all-embracing concern for their dying brother and to an even greater extent for the Lord, whom they serve as human beings and as Christians: their existence is defined by this active and contemplative service. And this service rendered to the Lord, which is the starting point of their anxiety, has been a service of joy. From their joy in the Lord they have been led to share with the Lord a concern for their neighbor, and this shared concern leads to shared suffering and shared anxiety."
"Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand."
"But now thus says the Lord, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. "
From Isaiah 41 and Isaiah 43, in the context of God speaking to the oppressed and beleaguered Israel.
"Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”
From Joshua 1, in the context of God comforting a homeless nation, Israel, as they seek safety and an end to oppression following their escape from slavery.
"For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control."
2 Timothy, in the context of an oppressed church shortly before Paul's execution by the gov't, I believe
"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid."
The Lord, Jesus, in John 14
and on it goes. So very often (nearly every time?), the "Fear Not" is addressed the the poor, oppressed and marginalized.
Marshal, if you want to comment, you HAVE to do something besides make ridiculous empty charges. Don't tell me that in your mind you THINK that, to you, I'm "perverting Scripture." Point to something specific that I've misstated or been clearly wrong about.
The Bible DOES say "FEAR NOT" in a variety of ways hundreds of times throughout its pages. That's objectively factual.
The Bible also says or implies "be afraid" or "fear God" several times - dozens? And quite often (most of the time?) it is in response to those who'd oppress. Again, this is objectively observable. I've pointed to a sampling of places.
There is nothing perverted in pointing to the reality of the texts that exist, nor in noting the overwhelming reassurances of "fear not" throughout the Bible.
Likewise, John does say "Perfect love casts out all fear..." that the one who fears does not live in love.
So, I'm just pointing to the reality of the texts and what they literally say.
From there, I have concluded that those who live in love have nothing to fear, just as John literally says. And of course, none of us live perfectly in love, but then, I don't know many who live fully in hate, either. And in my world - and maybe I'm just blessed this way - I am surrounded by people who love way more than hate. They watch out for their neighbors, help people when they need to move, tend to their elderly parents or children or sometimes, people they barely know or even complete strangers. They work at jobs that seek to house the homeless, support the mentally ill, provide honest labor for jobs that need to be done. I just don't have much in my immediate surroundings that says John is wrong when it comes to those who live in love need not fear.
Do you think John is wrong?
Or am I somehow misrepresenting John (Jesus, James, Mary, Isaiah, Joshua, etc, etc, etc)? If so, you can comment to raise reasonable concerns.
But empty claims are just nothing that are helpful or loving or of Grace.
Marshal, in this world, are YOU like Jesus? What do you think John meant by that, if it doesn't apply to you? Or, conversely, why aren't you like Jesus? (And here, I'm not saying it's because you're not perfect, because no one John was writing to was perfect, so clearly, that's not John's intent.)
So as I've shown, conservatives don't "counsel fear". Conservatives counsel following boldly truth, wisdom and the true teachings of Christ...not your twisted understanding of any of those things.
But let's now look at how you counsel fear. When you speak of the evils of wealth creation, are you not sewing fear? Of course you are! You're suggesting that the temptations wealth provides are insurmountable for a Christian (as if those same temptations don't also lure those not wealthy). Yet wealth is not a person or organization like those against whom the conservative warns. Temptations are one thing. People and political parties and activists are another.
Lefties say:
"They're trying to harm the environment!"
"They're trying to suppress the vote!"
"They're racists!"
"They're trying to get rich on the backs of the poor!"
"They hate women!"
The difference of course is the fear lefties stoke are lies, while the warnings of conservatives are based on facts and track records. So not only do you promote fear, you lie in order to frighten.
sigh. You must answer the bold questions if you want to comment here. For what it's worth, your comment was deleted because of the hateful attack words you used towards people not here to defend themselves and who have been traditionally oppressed by people like you (and people like me, once upon a time when I was conservative).
Marshal... "Here, you're perverting Scripture to pretend conservatives don't understand the use of the word in Scripture"
1. I pointed to the reality that conservatives often talk up how we should literally fear God.
1a. Is that a reality or not?
1b. In fact, is it the case that you personally believe that YOU should fear God and that you'd gladly teach that to everyone?
2. I pointed to the reality that while there are a handful (dozens?) of instances of the Bible saying "fear God," there are hundreds of instances of the Bible saying "Fear not."
Is that a reality or not?
3. I pointed to the reality of the passage of the 1 John 4 passage where it says, "There is no fear in love.
But perfect love drives out fear,
because fear has to do with punishment.
The one who fears is not made perfect in love."
Is that a reality or not?
4. I noted the reality that often times in the Bible where we DO find "fear God" passages, it is written in response to oppressors who are the ones to fear God.
Is that a reality or not?
The reality is that each of those ARE observable realities. We'll see if you recognize that much.
So, Marshal, when you say... ""Here, you're perverting Scripture to pretend conservatives don't understand the use of the word in Scripture""
I have not said that conservatives don't understand the use of the word. I've said that I DISAGREE with their interpretation/with their emphasis on fearing God and I made my case as to why I disagree.
Do you see the difference?
Do you see that disagreeing with conservatives like you is a matter of reasonable opinion?
You may answer - and I'll leave your answer - if you answer in a respectful and rational manner without attacking others.
The reality is, there are hundreds of passages in the Bible that says "fear not," and there a some dozen(s) that say "fear God." You all take all that into consideration and land on the notion of "We really should fear God in a scary-not-respect-kind of fear. I land on the other side, saying that such "fear God" passages are often directed towards oppressive types of people, not towards those like the humans John is speaking to who he compares to Jesus. John says, there is no fear in Love.
Do you disagree with that line from John, Marshal?
How do you reconcile this very clear, very explicit "Do not fear" kind of message with your decision to emphasize the FEAR GOD message?
Marshal... "as I've shown, conservatives don't "counsel fear"."
You clearly promote the idea that YOU THINK in your head there are things that conservative Christians should fear, like "liberals taking away our guns," etc. Now, you may not call that "counseling fear," but it IS you literally saying there are things to be afraid of happening.
How am I mistaken?
Is it not the case that you ARE counseling (promoting, instilling, warning, whatever verb you want to assign it) fear because, in your mind, there ARE things to be afraid of, like liberals taking your little guns away?
I think you would say, "It's not counseling fear if it really might happen," but how is it not (not that it's happened)?
When Jesus told his disciples, in Luke 12, to not be afraid, here is the context of that message:
“Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed;
life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”
And he told them this parable:
“The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest.
He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’
“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do.
I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones,
and there I will store my surplus grain.
And I’ll say to myself,
“You have plenty of grain laid up for many years.
Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’
“But God said to him (this rich man storing up goods for his own self and comfort),
‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you.
Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
“This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves
but is not rich toward God.”
Then Jesus said to his disciples:
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life,
what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear.
For life is more than food, and the body more than clothes.
Consider the ravens:
They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn;
yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!
Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life?
Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?
“Consider how the wild flowers grow.
They do not labor or spin.
Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.
If that is how God clothes the grass of the field,
which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire,
how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith!
And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink;
do not worry about it.
For the pagan world runs after all such things, and
God knows that you need them.
But seek God's kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.
“Do not be afraid, little flock,
for God has been pleased to give you kingdom.
Sell your possessions and give to the poor.
Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out,
a treasure in heaven that will never fail,
where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
Those who are in the Way of Love and Grace
who are sharing with those in need and siding with the least of these poor and marginalized (ie, Jesus, according to Jesus), for such people, don't be afraid! This echoes what John says later (or more correctly, later John echoes what Jesus said here). There is no fear of God for those living in Love.
Do you disagree?
Speaking of those who counsel "fear God," I see Stan recently posted a passage from Romans 3 that includes the line, "There is no fear of God in their heart."
That line, itself, was lifted by Paul from Psalm 36. That line, in context, reads...
"I have a message from God in my heart
concerning the sinfulness of the wicked:
There is no fear of God
before their eyes.
In their own eyes they flatter themselves
too much to detect or hate their sin.
The words of their mouths are wicked and deceitful;
they fail to act wisely or do good.
Even on their beds they plot evil;
they commit themselves to a sinful course
and do not reject what is wrong."
In other words, that line itself is not a general suggestion/command that we ALL should fear God, but the wicked who fail to act wisely or do good. It was written to comfort the people of God who may be oppressed by the wicked... NOT to tell the people of God to fear God if they're living in Love.
Interestingly, that entire section from Romans 3 is Paul picking a bunch of verses from the OT to prooftext the point that "there is no one good," but when you look at all the passages, it is speaking of the wicked oppressors who do not do good and at the same time distinguishes them from the people of God.
More later, perhaps.
"For what it's worth, your comment was deleted because of the hateful attack words you used towards people not here to defend themselves and who have been traditionally oppressed by people like you (and people like me, once upon a time when I was conservative)."
Yet another intentional lie. None of the words in my deleted comment were hateful toward anyone, except that those like you regard truth as hate. What's more, you're attacking people not here to defend themselves when you falsely speak of what conservative say or believe, because you have no understanding of conservatism in the first place. You may expect that I can thus mitigate your hypocrisy by speaking on behalf of conservatives. But I speak for myself alone. So you deleted my comments because you could not defend yourself regarding the truths I posted in my comment, while lying about the reality of those I referenced in doing so.
"1. I pointed to the reality that conservatives often talk up how we should literally fear God.
1a. Is that a reality or not?"
Like Christ, there is a legitimate reason for warning people about rejection of God and being in rebellion against Him and His will. So it is indeed a reality, but not in the manner you wish to pervert in order to disparage conservatives and falsely elevate yourself.
"1b. In fact, is it the case that you personally believe that YOU should fear God and that you'd gladly teach that to everyone?"
Not quite. I know I have no reason to fear God should my intentions be to live as He expects, even when I fail. It's the reason Christ came...to save us from ourselves. But if I reject God, if I'm in rebellion as are those like yourself when you call sin good, you damned well have reason to fear God.
"2. I pointed to the reality that while there are a handful (dozens?) of instances of the Bible saying "fear God," there are hundreds of instances of the Bible saying "Fear not."
Is that a reality or not?:"
I have no idea given I've never thought to count. But typically, you think it matters how many times God/Christ/Scripture says something as if the more it's said the more important it is for you to take it to heart. I don't. A one time "thou shalt not" is good enough for me and all actual Christians.
"3. I pointed to the reality of the passage of the 1 John 4 passage where it says, "There is no fear in love.
But perfect love drives out fear,
because fear has to do with punishment.
The one who fears is not made perfect in love."
Is that a reality or not?"
Yes, the reality is that the passage exists. What's not necessarily reality is your understanding of its implications and meaning. Clearly, one who doesn't face punishment has no reason to fear. As I find the time, I will research this passage and get back to you. Neither you nor your troll are good sources of information about the meaning of Scripture.
"4. I noted the reality that often times in the Bible where we DO find "fear God" passages, it is written in response to oppressors who are the ones to fear God.
Is that a reality or not?"
No. It is written in response to sinners...those who do not abide the will of God. Those like you, for example.
"The reality is that each of those ARE observable realities. We'll see if you recognize that much."
You haven't the knowledge, understanding or authority to dictate what a reality is. What you "recognize" as reality is no more than you desire of what reality must be in order for you to truly worship and follow God/Christ.
"Do you see that disagreeing with conservatives like you is a matter of reasonable opinion?"
Depends who's doing the disagreeing. One must understand a conservative's opinion, if not conservatism itself, in order to hope to have a reasonable counter opinion. You don't.
"You may answer - and I'll leave your answer - if you answer in a respectful and rational manner without attacking others."
Says the guy who has no problem disparaging conservatives. That's called "hypocrisy". Leave my answer or don't. I don't really care. I'll just simply point out when you do it and the truth regarding why each time you choose to do so. Someone has to. YOU won't.
More later...
More questions to answer..
Marshal... "But typically, you think it matters how many times God/Christ/Scripture says something as if the more it's said the more important it is for you to take it to heart. I don't."
A. The point of looking at the number of times something appears in The Bible is not to say whichever one has the most occurrence occurrences is the right answer. I'm not saying that... do you understand that?
B. The point is to note that there are passages that could be seen as making contradictory claims. "We should fear God/ There is nothing to fear." Those are, on the face of it, contradictory claims.. Do you recognize that reality?
C. The point in noting how common it is that Jesus Or the bible says "fear not," It is a common theme found throughout The Bible, emphasized over and over.. And yet, we also see some instances where it says to fear God.. I'm pointing that out to note that reality, that we see both instances. So how do we reconcile that?
D. I would think a rational person would begin with acknowledging both instances and say we reconcile it by at least beginning with looking at the context... Are there certain instances where we are to fear God and other instances where we are not to fear God? Who, in the text, is being told to fear? Do you see why this is rational?
E. Over and over again, I believe, in the vast majority of the fear passages, it is those who are oppressing, who are greedy and don't think of the poor.... or who are causing harm or enemies of God, these are who should be afraid. Do you agree?
Likewise, over and over again, those who are walking in love... in God's way of grace, God's people - the poor, oppressed and marginalized specifically are pointed out repeatedly - They need not fear God or humans. Do you see that pattern and recognize it as reality in The Bible?
Marshal... "What's not necessarily reality is your understanding of its implications and meaning."
Please explain what you think, in your mind, my understanding of its implications and meanings is. Be brief.
Marshal... "So it is indeed a reality, but not in the manner you wish to pervert in order to disparage conservatives and falsely elevate yourself."
Sigh. What specifically is "the manner" that I'm speaking of, in your mind?
Dan: "I noted the reality that often times in the Bible where we DO find "fear God" passages, it is written in response to oppressors who are the ones to fear God.
Is that a reality or not?"
Marshal: "No. It is written in response to sinners...those who do not abide the will of God."
Sigh. Look at what I wrote.
Oftentimes it's directed towards oppressors or the greedy, those with that particular type of sin. The oppressors and the greedy ARE sinners - which is what you said... but in the context of the passages I'm citing, their particular sin as specifically pointed out was greed or oppression... causing harm to God's people and the poor and oppressed.
As a point of reality, the passages I'm citing are not talking about all sinners but a specific subset of sinners. There's nothing in these texts suggesting all humanity. Do you recognize that reality?
If you disagree, then what you need to do is support that disagreement by citing the passages I'm speaking of and showing how it's addressing all sinners and all humanity, not just a subset.
"The reality is, there are hundreds of passages in the Bible that says "fear not," and there a some dozen(s) that say "fear God." You all take all that into consideration and land on the notion of "We really should fear God in a scary-not-respect-kind of fear."
Untrue and totally unrelated to anything I've ever said. Believers don't have to fear God. Fake believers and non-believers best fear Him. So you should fear Him.
"I land on the other side, saying that such "fear God" passages are often directed towards oppressive types of people..."
Corruption. "Fear God" passages are directed toward non-believers, fake believers and those who do not obey God's will, only some of whom are oppressors. But you corrupt Scripture to pretend it deals with "oppressors" because you're obsessed with the wealth and status of others.
"Do you disagree with that line from John, Marshal?"
I disagree with your poor understanding and willful corruption of Scripture.
"How do you reconcile this very clear, very explicit "Do not fear" kind of message with your decision to emphasize the FEAR GOD message?"
I have no confusion regarding the meaning of either kind of message. I don't "emphasize" a "FEAR GOD" message. I simply point out the warnings those like you refuse to heed. Consider it a public service message.
"Now, you may not call that "counseling fear," but it IS you literally saying there are things to be afraid of happening."
So, what you're saying is that warning people of what others are actually doing is "counseling fear". You can pretend your kind aren't doing those things, or you may actually be that ignorant of the plans of those you support, but even if it could possibly turn out your kind aren't planning those things, a sincere belief they are and warning others against supporting them is not "counseling fear", speaking truth about what's coming. Again, consider it a public service message.
With that in mind, let me ask you: are you counseling fear to warn your kids against crossing the street without looking both ways, about the danger of doing PCP, about hanging out with unsavory kids, or are you warning them of the danger inherent in those behaviors? Or consider a better analogy: are you counseling fear to warn your kids against law enforcement arresting them and the judge passing sentence if found guilty of engaging in those behaviors? What fear should your kids have of government if they obey the law? See how this works? Thus, counseling obedience to government OR God is counseling fear because there are consequences for not doing so. The "fear not" verses are examples of this. One needn't fear God if one is a true believer obedient to His Will.
"Is it not the case that you ARE counseling (promoting, instilling, warning, whatever verb you want to assign it) fear because, in your mind, there ARE things to be afraid of, like liberals taking your little guns away?"
One needn't be scared to death of what lefties intend to do in order to benefit from being informed of what they will do. That is to say, "I'm not trying to scare the crap out of you, but this is what lefties have in store should they come to power." It's dishonest to attempt to suggest that you lefties don't do the same thing with regard to conservatives taking control. The only difference is our warnings about you people are based on facts, evidence, truth. Your warnings about conservatives are based on lies, falsehoods and distortions. So to the extent that one is afraid or merely concerned enough to act in some way or another is irrelevant to the point of giving warning. And frankly, given what we've seen since Jan 20, 2021, reasonable people should be scared shitless to allow lefties anymore power and control. While you people lied about Trump doing America harm, you're actually harming America.
No nation that has had guns taken away have fared well against the will of their government. Your ignorant position on the topic puts you at risk and worse, your ignorance in support of gun control measures puts your fellow Americans at risk...as if you truly give a flying rat's ass about anyone but yourself. But what's really obnoxious about your quote above, is the insulting tone, i.e., "taking your little guns away". Apparently you're not subject to your own demands regarding respectful discourse. I'm not surprised.
more coming now...
"A. The point of looking at the number of times something appears in The Bible is not to say whichever one has the most occurrence occurrences is the right answer. I'm not saying that... do you understand that?"
Then what's the point of mentioning frequency except to say that?
"B. The point is to note that there are passages that could be seen as making contradictory claims. "We should fear God/ There is nothing to fear." Those are, on the face of it, contradictory claims.. Do you recognize that reality?"
Only when taken out of context, as my comments above demonstrate. But exactly and specifically, who sees them as contradictory? And if someone does, isn't it your job as an alleged Christian to explain in a way that resolves their confusion? So I think you're tap dancing here. You mention frequency to lend greater importance to what you want Christianity to mean over what it actually does. This isn't the first time you've done this.
"C. The point in noting how common it is that Jesus Or the bible says "fear not," It is a common theme found throughout The Bible, emphasized over and over.. And yet, we also see some instances where it says to fear God.. I'm pointing that out to note that reality, that we see both instances. So how do we reconcile that?"
In the same simple manner I easily provided for you above. They are the same theme regardless of how it is phrased...either fear not or fear God. The same lesson is explicit in either choice.
"D. I would think a rational person would begin with acknowledging both instances and say we reconcile it by at least beginning with looking at the context... Are there certain instances where we are to fear God and other instances where we are not to fear God? Who, in the text, is being told to fear? Do you see why this is rational?"
A rational person...someone with whom you clearly have never made acquaintance...would not struggle to reconcile what isn't so disparate as you want to insist it is.
"E. Over and over again, I believe, in the vast majority of the fear passages, it is those who are oppressing, who are greedy and don't think of the poor.... or who are causing harm or enemies of God, these are who should be afraid. Do you agree?"
Not exactly. It isn't a message specific to any specific non-believer, sinner or fake-Christian. It is meant for all who choose to reject God and His will. Those who don't have no need to fear. The message is the same regardless of which angle one chooses to begin one's warning, be it "fear not" or "fear God". You make far too much of these two angles as if it truly could be confusing to anyone seriously studying to determine the truth.
"Please explain what you think, in your mind, my understanding of its implications and meanings is. Be brief."
Reread my comments. How's that for "brief"?
more coming...
"Sigh. What specifically is "the manner" that I'm speaking of, in your mind?"
*Sigh* Your question is answered in my words you quoted above it.
"Marshal: "No. It is written in response to sinners...those who do not abide the will of God."
Sigh. Look at what I wrote."
I did and it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter in what way one had sinned, but only that one had sinned in some way. The "sin of oppression" is not significant. Any sin would do and the point would be the same: Sin and you have reason to fear.
"As a point of reality, the passages I'm citing are not talking about all sinners but a specific subset of sinners. There's nothing in these texts suggesting all humanity. Do you recognize that reality?"
The only "reality" which exists in your position is that you think it matters that a specific sin is committed. It doesn't matter to the lesson. Why any passage must mention every sin in order for you to learn and understand the point is beyond me. That is, unless we're dealing with your unnatural obsession with the wealth and power of others. Seems you're afraid of them despite your attempt to provide assurances for others.
"If you disagree, then what you need to do is support that disagreement by citing the passages I'm speaking of and showing how it's addressing all sinners and all humanity, not just a subset."
And this is an example of your failure to understand Scripture or your unwillingness to accept its lessons. Though the speaker may be addressing a specific purpose, the very fact that the passage exists is to stand as teaching to the rest of us. Here's a sinner...an "oppressor", in this case... being admonished for rebelling against God in his particular way. His particular way isn't the point. It has nothing to do with the lesson being imparted. By your "logic", if I never "oppress" anyone, there's no lesson for me. The passage has no value for me. It's got nothing to do with me.
And if further occurs to me that this obsession with "oppressors" allows you to more easily attack those who adhere to God's will regarding human sexuality and sexual immorality as "oppressors" as you defend the immoral. Thus, more corruption of Scripture on your part.
Look...here's the "crux of the biscuit", as Frank Zappa would say: I don't care that you wish to preach that actual Christians need not fear because God is there for them. That's a truth I've already gotten behind. My problem is "the hateful attack words you used towards people not here to defend themselves and who have been traditionally oppressed by people like you", that is, conservatives (I mean actual conservatives. Not you pretending you actually ever were one.). When you falsely attribute to them some counter-Scriptural attitude because they warn people, as Christ did, against sinful behavior, you pervert their message or the message of Christ. Actually, both. You suggest they urge paranoia, not rational fear and concern for real suffering and harm. The passages you highlight and favor do not speak against rational fear and concern. They only assert a true believer need not live a fearful life. That's different than being concerned about oncoming traffic, how certain drugs can harm a person, what eternal suffering is in store for those about whom one cares should they choose to reject God. Indeed, one doesn't walk in love if one doesn't warn others of such pitfalls and dangers. Rational people call that "awareness".
Marshal... " It doesn't matter in what way one had sinned, but only that one had sinned in some way. The "sin of oppression" is not significant. Any sin would do and the point would be the same: Sin and you have reason to fear."
Before adding anything else, do this:
1. Support this claim ("it doesn't matter in what way one has sinned...") specifically in the texts I'm referencing to show that it's objectively true
OR
2. Admit that's just your hunch and you can't support it
AND
3. Have the decency to acknowledge that, IN THE TEXT, it is citing specific sin(s), and not just that one is an imperfect sinner, in general.
This whole notion of "any sin will do to put one in a position of being fearful of god" is not biblical - that is, there are NO texts that say that anywhere in the Bible... it's just the way that conservatives interpret texts.
This comment of yours is precisely why I phrase it that many conservative evangelicals (and I think it's true for many Catholics and others, as well... the whole Religion-as-guilt field of theology) "push or peddle fear and guilt" (and here, I'm adding guilt where I haven't mentioned it before... it's all of one cloth).
Think about it: If your child lies about hiding a birthday present they wanted to give you as a surprise and if another child is shooting guns in the household around other people in an unsafe manner... BOTH those might be counted as sins, but they're not both the same. There should be no fear in lying about a birthday present, but there should be fear about repercussions of endangering lives. To try to treat all "sins" as equally horrible is deadly.
What your comrade, Stan, recently had to say about fearing God...
"God deserves our fear. He has earned it.
Every time a biblical character encounters God, the universal response is
terror...
If there was fear --
genuine fear based on
the very real danger of maligning our Lord,
the God of the Universe --
then sin would definitely decrease.
Even among the forgiven.
Because even if we are forgiven
there are very real temporal consequences of sin...
perhaps fear is the right response to God.
Perhaps the fear of the Lord is a good thing.
Perhaps we're not doing anybody any favors by turning aside the fear of God."
Stan believes believers should actively fear God, because that fear might scare us into being afraid to sin. Am I reading him correctly?
Do you think Stan is mistaken?
If you think he's correct, how do you reconcile that with what Paul says about there being NO fear in the love of God... For we are like Jesus here on earth?
And just to clarify something:
As you should know, I'm not one to totally dismiss other people's opinions and interpretations. Maybe for some people, being deathly afraid of God helps them if they interpret those passages that way.
I give a lot of leeway in people holding opinions. Especially on gradient and unprovable matters - how much fear should we have, how much "be not afraid" should we have? I'm not saying there is any one answer that I or anyone has that is objectively provably universally "right..."
What I'm disagreeing with would be those who'd say, "Here is my opinion: We should fear God because God hates sin and sinners and WILL destroy all sinners, so FEAR and TERROR is an appropriate response for all people... AND my opinion is the One True Opinion... indeed, it's not my opinion, it's God's Word!" (Even though God never said all that.)
Marshal... "That is to say, "I'm not trying to scare the crap out of you, but this is what lefties have in store should they come to power." It's dishonest to attempt to suggest that you lefties don't do the same thing with regard to conservatives taking control. The only difference is our warnings about you people are based on facts, evidence, truth."
How many guns, precisely, have you had taken from you by a liberal gov't?
"Before adding anything else, do this:
1. Support this claim ("it doesn't matter in what way one has sinned...") specifically in the texts I'm referencing to show that it's objectively true
OR
2. Admit that's just your hunch and you can't support it"
I can't help that your ability to reason is so lacking. My response doesn't require the proof you think is necessary beyond the fact that it addresses ALL of your verses related to "fear not". "Fear not" and "fear the Lord" are two sides of the same coin. Your fixation on "oppressors" and "the rich" blind you to the true message of Scripture.
"3. Have the decency to acknowledge that, IN THE TEXT, it is citing specific sin(s), and not just that one is an imperfect sinner, in general."
Not a problem, except for you, because such an acknowledgement doesn't alter the point in the least. You cite these many verses preaching "fear not", yet you want me to isolate one and ignore the rest with regard to what is being taught by their totality. I can't do that without lying, and that's YOUR thing, not mine.
"This whole notion of "any sin will do to put one in a position of being fearful of god" is not biblical - that is, there are NO texts that say that anywhere in the Bible..."
I've rather comprehensively explained why that is EXACTLY biblical, and you respond once again with "Nyuh uh".
"...it's just the way that conservatives interpret texts."
...which, unlike you, is accurately and with logic and reason.
"This comment of yours is precisely why I phrase it that many conservative evangelicals (and I think it's true for many Catholics and others, as well... the whole Religion-as-guilt field of theology) "push or peddle fear and guilt" (and here, I'm adding guilt where I haven't mentioned it before... it's all of one cloth)."
Naw, that's just another way you try to disparage those with better understanding of Scripture. Our reverence for God won't allow us to ignore the consequences of rebellion against him in favor of an unbiblical "kumbaya" corruption of reality. Eternal salvation is at stake.
"Think about it: If your child lies about hiding a birthday present they wanted to give you as a surprise and if another child is shooting guns in the household around other people in an unsafe manner... BOTH those might be counted as sins, but they're not both the same."
And here again you show you're hung up on specific sins, while I once again speak of sinning...or more precisely, rebellion against God manifested by sinning as if there's no reason to worry because we say we believe. But you go ahead with that self-deception, Dan, and good luck with it.
"Stan believes believers should actively fear God, because that fear might scare us into being afraid to sin. Am I reading him correctly?"
It would seem so, but you'd have to ask him. If you're respectful in the way you pretend to care about when people comment on your blog, you might actually get a response, though I think his post was pretty straightforward and unambiguous like you need Scripture to be in order to perpetuate your twisted notions of Christianity.
"God hates sin and sinners and WILL destroy all sinners"
You don't believe this is true at all? If not, then those oppressors who concern you so obsessively have nothing to fear, either. How do you resolve THIS?
"How many guns, precisely, have you had taken from you by a liberal gov't?"
Do you have any idea how many guns were on the list of Biden's 1994 "assault weapons ban"? Do you have any idea how many lefties have expressed a desire that no one possess any gun of any kind? Do you actually believe that when someone in government constantly speaks of trying to accomplish something they should not be believed? You could not be more absurd (a rhetorical statement given how you constantly amaze me with how absurd you can be). One needn't have seen success in the attempt to believe they sincerely hope to succeed at some point. It is the warnings and reminders of our rights which have obstructed their ability to take away guns from the law-abiding. The fear is a legitimate one and not the least bit irrational paranoia. That type of fear is found among you and your kind with regard to conservatism and worsened by the lies you routinely tell about conservatives. You couldn't prove me wrong on this if I helped you do it.
"How many guns, precisely, have you had taken from you by a liberal gov't?"
Marshal: uhhh… I’m gonna dodge that. I’m gonna divert from that. I’m gonna deflect to something else. I’ll going to deny you ever asked it. I’m going to prevaricate, then lie, then double down on the lie. Finally I’m just gonna brazenly make up myths. Because… you know: I’m an impotent white man, the kind the world is leaving behind? Right?
Nice job conflating your opinion with Scripture.
David, you are more than welcome to comment here. But I'd ask you to not make baseless, vague, empty charges. If you'd like to critique something I've said, please do so on an adult level.
Where specifically, have I conflated my opinion with Scripture?
From where I sit, I clearly cited 1 John literally and noted what it literally said. I said, for instance:
"But John says there is no fear in love and that
perfect love drives out fear and
the one who fears is not made perfect in love."
But that is literally just repeating what John said.
And then, later, I offered what is clearly MY opinion, saying...
"I think the point is clear - whether we reach this conclusion biblically or rationally:
For those who oppress,
who cause harm,
who denigrate and attack or
even just ignore
the poor and the least of these,
there is reason to fear awful repercussions.
We see this in Jesus' parable about the sheep and the goats:
The Goats who did not listen to or help with the needs of the least of these,
they were cast into a burning lake of fire."
I THINK the teaching is clear. THIS (the above quote) is what I think it's teaching us, as well as common sense/reason.
Same for this...
"But, those who loved, those who sided with and helped the poor
the marginalized
the hungry
the foreigner
the least of these...
For those people, there was no fear. For they were living in love and in grace."
That is MY opinion, MY take on how best to understand these passages being referenced.
So, where specifically have I conflated my opinion with Scripture?
Are you suggesting that people like you and I should not offer our opinions about how Scripture should be understood/what it's teaching? If so, why?
Obviously it's your opinion because other people have come to different conclusions based on the same evidence.
Yes, it IS my opinion and I'm clear about it. Is it okay with you if I have opinions? EVEN IF I dare to disagree with your opinions or your preacher's or your father's?
And more importantly, do you recognize that you and others who have different opinions than I do ARE holding personal opinions and don't have the objectively factual "right" answer?
That is, I recognize and acknowledge when I'm offering a personal opinion. Do you do the same?
And, given that we're both clear about what I've offered by way of opinion, do you then think perhaps you made a mistake when you falsely claimed I was conflating my opinion with Scripture? If we're all clear that it's MY opinion about Scripture and not Scripture itself, then I'm not literally not conflating my opinions with Scripture.
You post them on the internet like they're fact and we must agree with you, but you couldn't possibly be wrong. You make Stan out to be some stuck up tyrant and is wrong for putting his "opinion" out there and then turn around and the same thing. If we can't actually know anything fully from Scripture , there is no reason to discuss it as it is all meaningless fluff.
I have strong opinions, especially about what I think is pretty obvious. Is that okay with you, as long as I'm clear that it's my opinion?
What I disagree with is when people, like Stan, state things as if they're facts and not personal opinions. And I sometimes disagree with people's opinions and hold other opinions.
For instance, you mention Stan "putting his 'opinion' out there" and you put the quotes around Opinions. Do you recognize that Stan's opinion on, for instance, what it means to "fear God" IS Stan's personal opinion, and not God's Word?
I think we can know and understand things from Scripture and from human reason both. Do you disagree?
When it comes down to human opinions about the biblical authors' intention, we can't objectively completely know or prove our opinions about out interpretations of those words. Do you disagree?
For instance, I think it is quite abundantly clear that Jesus came to preach actual good news to the actual poor and to warn the actual wealthy about the trappings of wealth. I think this is clear in the bible and especially in Jesus' words. Can I PROVE what Jesus' intention was in all these places where he spoke of wealth and poverty? No, but then, neither can you or Stan. Am I mistaken?
I think holding a high view of God and the Bible, respecting an almighty God requires a bit of humility on our part when we're trying to wrap our mind around such an abstract notion. Do you disagree?
Talk with me.
A. In this particular post, I'm responding specifically to the type of "Fear God" messages I heard throughout my childhood and young adult years. The notion was that we are all horrible sinners deserving of everlasting torment/torture/being thrown into a metaphorical or real lake of fire to be tortured for eternity. So, for that reason, we should fear God!
Have you heard those sorts of messages?
B. I'm noting that we are told to "fear not" in the Bible WAY more than we are told to fear God.
C. I'm noting that oftentimes when we have a "fear God" message in the Bible, it is speaking of the wicked, the oppressors, those who would harm the people of Israel in the OT. THOSE WICKED ONES, who deliberately plot evil are the ones who should fear God... I suspect that most (nearly all?) instances where we're told to fear God, it's speaking of the actively wicked. This is what is found literally in the Bible.
Is that a fair assessment of at least some of the "fear" messages/passages in the Bible?
D.And I'm noting that most of us are not actively plotting evil, in contrast to those who had such "fear God" warnings. Speaking for myself, I have never deliberately decided to sit down and plot evil or wickedness or causing harm. I am an imperfect human and a sinner, to be sure, but I'm not going around deliberately plotting wickedness.
And I suspect the same is true for you. Would I be wrong in thinking that? That neither you, nor Stan, are actively plotting wickedness and probably never have?
E. Indeed, most people I know - and I suspect you, as well - are, at worst, not actively doing good, and on average, you probably spend as much time trying to be kind or loving or helpful than not. Is that fair? It's certainly true of the people I know, by and large, to greater and lesser degrees.
How about it? Are you and Stan among those who actively plot evil or do you generally try to be a helper and, at worst, are somewhere in between, just living your daily life?
I asked... "How many guns, precisely, have you had taken from you by a liberal gov't?"
Marshal responded... "Do you have any idea how many guns were on the list of Biden's 1994 "assault weapons ban"? Do you have any idea how many lefties have expressed a desire that no one possess any gun of any kind?"
So, the answer is Zero. Marshal has had precisely Zero guns taken from him by a liberal gov't.
Marshal, if you're not going to directly answer questions, you will not be able to comment here.
The whole line about fearing the actions of the other party is not really the point of this post.
IF a corrupt president goes around spreading stupidly false claims for stupidly gullible people to believe about "stolen elections," that is/should be a real concern for rational adults/citizens.
If a deceptive party spreads lies about Democrats "taking guns away from people" for FIFTY YEARS with no guns being taken away, then that is literally fearmongering about stupidly false claims.
But let's set that aside, as it's not the point.
The point of this post, as I just clarified/noted/summed up in my last comment directed towards David, is WHO is being told to shiver in fear from a perfectly just and loving God? Is it all of humanity? Or is it those who are actively plotting evil?
I'm saying that the Bible supports and reason demands that it would be those actively plotting evil/causing harm, not the masses of humanity who are just trying to get by and, more often than not, are fairly decent people.
Now, if you think everyone should actively fear God, then that's on you, but I don't think it's rational or biblical.
Marshal... " Your fixation on "oppressors" and "the rich" blind you to the true message of Scripture. "
You say "fixation," I say, taking the passage literally based on the text and context of what is literally there, as well as being rational.
Here's one of the "fear" passages:
"I have a message from God in my heart
concerning the sinfulness of the wicked:
There is no fear of God
before their eyes.
In their own eyes they flatter themselves
too much to detect or hate their sin.
The words of their mouths are wicked and deceitful;
they fail to act wisely or do good.
Even on their beds they plot evil;
they commit themselves to a sinful course
and do not reject what is wrong."
Is this describing you, Marshal? Are you actively plotting wickedness? Do you think it's describing most people, out there deliberately plotting and committing to a sinful course?
If so, you MUST support that claim.
You can't.
If you can't (and you can't) then admit that much. It's just your HUNCH that you can not support objectively to say that MOST people are out there actively plotting evil.
If you are saying that and don't support it with data (which again, you can't), then you can't comment here. If you want to make irrational claims in your bid to twist the Bible into your personal human traditions, you HAVE to support them. No empty claims about something so outrageous will be allowed. Thou shalt not bear false witness here.
“Where specifically, have I conflated my opinion with Scripture?”
David: uhhh… I’m gonna dodge that. I’m gonna divert from that. I’m gonna deflect to something else. I’ll going to deny you ever asked it. I’m going to prevaricate, then lie, then double down on the lie. Finally I’m just gonna brazenly make up myths. Because… you know: I’m an impotent white man, the kind the world is leaving behind? Right?
No, Danny. I've not had any weapons taken from me by lefty government. But the reason I responded as I did is because of the falseness of your question, as if because I haven't had any guns taken (yet), or because there's been no attempt to take my weapons (yet), then the fear of being disarmed by lefties in government is irrational paranoia rather than a legitimate concern for which fair warning to honest, intelligent voters should be given. YOU were the one who post that as a "typical" example of irrational conservative fear-mongering. Thus, your question about my personal situation is not the "gotcha" you hoped it would be. It's a crap question about a serious issue regarding leftist intentions.
"The whole line about fearing the actions of the other party is not really the point of this post."
Really. And yet you felt compelled to provide examples of actions of the other party. Let's review:
"The government is going to take our guns!"
"They're going to put Christian bakers in prison!"
"They're trying to steal our elections and take away our way of life!!"
"They're going to let transgender women actually use the women's bathrooms!"
You used these legitimate concerns expressed by intelligent people for the benefit of other intelligent people (as well as for the benefit of less intelligent people who don't pay attention to what their favored politicians have in mind) to promote this notion of conservatives and conservative Christians primarily pushing "fear God". You like to think that your position is more reasonable and a more accurate understanding of Scripture than such warnings...warnings quite similar to those of Christ Himself...expressed to remind Christians of what's at stake.
Stan's Feb 21 post expresses more about the subject, but I do not deny the importance of warning the consequences of rejecting God...of being in rebellion against His will for us. It's not the be all and end all of why I recommend acceptance of the Truth, but it is an essential part of it. Indeed, there are consequences for both accepting God/Christ as well as for rejecting God/Christ. Both are important.
"IF a corrupt president goes around spreading stupidly false claims for stupidly gullible people to believe about "stolen elections," that is/should be a real concern for rational adults/citizens."
That wasn't Biden or Obama saying that. It was Trump and they're not "stupidly false claims". Nor are they unique to Trump. "Stupidly false claims" are like the claim that the 2020 election was one of the cleanest, most honest, most secure election ever, or that there was no evidence of election fraud/irregularity. "Stupidly false claims" are more like what one finds in a lefty blog.
"If a deceptive party spreads lies about Democrats "taking guns away from people" for FIFTY YEARS with no guns being taken away, then that is literally fearmongering about stupidly false claims."
To dare suggest the GOP is the "deceptive party" is not only a lie (not unsurprising and thus an intentional lie) but easily proven to be totally truthful on this point. Again, just because the Dems have never had power enough to get away with a complete confiscation of all privately owned firearms does not mean it's on their agenda. One has to be an incredible liar to pretend that's not the case. What's more, President Doorknob wants to bring back the failed 1994 assault weapons ban which denied law abiding citizens weapons they prefer while doing nothing to affect the rate of crime. Current laws in various states and cities prohibit or inhibit possession and sale of ANY firearms or particular firearms. Some laws make it easier to have guns taken away from otherwise law-abiding citizens on the word of a single doctor...the so-called "red flag" laws. To pretend these situations do not constitute the taking away of firearms is absurd and frankly, another intentional lie. The rally cry of "they'll take away our guns" doesn't simply mean kicking down our doors to get guns we already have. But that's not beyond the realm of possibility by any stretch of the imagination given the character of today's Democratic Party.
"The point of this post, as I just clarified/noted/summed up in my last comment directed towards David, is WHO is being told to shiver in fear from a perfectly just and loving God?"
But you have a perfectly twisted understanding of what "a perfectly just and loving God" means, and all your ramblings flow from that twisted understanding. Thus, it is reasonable for any expression of your "understanding" to be questioned. But you wish to pretend all warnings about God's just punishments are meant only for the "rich oppressors". That's not only flawed. That's just patently untrue.
"Now, if you think everyone should actively fear God, then that's on you, but I don't think it's rational or biblical."
Ironic, given you and those like you are exactly among those who should actually fear God's wrath.
More later....
Except I did answer the question and he even affirmed that it is only his opinion.
"The heart of Man is deceitful wicked all the time." So actually yes, I believe that everyone is actively plotting evil/ causing harm. Even me. I am a wretched sinner. Jesus didn't come to boost me out of my poverty, but to change my wicked heart.
David... "Except I did answer the question and he even affirmed that it is only his opinion."
I think the point that Feodor is making is that you made a false claim ("You're conflating your opinion with Scripture") and when called on it, you admitted you knew I was just talking about my opinion and that I made that clear, but never admitted or apologized for the false claim that I was conflating my opinion with Scripture. You were caught in an error, but you ignored that error.
David... "I believe that everyone is actively plotting evil/ causing harm. Even me. I am a wretched sinner."
1. I doubt seriously that you are actually plotting evil all the time. I mean, I don't know you at all, so maybe you are, but I doubt it.
2. If you are, though, maybe give an example or two of some way in which you are actively plotting evil, just to make clear what you mean by plotting evil. For what it's worth, when I hear someone say they're plotting evil, I'm picturing them planning on kidnapping children or planning on saying hurtful things to their sick mother or killing someone or some way in which they're actively planning to do actual evil things - which sounds horrible! Are you actually doing that and if so, what do you mean by that? Or do you mean something than what those words actually suggest?
3. If you DO regularly plot evil, then why would reasonable people place much weight in what you're saying here? Are your comments here part of some evil plan of yours? Are you deliberately trying to make false accusations and spread gossip to cause harm to people you don't even know??
Marshal, do NOT make any further comments until you address directly these questions already put to you:
Is this describing you, Marshal? Are you actively plotting wickedness? Do you think it's describing most people, out there deliberately plotting and committing to a sinful course?
If so, you MUST support that claim.
You can't.
If you can't (and you can't) then admit that much. It's just your HUNCH that you can not support objectively to say that MOST people are out there actively plotting evil.
The reason I think it's rational and biblical to think about such questions is it gets down to the nature of God and of humans. If David (and Marshal?) et al are correct and they are basic evil human beings who continually intentionally plot to do actual evil (! What a horrible thought! I sure hope that's not true! And again, for what it's worth, I don't believe it is...), then one could see how a Good God concerned for the oppressed and marginalized (as God/Jesus/the bible repeatedly points out and which reason supports) could be angry enough to punish such people in some manner. Punish them harshly, even. That's reasonable.
IF it were true that they are actively regularly actually intentionally plotting to do harm and wickedness to others.
But, I have never met anyone that fits that description. I am aware of folks with mental illnesses - sociopaths, narcissists - who have that within them because of an illness in their mind. But out in the regular world we most live in, most people are just trying to get by, live their lives, at least show concern for their loved ones and support them, and just generally are literally not plotting evil. And for many people I know, they're out actively doing good in the world, teaching children who need a teacher, adopting children who need a loving parent, loving their children the best they can and raising them to be good people, taking care of the sick, finding housing for the homeless, etc. These friends of mine are not plotting any evil in any obvious way that can be seen. Indeed, in their daily lives, they show all signs of plotting goodness and help and empowerment.
Now, is it possible that what they're doing to try to help is NOT helpful and may actually cause harm? For instance, what if we learned that children are harmed in some manner by going to school and getting an education. There is no data to support such a concern, but what if? Those teachers and office assistants and principles and assistant teachers, etc, are actively trying to do good and in complete ignorance managed to cause some harm.
Does that deserve punishment? Would a just and loving God say to those teachers, "While you were actively plotting to do good, you were wrong and mistakenly caused harm. To hell with you to be tortured for an eternity for your innocent mistake!"
Is that rational? Just? Loving?
I don't see how that's possible. Or rational. Or biblical.
And that is why I'm asking these questions about whether or not you are actively plotting evil... and whether you think it's rational to say that most people are plotting evil deliberately.
If Scripture can only be interpreted by opinion and can never truly be clearly understood, then there is no sense in which it can useful for teaching or reproof because it would be so varied in meaning as to be meaningless. If we can't know truly if Jesus was the son of God or just a good man then Christianity is as worthless as any other religion. If we can't know truly Christ's purpose and it is all only opinion then trying to use Scripture to teach anything is an act of futility. If you were to conclusively prove to me that Scripture cannot be truly understood objectively, I would be forced to give up Christianity and be a hedonist, for life only matters in how I feel about it. Scripture has to be more truthful than my opinions because my opinions shift, and if Scripture is as shifty as my opinion, it is useless to me for how I should live. That is why I deny your claim that all Scripture is opinion. Without Truth, as hard and fast as 2+2=4, then all meaning is ephemeral and cannot be useful to tell anyone else how to live. And if it cannot be useful for teaching and reproof, then telling people what I THINK it means is a waste of bandwidth. You should shut down your blog and keep your opinions to yourself because your opinion is just as valid as any one else's. If all truth is opinion, there is no truth.
And nice use of racism and sexism to prove your point. I'm a white male so I must be wrong. What happens if a black female agrees with me? Is she then wrong too for bowing to my white patriarchy? My race and gender have nothing to do with this topic.
You're not my Father Confessor, so I won't be enumerating my sins to you. But I tend to agree with Scripture when it says that the heart of man is deceitfully wicked all the time. That there are none who do good outside the Will of God. That every selfish desire is an act of evil against God. You want to deny the clear word of God and say that most everyone is good most of the time. Knowing my own heart, compared to the perfection required by God, I can do no else but crawl to my Father and beg for the forgiveness found in His Son alone. It is quite rational to believe that everyone is plotting selfish ambition (ie evil) all the time. Without Christ, we can do no other.
Oh, and you repeatedly claim that you're not allowed to defend yourself on Stan's blog, but if Marshal were to talk with the same vitriol and anger on Stan's blog as he does here, he'd be blocked there too. You weren't blocked for disagreeing. You were blocked for meanness, rudeness, language, and insult.
David... "You're not my Father Confessor, so I won't be enumerating my sins to you. But I tend to agree with Scripture when it says that the heart of man is deceitfully wicked all the time."
You have made a rather outstanding and troubling claim: that you continually plot evil. Do you see how this could be a rather hard-to-believe and concerning claim? And why I'd ask you to help me understand?
I literally don't know/can't imagine what you mean by this claim.
Help me understand. Explain what you mean.
You came here to interact and share something. Good for you. Then, interact. Clarify. Explain.
David... "If Scripture can only be interpreted by opinion and can never truly be clearly understood, then there is no sense in which it can useful..."
I have not said nor do I believe that Scripture can't truly be understood. Do you understand that?
Indeed, I think the Bible presents all manner of easily understood themes, messages and teachings. Clear and consistent and beautiful and rational messages.
Do you understand that?
I'm not saying the Bible can't be understood. At all.
I'm saying that neither you nor I can objectively, authoritatively "prove" our interpretations are THE RIGHT interpretations.
Do you see the distinction?
Now, if you can objectively prove your opinions are authoritatively right, please do so. I want to be right.
Help me out.
Stan... "You were blocked for meanness, rudeness, language, and insult."
I get the that's what Stan thinks and why he chose to block me. From my perspective, I believe my actual words tend to be quite respectful and mostly, I just raise questions, as I'm doing here with you.
Do you feel I have somehow been rude or mean to you in these series of exchanges we've just added?
Indeed, you came on this blog and lead with the false accusation that I'm conflating scripture with my opinion. I hope you can see that for some people that would be considered rude. So we all have different notions of what rude means or looks like.
And there is no doubt that I sometimes express my opinions in the strong and even strong and even strident manner, especially when polite and respectful opinions and questions have gone ignored or been twisted. But I respect Stan and you and others enough to believe that yall can handle strong and strident opinions. I haven't let your rudeness towards me stop me from wanting to talk with you.
You don't understand that I was quoting Scripture? God said those very words. Without glorifying God, everything we do is as bloodstained rags. Even the most humanitarian acts, if not done to glorify God, are not considered good in God's eyes. Any time we do anything for selfish reasons, we sin. Do you never do selfish things? Do you never cut someone off on the freeway because you needed to be in that lane to get to your exit? You seem to have a lesser view of evil than Scripture defines. Scripture claims anything not done for the glory of God is usurping His glory, and that is a sin.
If Truth can't be verified then the fact remains that Scripture is useless for the purpose of teaching and reproof. We have repeatedly quoted clear texts to you that say the exact opposite of what you've claimed as your opinion and never have you explained why those passages don't say what they clearly say. How could I begin to objectively prove to you something is true if you start with the premise that truth is subjective (opinion)? If there is no way to prove a passage says what it clearly says, then Scripture is useless as a tool for teaching and reproof. It seems that you would rather hold to your weird religiously hybrid "Christianity" that says that most people do good all the time, that Christ wasted His time dying on a cross for the sins of humanity since we're all basically good anyway, and God would be a big old meanie for sending even the most reprobate to hell because they're basically good, they just made a few mistakes. If nobody (or very very few) goes to hell, then Jesus is a liar and not worthy of following. You are a Universalist and not a Christian.
You outright threatened physical harm to Stan and his followers. That is far beyond strong words. You have in fact accused me and Stan and his followers of the same exact thing as I accused you of (the opinion thing). In theological discourse, I don't believe "strong words" need to be used because once you reduced your argument to anger, the discourse is over.
David... "You don't understand that I was quoting Scripture? God said those very words. Without glorifying God, everything we do is as bloodstained rags. Even the most humanitarian acts, if not done to glorify God, are not considered good in God's eyes."
Yes, I understand the Scriptural reference. I'm not talking about Scripture. I'm talking about what YOU personally mean when you state that you continually plot to do evil.
David... "Without glorifying God, everything we do is as bloodstained rags."
That is, of course, an allegory. But what do you MEAN by this allegory? That passage in Isaiah is speaking of a specific set o circumstances, and is not a universal claim about humanity.
David... "Even the most humanitarian acts, if not done to glorify God, are not considered good in God's eyes."
I get that this is a claim that you and those like you make, but where is the proof? How is that rational? Given that God says God will repay each person according to their deeds, how is it consistently biblical?
It's not sufficient to lift a line from the Bible and state it as if that one verse says it all. If I reference the verse about the four corners of the world, that is not proof that the world is square. Right?
If I state Jesus' teaching that his followers should sell their belongings and give it to the poor, that line is not sufficient to say that YOU should sell everything you have, which I presume you have not done.
If I cite the passage about the foolish rich man who tore down barns to make room for savings for future stuff, that isn't a universal knock on any form of savings, I presume you think that, right?
Where is the SUPPORT for the claim? The claim is, itself, not sufficient.
David... "You outright threatened physical harm to Stan and his followers."
I don't know where you got this notion, but it is absolutely a false claim. It is a ridiculously false claim. I've never said anything remotely like threatening anyone.
Just fyi. If you can't support this outrageous, stupidly false slander (and you can't, because it's ridiculously false), I'd suggest you'd be wiser to withdraw it and apologize.
David... "If Truth can't be verified then the fact remains that Scripture is useless for the purpose of teaching and reproof."
I get that this is your opinion. Do you have ANYTHING to support it, or is it just an unsupported opinion?
David... "We have repeatedly quoted clear texts to you that say the exact opposite of what you've claimed as your opinion "
I know you've repeatedly offer passages that TO YOU think are "clear" support of your opinions. I used to hold those same opinions. But I no longer agree with you that those are clear supports of your opinions. The verses and reasoning I cite for my position are CLEAR (to me) support for my position.
Neither of us can prove them. IF you could prove your opinions and interpretations that follow in other human traditions, you would do so. And if you could do so, I would change my mind. Again, I want to hold the "right" position.
I disagree with your human interpretations and opinions. Who is in a position of authority to say that YOU have the "right" understanding and I'm mistaken? Where is the proof of your position that demonstrably objectively proves it's right?
Merely citing a series of verses that you think are clear is not objectively proving the point, you recognize that, right?
David... "How could I begin to objectively prove to you something is true if you start with the premise that truth is subjective (opinion)? "
? Where have I said that?
Answer: I haven't said that. I don't believe Truth is subjective. Of course. At least not usually. That is, either it is factually true that there is a Creator God and that Jesus was literally God's son... or it's not factually true. Either the man, Jesus, was crucified by the state or he wasn't. Objectively true. Those truths are not subjective and I do not believe that Truth is subjective. Not generally.
Now, there is always nuance, as well. Is it true that Jesus was literally the son of God? Well, what does that mean? Does it mean that God impregnated Mary with God's Holy Sperm? That is how an offspring is produced, right?
Or does it mean that Jesus was a (the??) SPIRITUAL son of God and if so, what does that mean? I also make room for nuance, because it's reasonable to do so. I have ZERO evidence that God used holy sperm to make Jesus or if God waved a holy hand over Mary's womb to miraculously invent a fetus Jesus. We have no data to prove the mechanics of such claims. None at all. The Bible hasn't told us, God hasn't told us, no data exists to prove it one way or another.
Nuance.
I'm fine with mystery and the unknown and when something is literally unknown, then I'm fine with speaking in or recognizing metaphor. And I respect God and the Unknown enough not to make claims of objective fact that I can't objectively prove.
But facts? Facts are objective, even if they're not provable. Either God created the world 6,000 years ago on a Sunday or God DIDN'T create the world 6,000 years ago on a Sunday. Objectively so. We can (scientists can) reasonably demonstrate that it didn't happen 6,000 years ago and can reasonably prove it... that it demonstrably happened BILLIONS of years ago and no one knows what day it happened on. Agreed? That is an objective fact, demonstrably provable.
Of course, I believe in Objective truths and facts. Do you recognize that and can you say you made a mistake?
Agreed?
Instead, I recognize that when YOU or I offer an unprovable opinion, that THOSE are unprovable opinions. But this is reasonable, and humble and that would be biblical. Where am I mistaken?
What is wrong with acknowledging when we can't prove something? Humility is the beginning of wisdom, some might say.
Look, if you can PROVE the world was created 6,000 years ago on a Sunday, do so. But do so with data and objective proof, not by saying "The Bible says..." The Bible says a lot of things and our interpretations of what those words mean is not objective proof. It's literally our opinions. And in some cases, we just can't prove those opinions.
David... "In theological discourse, I don't believe "strong words" need to be used because once you reduced your argument to anger,"
Jesus... "Woe to you, you brood of vipers, you blind guides, you white-washed tombs!"
Jesus sometimes used strong words. I don't think it's biblical to say that we should never use strong words. There is a time for it, if we take Jesus literally. Agreed?
David... "It seems that you would rather hold to your weird religiously hybrid "Christianity" that says that most people do good all the time, that Christ wasted His time dying on a cross for the sins of humanity since we're all basically good anyway"
Jesus never once said he came to die on the cross to "pay" for the "sins of humanity." Jesus talked a good deal about the good news of the Realm of God but he never described it in those terms. Why would Jesus, in all those sermons and teachings of Jesus, never mention this? Do you see why that is strange?
What I'm trying to do with my Christianity is follow the teachings of Jesus, who I call Christ and Lord. Why is that weird to you? Even if you disagree with my fairly literal reading of Jesus' teachings, do you at least see how reasonable people can have these understandings of Jesus' teachings in good faith?
And I'm not saying that "Christianity says that most people do good all the time." I'm saying that I see no hard data that suggests you or "most people" are regularly plotting to do deliberate evil. IF you believe that, where is the proof for that?
Do you see how this is a reasonable question? What's wrong with asking that question?
And again, what do you mean when you say you (or most people) are constantly plotting to do deliberate evil? You don't have to answer for yourself, just give some generic but believable answer: WHAT is it that many (most? ALL?) people are deliberately plotting evil about?
If I had to guess, I'd guess you think that when people like me celebrate LGBTQ folks getting married and having human rights (for instance), that you think we're somehow deliberately plotting evil. But the reality is the opposite is true: We are celebrating, supporting and honoring what we believe to be good and beautiful and holy. Now, it's possible that we could be mistaken (we're not, but let's let that go for a minute), but if so, we're honestly mistaken, seeking to work for justice and grace and love.
Do you see how that's different than deliberately plotting evil?
And if so, do you think trying to be righteous and just and good but being mistaken is not reasonably punishable by an eternity of torture? That is, do you think merely being imperfect (as we were created) is reasonably considered worthy of eternal torture? How so? Please support that claim, if it's what you believe.
David... "That is why I deny your claim that all Scripture is opinion."
That's not my claim. My claim is that YOUR OPINIONS about Scripture are YOUR OPINIONS. And YOUR OPINIONS about points you can't (or won't) objectively prove, are your UNPROVEN opinions.
How is that mistaken?
Look, if you have some opinions that you can objectively prove, then by all means, objectively prove them. I want to be factually right and stand on objective truth. Even if you disagree, do you see that?
David... "If nobody (or very very few) goes to hell, then Jesus is a liar and not worthy of following. You are a Universalist and not a Christian. "
1. I'm not saying that "no one goes to hell."
2. I'm not saying that "all people go to heaven."
3. I'm saying that I don't think the evangelical opinions about "hell" are not biblical or rational. They are literally human traditions and certainly not provably true. Do you recognize that reality?
4. I believe that humans have free will. I think this is objectively observable in our decisions to do this or that. And I think it's biblical.
5. Given that belief, I think it's reasonable that humans can choose to reject goodness and God and the realm of God. Do you agree?
6. Notions of some form of "universalism" are extremely biblical and part of Church history from the beginning. I don't consider myself a universalist (literally, not a universalist), but I do recognize the Biblicality of it all. You are familiar with the wealth of biblical messages that have universalist overtones?
Jesus: "I have come to seek and save the lost." Period.
Jesus: quoting Isaiah: "And all people will see God’s salvation."
St Paul: "For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people."
St Paul: "[God is] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."
Jesus: "For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
I could go on, you know that, right?
Also, you cited medieval theologians in an earlier post as "proof" of church support for a position. But you know in the early church, Origen and Clement of Alexandria were in a universalist camp. And Augustine, while not a universalist, noted that "the majority" in the early church were supportive of versions of Universalism?
So, while I'm literally not a universalist, there certainly is a wealth of biblical support for it and it was part of the early church and has been seen throughout church history.
David, 60+ million white men - a grossly conservative estimate- dodge, deflect, divert, deny, prevaricate, lie, double down on the lie, and myth make… when confronted with uncomfortable truths that reveal how 500 years of privileged existence at the top of social power has corroded our capacity to see straight. That’s about 75% of all white men. Again, probably a lot more.
It’s an identity which you and I carry. It’s the identity inculcated in white boys generation after generation for centuries if we are descended from English immigrants. German descendants, Scottish descendants, Irish, Scandinavian, Italian, Poles, etc, only gained their whiteness much more recently.
It’s the identity that makes us white men, not our skin. It's the identity from which we think about the world. In this case, it is your indentity as habit to repress thought and search for a rationally sounding lie.
And because we make everyone exist in white default society, we all swim in whiteness. Everybody gets wet. Including the odd black woman every now and then. But we are the only ones who love it. Because it benefits us almost soley and almost all the time.
Just shot gunning here, as so much has transpired since my last entry:
"Jesus: "I have come to seek and save the lost." Period.
Jesus: quoting Isaiah: "And all people will see God’s salvation."
St Paul: "For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people."
St Paul: "[God is] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."
Jesus: "For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
Of the five quotes above, not one suggest universalism. Let's review:
"I have come to seek and save the lost." But not all will be saved. Not universalist when understood in the context of the totality of Christ's teachings.
"And all people will see God’s salvation." Does this equate to all people being saved? I'd need some evidence. Isaiah 40: 3-5 does not suggest all will be saved.
"For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people." Not everyone will take Him up on the offer. Not universalism at all knowing the fate of those who don't.
"[God is] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." And yet Christ Himself teaches how few will repent and be saved. That's not what universalism teaches at all as far as I understand it.
"For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” But that, too, requires accepting Christ as Savior in order to have life, and thus salvation. Not all will. Not universalism.
Glad I could clear that up.
Marshal... " here's where you delete my comments because the truth is too much for you to overcome."
If I choose to delete you - and I may - it's because I asked you to answer AND provide objective proof.
I asked...
"Do you think it's describing most people, out there deliberately plotting and committing to a sinful course?
If so, you MUST support that claim."
And here's what you said, instead...
"No, no and it depends, but generally yes."
Where is the data to support it? I get that you think you're not evil but most people are, but so what? That's just an empty claim. You further commented (but not answered) by saying...
"This is so you. You do not only not reject what is wrong, but you enable it, celebrate it, support its perpetration and chastise all who do reject it. Anytime you think of supporting the LGBT agenda, for example, your not only not rejecting what is wrong, but you're plotting evil and committing yourself to a sinful course."
So, I am clearly trying to work for justice and do good and stand by the historically oppressed and YOU - with no proof or support - call that plotting evil.
Now, what I SUSPECT that you might be trying to say is that, EVEN IF I'm striving to do right and coming from a place of good intentions, that I'm mistaken and thus, what I'm doing to try to do good is actually evil and I'm therefore plotting evil, even though my intention is to do good. Is that right?
If so, what a graceless and irrational worldview that is. And you probably don't even recognize why. But here's why:
1. If trying to help, to be kind, to do good, to act for and as an ally with the poor and marginalized... but doing it mistakenly in the wrong way out of a sincere misunderstanding, then THAT deserves a punishment of eternal torture;
2. EVEN THOUGH, we were created as fallible, imperfect people, simply being mistaken should be punished for an eternity;
3. And IF being sincerely mistaken and trying to do good but failing somehow is punishable by an eternity of torture;
4. And IF we all are fallible humans capable of making obvious mistakes;
5. Then NONE of us can have any hope for grace or heaven, because any one of us can be sincerely mistaken. YOU, by this measure, could be sincerely mistaken and worthy of eternal torment.
You're painting a hopeless, graceless, hellish world and a tyrant, irrational baby-god, Marshal. Do you recognize that?
AND do you recognize that you failed to provide any objective support for your nonsense, graceless claim?
Marshal: Don't comment on this until you provide objective support for your last empty claim. But you said...
"Of the five quotes above, not one suggest universalism."
1. I said I'm not a universalist.
2. While I agree that people of good faith can disagree, my point was that there ARE verses within the Bible that people can reasonably point to and say that this is biblical evidence for universalism. It would depend on how one interprets the passages.
3. Again, I'm not a universalist, but I recognize why people of good faith throughout church history have held the position and a case can be made.
You saying "nyuh uh" as if there was nothing to it at all is not a good faith or rational adult response. Yes, one could explain those verses in the way you take them, but it's not a given and it's certainly not objectively provable.
But this is not the point of this post and I'm not arguing for universalism, so let's not go down this road. Just pointing out the other side.
What IS much harder to defend rationally or biblically is the notion of a good and just and loving God who would create imperfect people and then, when it turns out they're imperfect, consider their imperfections and failures as worthy of eternal torture. While I get why some people, including me, found verses in the Bible that suggest that, it's a much more difficult and irrational bridge to cross to get there.
Marshal finally coughed up an answer because he was caught avoiding his own paranoia. Trump will do the same.
“Marshal ArtFebruary 21, 2022 at 10:05 PM
No, Danny. I've not had any weapons taken from me by lefty government.”
Has David coughed up his answer to his own lie?
I asked Marshal to provide support - hard data - to support his rather insane-sounding claim that most people are actively plotting evil. Marshal did not do that.
That's important to understand. I asked Marshal to provide proof for this nutty claim. HE DID NOT. He didn't even try.
Instead, he just cited (again) one of the very passages in question.
Marshal:
Here it is:
"I have a message from God in my heart
concerning the sinfulness of the wicked:
There is no fear of God
before their eyes..."
We're looking at the verses in the Bible that SOME PEOPLE suggest indicate that all people are evil or are wicked or stay up at night plotting to do evil, etc. That's an astounding claim and it's reasonable to ask for support as to why anyone would take those human interpretations in that way. Instead of even TRYING to provide support, Marshal just reiterated the verses in question. That's a logical fallacy. It's question begging. It's NOT PROOF.
Marshal, you are welcome to try again. I'm asking you (and David, as well) to EXPLAIN WITH DATA, with HARD RELIABLE INFORMATION what you mean when you say, as David did, that he is continually plotting evil, along with most people. Or as Marshal has said, that "most people are plotting evil..." What does that even mean? What does it look like? Where is your proof for this ridiculous claim?
Until and unless you provide some HARD DATA, you can not comment here, Marshal. David, I welcome you to try to answer this as well, but to do so at an adult, rational level. Provide support.
THE MEANING of the verses in question is what is in question. Merely citing the verses, again, is a logical fallacy.
Provide proof. Support. Be adult about this.
And when you can't support it, be adult enough to admit that you can't support it.
Because we can all see that you can't support the claim. If you could, you would.
In an off-topic, now deleted comment (deleted because Marshal has to first support his insane claim that nearly everyone is plotting evil (!), Marshal said...
Well maybe you can explain how one can "reasonably" point to those verse and conclude they suggest universalism. Not a one speak to all people being saved. Not. A. One.
Luke, speaking of John the Baptist said, and I quote:
"And all people will see God’s salvation.’"
AND ALL PEOPLE will see God's salvation.
And ALL people will SEE GOD'S SALVATION.
What does that mean, taken literally, if not, well, that ALL PEOPLE WILL SEE GOD'S SALVATION?
It's literally saying that ALL PEOPLE WILL SEE GOD'S SALVATION.
Now, one could make a case that maybe the author (Luke) was saying that all people will SEE it... but some will only see OTHER people being saved, but they themselves won't be saved. Maybe. But a reasonable person could reasonably take such a passage as to be saying that all people will be saved.
Or Romans 5...
" Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all,
so one man’s act of righteousness
leads to justification and life for all."
Jesus' "act of righteousness" leads to justification and life FOR ALL. Not some. Again, on the face of it, this seems to be a clear claim of Universalism.
Again, some could quibble that "leading to justification and life for ALL" doesn't mean "salvation for all," but that's not at all what it apparently is saying and saying quite clearly.
Or Romans 11:
"For God has imprisoned all in disobedience
so that he may be merciful to all."
Again, God plans to be MERCIFUL TO ALL sounds, on the face of it, like salvation for all.
I could go on.
The point being NOT that I'm advocating universalism, just that there are a good number of passages that can easily be seen to suggest it. Marshal's response of "nyu-uh," notwithstanding.
We'll see if David returns.
I. We have his first claim - that I was obfuscating my opinion with Scripture - that was shown to be untrue, but he never acknowledged that.
II. We have his various misunderstandings of my positions which I've clarified, but he's never acknowledged that.
III. We have the questions I've asked him that he has not answered.
IV. We also have my offer for him to correct me, to objectively prove what I say he can't prove, or at least that I've never seen anyone objectively prove. For instance, that God will punish the majority of humanity for an eternity of torture for being "sinners." If he CAN objectively prove any of these sorts of claims, I would be indebted to him, as would the world, because I and I expect most people WANT to be right. He hasn't even tried to objectively prove any of these claims.
V. We have his ridiculously false claim that "You outright threatened physical harm to Stan and his followers..." that he has never acknowledged as ridiculously false (hell, I'd bet that even Marshal and Craig would attest that I've never used a hint of suggestion of physical violence to anyone here on my blog, or elsewhere that they've seen... because it's just not something I've ever done except maybe in grade school).
On this point, I may want to give David some leeway. Maybe it's what his father told him, falsely. Or maybe he's just mistaken or misunderstood something. It would help if he'd reply.
VI. Indeed, him/them misunderstanding words and comments from people they disagree with may be at the root of some of these differences. They read and don't understand words from a fellow modern citizen of the world speaking in the same language. What would give them confidence that they can objectively understand the Bible written millennia ago in other languages from a variety of cultures and times?
David is still welcome to return and acknowledge his mistakes, or clarify any misunderstandings of provide proof that his particular opinions are objectively correct. Until then, we have just more empty and unsupported and, in some cases, clearly false claims. Sadly, this seems all to common in modern conservatism.
It’s always difficult to get armchair insurrectionists to engage in reason: they never commit to their own words.
True.
Post a Comment