This is in response to a question from Marshal in the next post. I thought it worth promoting to its own post.
We were talking about the problems of Penal Substitionary Atonement (that God can forgive us because Jesus "paid the price" of our sin by "shedding his perfect blood" in order to "pay" for our sin.) Without this "blood atonement," the PSA folk reason, no humans could be saved because God has chosen that method through which to "forgive us..." And further, we imperfect humans who "miss the mark" (the literal definition of the term "sin" often used in the Bible) and are, well, imperfect, the "just" punishment (the PSA folk reason) is to be tortured for an eternity in hell (whether it's an actual flaming hell burning us alive forever or the figurative equivalent depends on the specific PSA proponent).
I suggested that when we are done wrong, we poor, flawed and imperfect humans often find it within ourselves to simply forgive. WITHOUT a blood sacrifice to "pay" for that forgiveness (a paid for forgiveness sounds much more like a business transaction than any actual loving forgiveness, doesn't it?). And we certainly are able to forgive without killing our own children to "pay" for that "forgiveness."
Marshal responded:
"It's a premise and you need to prove that this premise results in God forgiving without having sent His Only Begotten Son to die in our place in order that we might be redeemed."
I'd say the reality that we humans - imperfect though we are, created in the image of God, as we believe - CAN and DO regularly forgive wrongs done to us - even great wrongs AND that we do so without any "blood sacrifice" of another to "pay for" that forgiveness is evidence (if not objective proof) that simple forgiveness is possible. Because of course it is. I've seen it.
Further, I'd say it's evidence of a perfect all-loving God. For an actual example: HOW does the mother of a murdered child find a way to forgive the killer? That's a lot. But I've seen it. I've been in the homes of Nicaraguan families whose loved ones were killed by Contra soldiers - and they were sitting next to, holding hands with one of those Contra soldiers. That mother had forgiven that soldier. Glory, what forgiveness!
HOW had she forgiven that killer? HOW had she welcomed him to her table... as a friend??! Well, this man was from a neighboring village. She knew the struggles that all Nicaraguans were having at that time. She also was aware of the anti-Sandinista propoganda being pushed on to these subsistence farmers and she knew how flawed, imperfect humans can be misled and misguided. She knew him well enough - took time to know him and his reasoning - to find it within her to forgive him.
Why does that sound like a familiar description of great love?
If I speak in the tongues of humans or of angels, but do not have love,
I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal...
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails...
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror;
then we shall see face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully,
even as I am fully known.
~1 Corinthians 13, often called the Love Chapter
The
almighty God of the universe, as some of us believe, knows us
personally. Loves us personally. In spite of our "missing the mark" and
shortcomings. IN spite of our deliberate misdeeds. God loves us and
loves us perfectly.
Why? Because God KNOWS us perfectly.
Like
that Nicaraguan mother who knew the killer of her family well enough
(if not perfectly) to understand his motivations and his mistakes and
what led to that.
And so, once that Contra soldier had cut off
his hand and offered her a blood sacrifice from his bloody stump, THEN
Dona Maria could forgive him.
Wait. That's not right.
No,
once that soldier brought his child to Dona Maria and KILLED that child
to "pay" for his own crimes, THEN Dona Maria could forgive him.
Wait! WHAT? No! That's not right. Ew! No! HOW would killing his own son in any way "pay" for HIS wrongdoing??!
No!
NO "blood sacrifice" was required. Little Dona Maria forgave that
soldier. She simply forgave him. And God and God's love won out. Love -
true love - never fails.
(And I'll tell you a bit more of that
story - Dona Maria had not only forgiven the poor neighboring
farmer/contra soldier... she had forgiven we US citizens who sat in her
house that day, as well. We, who helped pay for the weapons used by that
Contra soldier and who helped pay for the propaganda that had misled
that soldier. Dona Maria, imperfect human that she is, knew of
forgiveness, even over great wrongs. I'm not sure that she ever forgave
the Reagan administration - who had never repented - but she forgave a
lot.)
Love never fails, indeed.
199 comments:
Jesus, in the NT, represents many things that coalesce in the risen Christ.
1. He is a prophet like Israel's ancient prophets. Even more, e is the suffering servant in Isaiah, the broken man broken to heal wayward Israel and her suffering poor.
2. He is also a king like David and Solomon. And in the new Jerusalem he is enthroned.
3. He is the long summation promise to Abraham and a priest like Melchizedek who blessed Abraham.
4. He is Israel itself and he is the Messiah of Israel. Then, in Acts, Peter and the Jerusalem elders - Jesus' brother included among them - discover he is the Saviour of Gentiles as well.
8. In the prologue of John and in Colossians and Ephesians, he is the cosmic Christ who will heal the entire cosmos.
Jesus has represented all these things because he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary and was made man. He loves us, and God the Father loves us, and God the Spirit loves us and guides us into more and more righteousness just as Jesus promised in John: "I have said these things to you while still with you; but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you."
In Philippians, he is a self-acting agent - having his own agency distinct from God the Father - who decides to humble himself and be born as a human person and share in humanity's suffering, even death itself. Jesus suffers death in order to release humankind from the suffering death and for his act he is glorified by the Father.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a gutter reduction of all this by early Modern protestant lawyers of the 26th century because they had a gutter view of human nature and a wish to rule their cities with shariah law.
Scripture and the early church Fathers had no such gutter view of human nature and they wrote of the magnificence of God the Son taking human nature upon himself, thereby clothing us with ultimate divinity.
I repeat, scripture and the early church Fathers had no such gutter view of human nature and they wrote of the magnificence of God the Son taking human nature upon himself, thereby clothing us with ultimate divinity.
Marshal and the thugs are gutter christians with gutter theology and gutter spiritual lives.
Scripture:
Psalm 82
God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgement:
‘How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked?Selah
Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.’
They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
they walk around in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
I SAY, ‘YOU ARE GODS,
CHILDREN OF THE MOST HIGH, ALL OF YOU;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince.’
Rise up, O God, judge the earth;
for all the nations belong to you!
Philippians 2
Let each of you look not to your own interests but to the interests of others. 5 Let the same mind be in you that was[a] in Christ Jesus,
who, though he existed in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
assuming human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a human,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.
The church Fathers:
Iranaeus
“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God”
Athanasius
For God has not only made us out of nothing; but He gave us freely, by the Grace of the Word, a life in correspondence with God. But men, having rejected things eternal, and, by counsel of the devil, turned to the things of corruption, became the cause of their own corruption in death, being, as I said before, by nature corruptible, but destined, by the grace following from partaking of the Word, to have escaped their natural state, had they remained good. The human race then was wasting, God's image was being effaced, and His work ruined. Either, then, God must forego His spoken word by which man had incurred ruin; or that which had shared in the being of the Word must sink back again into destruction, in which case God's design would be defeated. What then? Was God's goodness to suffer this? But if so, why had man been made? It could have been weakness, not goodness on God's part. On the other hand there was the consistency of God's nature, not to be sacrificed for our profit. Were men, then, to be called upon to repent? But repentance cannot avert the execution of a law; still less can it remedy a fallen nature. We have incurred corruption and need to be restored to the Grace of God's Image. None could renew but He Who had created. He alone could (1) recreate all, (2) suffer for all, (3) represent all to the Father. The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present ; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb HE MAKES IT HIS OWN, WHEREIN TO REVEAL HIMSELF, CONQUER DEATH, AND RESTORE LIFE. The Word, since death alone could stay the plague, took a mortal body which, united with Him, should avail for all, and by partaking of His immortalitystay the corruption of the Race. By being above all, He made His Flesh an offering for our souls; BY BEING ONE WITH US ALL, HE CLOTHED US WITH IMMORTALITY. By a like simile, the reasonableness of the work of redemption is shown. HOW CHRIST WIPED AWAY OUR RUIN, AND PROVIDED ITS ANTIDOTE BY HIS OWN TEACHING. Scripture proofs of the Incarnation of the Word, and of the Sacrifice He wrought... THUS THE SON OF THE FATHER CAME TO SEEK, SAVE, AND REGENERATE. NO OTHER WAY WAS POSSIBLE. BLINDED HIMSELF, MAN COULD NOT SEE TO HEAL. THE WITNESS OF CREATION HAD FAILED TO PRESERVE HIM, AND COULD NOT BRING HIM BACK. THE WORD ALONE COULD DO SO. BUT HOW? ONLY BY REVEALING HIMSELF AS MAN. None, then, could bestow incorruption, but He Who had made, NONE RESTORE THE LIKENESS OF GOD, SAVE HIS OWN IMAGE, NONE QUICKEN, BUT THE LIFE, none teach, but the Word. And He, to pay our debt of death, must also die for us, and rise again as our first-fruits from the grave. Mortal therefore His Body must be; corruptible, His Body could not be....
FOR HE WAS MADE MAN THAT WE MIGHT BE MADE GOD ; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality. For while He Himself was in no way injured, being impassible and incorruptible and very Word and God, men who were suffering, and for whose sakes He endured all this, He maintained and preserved in His own impassibility. 4. And, in a word, the achievements of the Saviour, resulting from His becoming man, are of such kind and number, that if one should wish to enumerate them, he may be compared to men who gaze at the expanse of the sea and wish to count its waves.
Let's notice, Dan, the compassion that god has for us. Not judgment. Compassion. Let's notice the restoration that Jesus wanted to bring to us. Let us notice the sentence of Death that Jesus wanted to relieve us of.
All this speaks to the love of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have for us, just as you said.
Those who cannot see this love, cannot believe in this love... they cannot feel the love of god. Marshal and the thugs are the most pitiable of people who claim they have faith. They don't know what faith is.
Indeed. God is a God of love, come to earth to preach good news to the poor, to welcome the outcast, reaching out to those who are sick, not the healthy.
God is not a god of irrational vengeance against imperfect people for the crime of being imperfect.
We are created in God's image, a little lower than God, to do good works in God's Way and Grace.
Why start another post, where you again make false assertions about PSA, about God's reason for sending Christ, ignoring Christ's own confirmation of His purpose for coming, conflating that with our duty as Christians to forgive, ignoring the many places in Scripture which speak to those who will NOT receive a place in heaven, etc., etc., etc., when you could have simply posted all my comments at the previous post like one who is truly a grace embracing Christian rather than one who simply pretends to be, and responded to them there like a man?
You are no Christian. When you delete this comment, as I'm sure you will being the lying coward you are, I'll again show why.
Marshal ignores scripture, the early Church Fathers, and Christian tradition.
Marshal loves 16th century lawyers who gained control over cities and ran them under Shariah-like law.
What a surprise.
Now that I've actually read the post, I see why you started a new one. It was so you could make your goofy statements which have nothing to do with PSA and the quote me as if I was responding to other goofy statements you made, when I was responding to something else with that quote.
The Biblical teaching of PSA does not in any way correlate with our forgiving of each other. The fact that we're taught to forgive each other, even in the OT, did not require a blood sacrifice for the purpose. This inane conflating of one thing with another is part another manifestation of either dishonesty or low intellect. Whether it's one or the other or a combination of the two (the most likely option) is irrelevant here, though you could actually think you're making a point which rebuts PSA by doing so is astounding. But your little stories are reassuring. To know that if I so chose to do so, I could travel regularly to your neighborhood and beat you senseless and I'd not be risking my liberty because you'd totally forgive me every time. Or is that only true if someone kills a family member of yours?
The biggest problem with your anecdotes and pretenses that it is akin to God's forgiveness and thus, since YOU wouldn't require a death for one to atone for sins against YOU, then by golly there's no way it could be true that God required death for the atonement of offense against Him requires abject rejection of a massive hunk of Scripture from cover to cover. Keep in mind, all capital punishments and animal sacrifices in the OT were not so that one could make good with the person one wronged, but because of the offense against God.
How dare you even suggest that you could have the least authority to demand blood from someone who wrongs you, as if you're as holy as God, and thus as entitled to demand anything at all!
"We were talking about the problems of Penal Substitionary Atonement..."
No we weren't. YOU were simply rejecting PSA as an actual Biblical concept clearly presented throughout Scripture. YOU were demanding evidence that this concept is Biblical. YOU were demanding proofs for every word said in support of this fact. And while I gave evidence of all sorts, argued logically with that evidence that it is indeed Biblical, YOU pretended to be rebutting that truth by bringing up all manner of irrelevant, off-topic claims, anecdotes and inanities....such as stealing cookies and pencils. You did these things in hopes that I'd be stymied by the repetition we are saved by Grace alone, while PSA speaks to how we come to be saved by Grace.
One of my final evidentiary offerings was Hebrews 9, which is quite a complete explanation of PSA by one of the earliest of church fathers (Some say Paul, some say Barnabas, some say Apollos). I'm still waiting to hear how you'll worm your way out of that confirmation!
"Without this "blood atonement," the PSA folk reason, no humans could be saved because God has chosen that method through which to "forgive us...""
PSA folk don't "reason" this, as if it required pouring over Scripture endlessly to divine some hidden truth. They simply repeated what Scripture clearly says, as Hebrews 9 summarizes perfectly for those who truly engage in serious and prayerful study of it.
"And further, we imperfect humans who "miss the mark" (the literal definition of the term "sin" often used in the Bible) and are, well, imperfect, the "just" punishment (the PSA folk reason) is to be tortured for an eternity in hell (whether it's an actual flaming hell burning us alive forever or the figurative equivalent depends on the specific PSA proponent)."
As I explained more than once in the previous discussion, this crap isn't the concern of PSA. PSA doesn't speak to what makes us worthy of God's wrath, but only the means by which we are spare it. Thus, you're again doing your best to demonize those who hold a better and more accurate understanding of the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture simply because that teaching offends your delicate social justice warrior sensibilities.
NOTE: NO MORE comments, Marshal, that don't address/answer the bold comments/questions below. Your obtuse arrogance is tiring.
Marshal, in a disrespectful, belligerent and unsupported comment, said...
The Biblical teaching of PSA does not in any way correlate with our forgiving of each other. The fact that we're taught to forgive each other, even in the OT, did not require a blood sacrifice for the purpose.
Once again, I GET that this is your personal human opinion (along with the many others in church history who held this same unproven opinion).
But IF you're going to suggest that it's an objective fact that God meant/means something else other than "forgive" when the biblical text says "forgive,"
THEN the onus is on you to prove it AND to prove it objectively or admit it's your unproven personal opinion.
IF you're going to suggest that it's an established fact that God has chosen to NOT "just forgive" in the same sense that even mere mortals just forgive - with NO need of a blood sacrifice or a human sacrifice as many pagan religionists believe - THEN the onus is on you to prove it objectively.
AND, don't bother saying, "but, but, but... there is a Bible passage - TEN - Bible passages that I PERSONALLY interpret to mean that..." THAT is simply not objective proof, it is literally your unproven subjective interpretation and opinion about those passages.
IF you want to presume to speak for God, then produce God to endorse your hunches. Merely saying "but these particular words mean it, I think..." is not the same thing. Without an avidavit from God, don't bother going that route.
PSA doesn't speak to what makes us worthy of God's wrath, but only the means by which we are spare it.
You are correct that these are two different topics, BUT they are directly tied to one another and equally irrational and doubly irrational if you separate one human theory from the other.
IF you're going to make the case that God needs some kind of special "super-bloody-magical-mystic-human-sacrifice-forgiveness" (SPBMHS forgiveness) in order to simply forgive us (whereas even mere mortals regularly simply forgive others), THEN you need to make the case for why this SPBMHS forgiveness is NEEDED. It's needed, you traditionalists theorize, BECAUSE humanity is not just imperfect and missing the mark of perfection, but because we're Totally Depraved, SO evil that only special magic forgiveness will do. Is that not correct?
The two unproven human theories of human sacrifice forgiveness (or worse, deocidical forgiveness!) are tied to one another.
Are you going to abandon the human theory of Total Depravity, then, and say it's not the reason we need the SPBMHS forgiveness? I don't think so.
Again, truly, without a more reasonable, humble, respectful response of "No, I can't prove any of this objectively," OR an affidavit from God, don't bother commenting. I WILL delete unsupported or rude comments moving forward on this topic. You've already demonstrated that you can't objectively prove your collective human theories. No need to belabor the point.
Marshal...
YOU were simply rejecting PSA as an actual Biblical concept clearly presented throughout Scripture.
1. As a point of fact, there ARE words and passages found in the Bible that SOME HUMANS have interpreted and extrapolated to mean that God needs a literal human/God sacrifice before God will forgive sin, as opposed to simply forgiving. That SOME humans have traditionally interpreted some passages that way is an objective fact, provable in the human record.
2. As a point of fact, NO HUMANS EVER have objectively PROVEN this theory of theirs. The THEORY is a subjective human theory, not one that has been objectively proven as fact.
Do you understand the difference? Do you recognize the reality of the difference?
Feodor...
Marshal ignores scripture, the early Church Fathers, and Christian tradition.
Indeed. And his emotional ties to his human traditions have blinded him to this reality, or at least it appears so. As a rational adult, I can certainly admit I SEE the passages that PSA theorists point to and can get some sense of it in those passages... IF I ignore the rest of the Bible and, well, basic God-given human common sense. So, it's not like I don't understand where they're coming from (hell, I CAME from there myself!).
But the inability to even recognize and admit to the other side is a sign of some kind of emotional-stunting or fear of change or just partisan blindness. Or, if I were one of their sort, I might say, "the god of the age/the mean ol' debil has blinded them..."
There are no “sides” to living the Christian life and believing the Christian faith. Loving others as Jesus loves us according to the testimony of scripture and the experience of tradition and guided by the life of the Holy Spirit among us, we aim to perfect ourselves by the power of god.
When we Christians limit ourselves to single sources of reassurance we fail Christ. Anxiety kills faith. Fear kills faith. Hate kills faith.
Therefore it takes courageous thinking, bold and consistent action, and spiritual wisdom to live a Trinitarian existence able to learn new things as the Spirit teaches.
No sides. Growth in the life of the spirit or growth in the spirits of fear, anxiety, and hate.
We are always moving one way or the other on the path.
"NOTE: NO MORE comments, Marshal, that don't address/answer the bold comments/questions below. Your obtuse arrogance is tiring."
How disrespectful. All my responses have been direct and on point as they will always be, or can be expected to be regardless of how obtuse and arrogantly presented are your questions, even though I'm pretty sure I've done and am now up-to-date.
But I'll go farther and respond to everything, emboldened or not.
"Marshal, in a disrespectful, belligerent and unsupported comment, said..."
"The Biblical teaching of PSA does not in any way correlate with our forgiving of each other. The fact that we're taught to forgive each other, even in the OT, did not require a blood sacrifice for the purpose."
In what way is this comment disrespectful or belligerent? And if you're still insisting the PSA is not Biblical, then how can you insist I support this statement suggesting what you say doesn't exist does/doesn't correlate with our forgiving each other? It makes no sense.
"Once again, I GET that this is your personal human opinion"
Aside from the fact that PSA is Biblical, it does not refer to how we forgive each other, or whether or not we choose to do so. So again, I'm expected to prove what you say doesn't exist is related to how we're supposed to forgive each other? Clearly you don't understand what PSA is, despite the comprehensive explanation of it in Hebrews 9.
"But IF you're going to suggest that it's an objective fact that God meant/means something else other than "forgive" when the biblical text says "forgive,"
THEN the onus is on you to prove it AND to prove it objectively or admit it's your unproven personal opinion."
Whew! Given I've never suggested anything of the kind...and clearly you can't present any quote of my comments which does...I'm relieved of any obligation to either prove it's true or that it's even a personal opinion.
" IF you're going to suggest that it's an established fact that God has chosen to NOT "just forgive" in the same sense that even mere mortals just forgive - with NO need of a blood sacrifice or a human sacrifice as many pagan religionists believe - THEN the onus is on you to prove it objectively."
Oh, that I've done with the most comprehensive evidence from Scripture found in Hebrews 9. And by the way, I don't know of even any pagans who were required to shed blood to be forgiven by another pagan. Their sacrifices were also made to their gods.
"AND, don't bother saying, "but, but, but... there is a Bible passage - TEN - Bible passages that I PERSONALLY interpret to mean that..." THAT is simply not objective proof, it is literally your unproven subjective interpretation and opinion about those passages."
Except that when you're demanding evidence that a concept is Biblical, presenting where in Scripture the concept is mentioned is "objective proof" that the concept is Biblical. To continually respond to every offering of evidence as no more than "unproven subjective interpretation and opinion" is no more than just the automatic gainsaying of anything I say. You do so without bringing to bear anything directly related to the truth I presented.
" IF you want to presume to speak for God, then produce God to endorse your hunches. Merely saying "but these particular words mean it, I think..." is not the same thing. Without an avidavit from God, don't bother going that route."
And here it is. It took years for you to admit it, but there is no proof you'll accept which isn't somehow backed up by God coming to earth again just to tell you the same thing I've proven He already said or did. Frankly, you won't accept it from Him, either, insisting He prove He's actually God and then accusing Him of merely putting forth His Opinion as fact.
This isn't in any way "adult" discourse. There's nothing "respectful" about these lame tactics, but instead are blatantly insulting.
And this cheap "speaking for God" ploy fails yet again, because I don't say anything which Scripture doesn't say. And instead of showing how my understanding is in any way incorrect, you bring that which doesn't address the understanding...often wildly unrelated, as is your stories of people forgiving other people as if that has any bearing on the manner in which God has chosen to operate with regard HIS forgiveness. I present Scripture. If my understanding is wrong, prove it. You don't. You don't even know how to try.
"You are correct that these are two different topics, BUT they are directly tied to one another and equally irrational and doubly irrational if you separate one human theory from the other."
That we are each born worthy of God's wrath is also Biblical. How we come to be forgiven...washed clean...redeemed is PSA and that's Biblical, too.
It's clear you have no understanding of PSA. Though I'll continue with the rest of your proof of this, you'll need to study up on it before you can dare insist it isn't Biblical.
"IF you're going to make the case that God needs some kind of special "super-bloody-magical-mystic-human-sacrifice-forgiveness" (SPBMHS forgiveness) in order to simply forgive us (whereas even mere mortals regularly simply forgive others), THEN you need to make the case for why this SPBMHS forgiveness is NEEDED."
I've done that. Over and over and over and over and over and over again, and then some. You simply respond in your typical manner, which doesn't include counter evidence or a better explanation of the passages and verses you insist I have wrong.
"It's needed, you traditionalists theorize, BECAUSE humanity is not just imperfect and missing the mark of perfection, but because we're Totally Depraved, SO evil that only special magic forgiveness will do. Is that not correct?"
It's needed because it was God's plan to do it that way. Mock the truth all you like. It's far easier than proving the truth is not the truth.
" Are you going to abandon the human theory of Total Depravity, then, and say it's not the reason we need the SPBMHS forgiveness? I don't think so."
I'm going to keep waiting for you to focus on PSA and support your claim that it isn't Biblical.
"Again, truly, without a more reasonable, humble, respectful response of "No, I can't prove any of this objectively," OR an affidavit from God, don't bother commenting."
Proving once again it's not evidence or proofs you demand, but complicity and agreement with whatever preferred fiction you put forth.
"You've already demonstrated that you can't objectively prove your collective human theories."
I've totally and comprehensively proven PSA is Biblical. That's been the entire point and your many deflections have not shown it to be otherwise. At all!
"1. As a point of fact, there ARE words and passages found in the Bible that SOME HUMANS have interpreted and extrapolated to mean that God needs a literal human/God sacrifice before God will forgive sin, as opposed to simply forgiving."
As a point of fact, there ARE many verses and passages found in the Bible which proves the fact that Christ's death and resurrection were the means by which we are redeemed and worthy of God's forgiveness. I've presented most of them, none better than Hebrews 9 which explains the whole thing perfectly so that honest readers can know what the Good News actually was/is. Christianity 101.
"That SOME humans have traditionally interpreted some passages that way is an objective fact, provable in the human record."
That "SOME" humans have traditionally "interpreted" some passages that way is because that's what all those passages clearly state. That those like you who object fail to provide an explanation for what those passages mean beyond what they clearly state with no ambiguity is an objective fact which more than suggests there are no other explanations of the kind.
"2. As a point of fact, NO HUMANS EVER have objectively PROVEN this theory of theirs. The THEORY is a subjective human theory, not one that has been objectively proven as fact."
So what you're really saying here is "Nyuh uh". It's not a fact that PSA isn't Biblical given all the evidence I've provided, particularly the compelling and comprehensive explanation by the human who wrote Hebrews 9. The author also says in 2:3 "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him", so the dude knew whereof he spoke. You just say, "Nyuh uh" to that which you find inconvenient, hard to accept, not in line with the god you've invented for yourself by co-opting bits and pieces of Scripture so that you can exploit the term "Christian" and feel good about yourself.
So the author says it (having heard it from those who hear Christ), I repeat it, and you want to pretend I'm "interpreting" what I've merely repeated. How's that work, exactly? So again, Dan, if Hebrews 9 doesn't mean what the words plainly convey, what else could they possibly mean? I'll wait here while you again talk about something totally unrelated.
"Do you understand the difference? Do you recognize the reality of the difference?"
What I understand is that the plain reading of the passages I've presented mean something else than what they words say, though you can't begin to explain what possible alternative is a better understanding than what a plain reading of the words convey.
I recognize THIS reality, that the difference between us, aside from my more accurate understanding of Scripture, is that I speak of what Scripture says, and you do nothing which comes anywhere near suggesting I'm possibly in error. When all you've got is "Well...that's just your opinion", you've got nothing but a fiction you've invented.
Dan:
"2. As a point of fact, NO HUMANS EVER have objectively PROVEN this theory of theirs. The THEORY is a subjective human theory, not one that has been objectively proven as fact."
Marshal:
So what you're really saying here is "Nyuh uh". It's not a fact that PSA isn't Biblical given all the evidence I've provided
Look at what I've actually said: I've been quite clear that SOME HUMANS have found support for what they view as PSA in the Bible. AND my point has been consistently NOT that "it isn't biblical..." but that is has not ever been proven as objective fact.
Now, forget about what you THINK I've said and deal with what I AM saying: Do you agree with the reality that PSA has never been proven as objective fact? That YOU can't prove it as objective fact?
It's really simple Marshal. The fact is, you CAN'T objectively prove what NO ONE has objectively proven: That GOD supports the human theory of PSA AS an objective fact. There is no shame in admitting simple reality. You can't, no one can prove this human theory is objectively what God thinks. Just admit that much and we can go from there.
"Do you agree with the reality that PSA has never been proven as objective fact? That YOU can't prove it as objective fact?"
No. First, because I did prove objectively that PSA is Biblical. Beyond any HONEST doubt whatsoever. Nothing you've presented conflicts with this fact despite your aim to use what you've presented for the purpose, the vast majority of which has no relevance to the concept.
Second, I think you're still hung on the term, rather than what it was coined to represent. But once again, Hebrews 9 describes all which PSA was coined to describe. Heb 9 is so good at doing this, in fact, that I wish I had thought of using it first, though the institution in Leviticus regarding animal sacrifice gets the job done as well, except that it is a foreshadowing of why Jesus was born and what He was born to do on our behalf.
"The fact is, you CAN'T objectively prove what NO ONE has objectively proven: That GOD supports the human theory of PSA AS an objective fact."
I don't have to prove it. I simply showed you the many places in Scripture where it is mentioned. God doesn't support a "human theory". God instituted the manner by which sins are forgiven. Others later labeled it as PSA. The author of Hebrews didn't label it as PSA, but Chapter 9 fully explains what later was labeled PSA. Thus, the author proved it as an objective fact. Again, it is basic Christian teaching. The essence of it. The reason why being Christian is all the rage and without which there is no Christianity.
My shame would be in rejecting this truth and would leave me only judgement because Christ's sacrifice is how we're forgiven, saved, redeemed, which is the reality. Rather than try to force or cajole me into rejecting Scripture, why not just man up and admit you're not really a Christian?
PSA is Biblical. I've proven it. You've done nothing which contradicts any proof I've brought forth.
You can delete me if in your cowardice you feel so inclined. You can't delete the Truth.
Marshal, you keep saying:
And if you're still insisting the PSA is not Biblical...
Yes it most certainly is since your objection is that PSA isn't Biblical. Saying it's not Biblical because the term coined to describe the Biblical teaching doesn't appear in the text is not a legitimate objection...
Yet you've done nothing more substantive to explain how the concept is not Scriptural teaching...
This was Jesus affirming the concept of PSA and you continue to stray from any actual proof that it is not Biblical...
Because you insisted PSA isn't Biblical..."
And so on. What I'm saying is NOT that "PSA is not biblical..." DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MUCH?
I'm saying that no one has objectively proven that it is THE UNDERSTANDING that God has of salvation. It's literally a subjective human opinion.
There was ONE place where I used the phrase "isn't biblical" but that was in direct response to YOUR continued use of it and I was explaining what I consider to be the biblical problems with PSA. As well as the rational problems, which you have not dealt with at all.
(The rational problem being your guess that an almighty God would choose to say, "The ONE way I'm willing to save you is by ME choosing to kill ME/MY SON and using that magic blood to 'let' me forgive you... IF I don't use that method, then I'm not going to save you and indeed, I'm not going to save most of you even WITH my magic blood/human sacrifice. That's how very ANNNNNGGGRY I am! ME DAM IT, I'm a mad mad mad mad god!!")
At any rate, I'm not the one saying PSA isn't biblical. I'm saying you can't/haven't proven it to be objectively factual.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?
Marshal doesn’t believe Jesus. Marshal doesn’t believe god loves the world. Marshal doesn’t believe that Jesus’ coming had nothing to do with condemnation. Marshal doesn’t believe that people can choose the light apart from Jesus.
Marshal only believes what he reads from people like his beloved helicopter engineers and others, none of who believe Jesus. They only believe what 16th and 17th century lawyers believed about Jesus.
This is the path down which Marshal turned to loving the darkness.
Marshal doesn’t read scripture and he and almost all Christian’s don’t read the church fathers.
But I’ve given you both.
"And so on. What I'm saying is NOT that "PSA is not biblical..." DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MUCH?
I'm saying that no one has objectively proven that it is THE UNDERSTANDING that God has of salvation. It's literally a subjective human opinion."
Two totally conflicting statements.
First, your insistence that PSA wasn't Biblical is the very claim which kicked off this entire debate over multiple blogs and posts.
Yet if it is Biblical, as your first sentence insists, then the fact that it is belies the second statement entirely.
But again, Hebrews 9 is a masterful explanation for the concept harking back to OT sacrificing of animals as the parallel to Christ's death on the cross, and you want to pretend we can't tell what God's plan was? That's ludicrous!
"There was ONE place where I used the phrase "isn't biblical" but that was in direct response to YOUR continued use of it and I was explaining what I consider to be the biblical problems with PSA. As well as the rational problems, which you have not dealt with at all."
My "continued use of it" was compelled directly by your demand that I prove it is indeed Biblical. I did so and you do nothing to show my proof is in any way faulty to any degree whatsoever, defaulting instead to your usual petulant rejection. In the meantime, nothing you're trying to say was an explanation for supposed problems with PSA do not address any of the passages and verses I've referenced which clearly prove it's God's plan. There are NO "rational problems" with PSA that you've presented. None of what you've presented has any relationship to the teaching.
"(The rational problem being your guess that an almighty God would choose to say, "The ONE way I'm willing to save you is by ME choosing to kill ME/MY SON and using that magic blood to 'let' me forgive you... IF I don't use that method, then I'm not going to save you and indeed, I'm not going to save most of you even WITH my magic blood/human sacrifice. That's how very ANNNNNGGGRY I am! ME DAM IT, I'm a mad mad mad mad god!!")"
Setting aside your unjustified, irrational blasphemy, the only rational problem is your rejection of the actual manner in which God provided forgiveness as so clearly and comprehensively reported in the whole Scripture and explained by Christ Himself, His Apostles in their Epistles, and other early church fathers. It's no "guess". It's an actual accurate representation of Scripture which you've done nothing to contradict except to reject it out of hand because you personally don't like it. Boo-hoo.
"At any rate, I'm not the one saying PSA isn't biblical. I'm saying you can't/haven't proven it to be objectively factual.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?"
I've proven both. You've responded with "Nyuh uh". And again, it was your insistence that it isn't Biblical and that I couldn't prove that it is. By proving that it is Biblical, it is also proven to be factual. You lose.
This is so bizarre.
Marshal, when I tell you directly, clearly with NO equivocation:
"You've misunderstood me. I'm NOT saying that 'PSA isn't "biblical..."' I'm saying quite clearly that YOU can't and have not objectively and authoritatively proven that PSA is what God thinks about salvation..."
When I tell you that, do you STILL think I'm saying, "Yeah, PSA isn't biblical..." IN SPITE of clarifying directly that this is NOT what I'm saying?
Perhaps some definitions/clarifications would help.
When we say something is "biblical," AND MEAN that, "I can find support in the words of the Bible for this idea..." that's one thing. People can and do find support for:
Slavery
Forced marriages
PSA
Universalism
gay folk getting married
Young Earth theories
and a wide range of ideas in the bible. We humans literally can and have found support for these notions in the pages of the Bible. In THAT sense, then, they're all "biblical..."
BUT, if we're saying "It's biblical, and by that I mean that GOD HAS STATED OBJECTIVELY that [Theory X - whatever it is] IS WHAT GOD THINKS..." then, no, none of these things are objectively proven to be "what God thinks," NOT objectively, NOT demonstrably. As a point of fact.
IF we could prove any of these ideas objectively as what GOD WANTS, then we would. Instead, we can reasonably offer our OPINIONS about what God thinks... either based on biblical passages or reason, but we simply factually can NOT objectively prove it.
THAT is what I'm asking you to recognize. That you haven't and can't prove OBJECTIVELY (evident to all, given the data, that it is indisputably factual) that God agrees with your pet human theories.
I can't help you if you can't understand, you know, words and shit.
So, to further clarify the already clarified:
It's biblical IN THE SENSE that SOME people might be able to find justification for a theory in the Bible, then it's literally "biblical" in just that sense.
BUT, it's objectively demonstrably NOT PROVEN when someone thinks a series of passages are OBJECTIVELY what God thinks and it's objectively proven as fact. No, it's literally not. WHATEVER the theory is.
For just another example: The Bible is abundantly clear in places like where Jesus is speaking of the good news for the poor, imprisoned, sick and/or in places like the sheep and the goats parable and/or James warnings to rich oppressors, and/or Jesus' teaching in the Gospel of Luke that the poor are blessed.... in ALL those places, it's abundantly clear that, at the least, Jesus/the author is speaking of the actual poor and the actual rich (even if there might be figurative elements at play as well).
BUT, even though textually and contextually, the Bible is clear on those points, there are some (Marshal, for example) who find a need and reason to consider these texts to be figurative and NOT speaking of the literal poor and rich... or of only SOME of the rich (even though the text does not stipulate that, not literally). So, it IS biblical to say that Jesus said that he'd come to preach good news to the literal poor and gave warnings to the literal rich... BUT, it's not objectively proven, even though the text is abundantly clear and not hard to understand.
As a matter of fact:
1. People interpret different passages differently.
2. Some biblical passages are more literal and some more figurative and some more of a mix.
3. We have no objective, authoritative source to objectively PROVE any of it as "what God actually thinks..." no matter how rational or biblical an opinion may be.
Those are the facts and Marshal, somehow, simply can not wrap his mind around the objectively demonstrable.
Marshal...
I've proven both.
I have to ask: WHAT SPECIFICALLY does it look like to objectively "prove," the idea that "What God thinks about PSA as God's 'chosen method' of forgiveness is exactly what I'm saying..." or, put another way, "I am telling you as a completely objectively proven fact that what I, MARSHAL, am saying about PSA IS THE SAME THING that God thinks on the topic. In that sense, I am speaking for God..."??
WHAT, in your head, is the "objective, demonstrated, authoritative proof" that you're right? I THINK your answer is, "because I find these passages (list of passages) to mean what I'm saying they mean... that they are NOT using figurative expressions - objectively so! - or otherwise not to be taken as I, MARSHAL, understand them..."
But if you can offer no proof other than your personal interpretation and understanding of these texts, how is that objective?
You DO understand what "objectively proven" means, don't you?
Maybe you should define what YOU think "objectively proven" means.
This is so, so, so, so weird.
Do you, for instance, think that if some mortal says:
"Genesis 1 talks about the universe being created in six literal days and
I THINK that means that the universe was created in six literal days,
THEREFORE,
it is objectively PROVEN that the universe was created in six literal days as a demonstrated FACT, proven beyond all doubt..."
Do you think that claim and that interpretation is objectively proven?
(Hint: Of course, that does not objectively prove anything. It is the opinion of a mere mortal outside the scope of science and known reality and certainly nowhere near objective proof that can't be disputed.)
I suspect you agree with me that JUST BECAUSE some people THINK it's proven does not mean it's objectively proven. But why not... IF some mortal REALLY thinks it is?
"This is so bizarre."
No kidding. But I persevere nonetheless despite all the games you play to avoid conceding defeat on the underlying point regarding the truth of PSA.
"Marshal, when I tell you directly, clearly with NO equivocation:
"You've misunderstood me. I'm NOT saying that 'PSA isn't "biblical..."' I'm saying quite clearly that YOU can't and have not objectively and authoritatively proven that PSA is what God thinks about salvation...""
While you might get away with saying the above is not an example of equivocation, it's absolutely a case of moving the goal posts as your original complaint had no reference to what God thinks about anything, but only that PSA is not Biblical, which to most means, not found in Scripture. I proved that it is found in Scripture in many places and ways and affirmed by several figures in Scripture as well.
"Perhaps some definitions/clarifications would help."
Honesty, integrity and actual grace would be of greater help.
"When we say something is "biblical," AND MEAN that, "I can find support in the words of the Bible for this idea..." that's one thing."
Who is "we", and what makes you think anyone besides yourself would define it in that way? Now you're equivocating by failing to render this definition...or to assert you don't mean it this way...when your initial complaint about PSA was made. Thus, you allow me to think what evidently is something you didn't mean, or might mean at some point and I'm supposed to know when it's appropriate or not for the discussion at hand. Say what you mean. That would be helpful, too.
"People can and do find support for:
Slavery
Forced marriages
PSA
Universalism
gay folk getting married
Young Earth theories"
With the exception of PSA and perhaps of the last example, none of these have any support in Scripture. Instead, perversion of verses and passages are required to pretend there is Biblical support for any of it.
"We humans literally can and have found support for these notions in the pages of the Bible. In THAT sense, then, they're all "biblical...""
As I said, people corrupt Scripture all the time to rationalize any number of things. That doesn't in any way make their conclusions OR corruptions "Biblical". Indeed, they're pushing that which is clearly unBiblical by doing so.
So far, none of this does a thing to dispel the truth that PSA is Biblical teaching.
"BUT, if we're saying "It's biblical, and by that I mean that GOD HAS STATED OBJECTIVELY that [Theory X - whatever it is] IS WHAT GOD THINKS..." then, no, none of these things are objectively proven to be "what God thinks," NOT objectively, NOT demonstrably."
Except this isn't about what God thinks. That's moving the goal posts. The discussion is about what God has done as reported throughout Scripture.
"THAT is what I'm asking you to recognize. That you haven't and can't prove OBJECTIVELY (evident to all, given the data, that it is indisputably factual) that God agrees with your pet human theories."
I'm not pushing a "pet human theory". I'm pointing out the fact that PSA is Biblical, as in "what the Bible presents as fact". It doesn't use the term because the term wasn't coined until much later to identify the specific fact. Hebrews 9 is a comprehensive explanation for the fact now referred to as PSA.
"I can't help you if you can't understand, you know, words and shit."
I understand words quite well, and look them up if there's the slightest doubt in my mind. I also understand when you're shoveling shit, and that's mainly because you've been doing it since at least 2008, and likely for decades prior, if not your entire life.
"It's biblical IN THE SENSE that SOME people might be able to find justification for a theory in the Bible, then it's literally "biblical" in just that sense."
If that's what you meant when you first said PSA isn't Biblical, you should have clarified then. In any case, that's not what's required to prove that PSA is Biblical and factually true.
"BUT, it's objectively demonstrably NOT PROVEN when someone thinks a series of passages are OBJECTIVELY what God thinks and it's objectively proven as fact."
I've never been kicking towards this goal post. I've been focused on proving the PSA is Biblical. What God thinks has not been a point of contention, though you want to pretend it has been. I guess you think changing the subject to what God thinks absolves you from having to concede that your demand was met absolutely.
"For just another example: The Bible is abundantly clear in places like where Jesus is speaking of the good news for the poor, imprisoned, sick and/or in places like the sheep and the goats parable and/or James warnings to rich oppressors, and/or Jesus' teaching in the Gospel of Luke that the poor are blessed.... in ALL those places, it's abundantly clear that, at the least, Jesus/the author is speaking of the actual poor and the actual rich (even if there might be figurative elements at play as well)."
Now you're getting back to equivocation.
"BUT, even though textually and contextually, the Bible is clear on those points, there are some (Marshal, for example) who find a need and reason to consider these texts to be figurative and NOT speaking of the literal poor and rich... or of only SOME of the rich (even though the text does not stipulate that, not literally). So, it IS biblical to say that Jesus said that he'd come to preach good news to the literal poor and gave warnings to the literal rich... BUT, it's not objectively proven, even though the text is abundantly clear and not hard to understand."
It's objectively true, but your understanding of those verses is crap. My understanding of those many passages and verses which refer to PSA is spot on. All your dancing about with references to other points of Scripture...of which you have a crappy understanding...is a diversion and does nothing to mitigate the fact that I've satisfied your initial request to provide Biblical proof for PSA.
"As a matter of fact:"
Uh oh! Dan's gonna list him some "facts"!
"1. People interpret different passages differently."
I know. You remind me of this anytime you're unable to explain with any actual evidence why my "interpretation" might be incorrect.
"2. Some biblical passages are more literal and some more figurative and some more of a mix."
And some "facts" are wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand...like this "fact".
"3. We have no objective, authoritative source to objectively PROVE any of it as "what God actually thinks..." no matter how rational or biblical an opinion may be."
This is irrelevant to any discussion not involving what God "thinks", such as this discussion of PSA, but it is not a fact in all cases. Scripture tells us what God thinks quite a bit and unless one wished to set aside Scripture as an unreliable source, then it's an absurdity, not a "fact".
"Those are the facts and Marshal, somehow, simply can not wrap his mind around the objectively demonstrable."
What my mind is properly wrapped around is the FACT that nothing is objectively demonstrable which disagrees with anything you want to be true...which is always subjective.
"I have to ask: WHAT SPECIFICALLY does it look like to objectively "prove," the idea that "What God thinks about PSA as God's 'chosen method' of forgiveness is exactly what I'm saying..." or, put another way, "I am telling you as a completely objectively proven fact that what I, MARSHAL, am saying about PSA IS THE SAME THING that God thinks on the topic. In that sense, I am speaking for God..."??"
You continually, irrationally and weirdly speak of what God "thinks" in trying to dispute what Scripture teaches, specifically the teaching of PSA. If you don't know what "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" is, just say so. There's really no other explanation for why you might wish to reject this clear and unambiguous Biblical essential. It's not about "what God thinks"! It's about what God did.
The other possibility is that because you can't in any way refute what God did, as it's so clearly and unambiguously recorded in Scripture and affirmed by Christ, His Apostles and most notably the author of Hebrews, as well as the many OT references to the subject, you move the goal posts to speak of what He thinks. I'm not going there. It's not about that.
"But if you can offer no proof other than your personal interpretation and understanding of these texts, how is that objective?"
I'm not "interpreting". I'm reading. If I'm in any way misunderstanding what Hebrew 9 is presenting, provide with proof an alternate understanding. I'll wait here while you can't.
" You DO understand what "objectively proven" means, don't you?"
Setting aside the insulting, disrespectful and unjustified condescension, yes. I clearly do as demonstrated by having done so with regard to proving PSA is a Biblical fact. Or are you going to play games with what "Biblical fact" might mean to the average person?
"Maybe you should define what YOU think "objectively proven" means."
No. Maybe you should just man up and admit what you demanded of me has been delivered perfectly, because it has. I proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that PSA is a Biblical concept. It describes how we've come to be redeemed (at least those of us who are or may be). It is the Good News. It is the fact that Christ died to pay the penalty for ours sins so that we might be atoned...forgiven...granted the privilege of no longer being set apart from the Father. (Let's see...how many other ways can I describe the Truth you reject and pretend doesn't exist?)
"This is so, so, so, so weird."
Yes it is...that you can get what you demand and still insist you haven't. That you can get what you demand be so put off by the truth that you'll alter the demand to pretend your opponents haven't done what was demanded. If this is what you mean by "embracing grace", then I want no part of it.
Marshal...
Maybe you should just man up and admit what you demanded of me has been delivered perfectly, because it has. I proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that PSA is a Biblical concept.
How Trumpian of you.
"It was a perfect explanation, I delivered it perfectly, just like I've always delivered these ideas perfectly. It was a perfect explanation. I was telling this perfect explanation to a preacher man... he was a big man, strong man and he came back to me, tears in his eyes and he said to me, he said, 'that... that was the most beautiful and perfect explanation I've ever heard. Even Jesus couldn't have told that explanation as perfectly as you did, you proved it beyond a shadow of doubt and did Jesus our Lord ever do it as well?...' and you know, maybe he was right, I don't know, I don't know..."
Once again:
I have NEVER SAID that there are not verses in the bible that SOME HUMANS take to mean something like PSA. That is NOT what I've said.
You appear to think that's what I've been saying, but no, once again, that's NOT what I'm saying.
I'm saying and have been saying that it's not an objectively proven notion that this is what GOD is saying. It's a subjective human understanding that PSA is how we're saved, NOT an objective fact.
That's not saying ANYTHING about the Bible.
Now, I get that you apparently have been misunderstanding me for a long time, no matter how many times I've corrected you and clarified directly. But NOW that I've clarified what I'm asking:
DO YOU RECOGNIZE the reality that PSA as GOD'S PROVEN METHOD of salvation has not been objectively proven?
Dan:
"People can and do find support for:
Slavery
Forced marriages
PSA
Universalism
gay folk getting married
Young Earth theories"
Marshal:
With the exception of PSA and perhaps of the last example, none of these have any support in Scripture.
Without a doubt, objectively demonstrably, there ARE passages within the Bible that have God saying "Enslave those people." It's provably found within the bible, therefore, it is "biblical" in that sense. I, of course, agree that it's not reasonable or Godly, but it can be said to be biblical IN THE SENSE that instances of God commanding slavery IS in the Bible, literally.
Right?
Likewise, there ARE verses that say specifically that God wants to save ALL, the WHOLE WORLD. It's in the Bible and can certainly be called biblical (certainly moreso than PSA).
The point is: THere are MANY ideas that can be argued for with support from this passage or that passage in the Bible. AND, we have no one authoritative source to say objectively, provably that YES, this is what God means. We have our subjective human interpretations and opinions.
And yes, some are more reasonable and some are less reasonable, but we can't objectively prove them as God's Will.
Do you recognize that reality?
OR, if you want to objectively prove that the world was created in six literal days, go for it. You won't because you can't because it's not objectively proven. Clearly, those passages are figurative in nature, not literal, not history.
Dan:
"I have NEVER SAID that there are not verses in the bible that SOME HUMANS take to mean something like PSA. That is NOT what I've said."
Marshal:
You're right. You said it's not Biblical. That it isn't a Biblical teaching.
SO, so strange.
When I say literally "I haven't said it's not biblical," you respond, "You said it's bliblical." I don't know how to help you. You don't appear to even understand what's being said and, as a result, you don't ask clear, reasonable questions or respond correctly to clear, reasonable words.
Marshal:
I've not misunderstood that this is what you've been asserting but failing to support against the objective proofs I've presented. When you think you can explain the truth of Hebrews 9 away with incontrovertible evidence...
1. You've presented NOT ONE objective proof that what you think about PSA is the same as what God thinks about it, or that God's "way" of salvation is objectively proven to be PSA. You have not even tried to objectively prove it.
2. Once again, merely saying "but, Hebrews 9..." is not objective proof of anything other than that there are words in Hebrews 9 that you conclude to mean that PSA is a fact, but I don't care how you interpret Hebrews 9. It's irrelevant to the question of objective proof that God's method of salvation IS objectively PSA.
PSA remains a subjective human opinion. No amount of you failing to understand "objective proof" will change that.
Hebrews 9, the pertinent verses:
But when Christ came as high priest of the good things
that are now already here,
he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle
that is not made with human hands, that is to say,
is not a part of this creation.
Jesus did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves;
but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood,
thus obtaining eternal redemption.
The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer
sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean
sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.
How much more, then, will the blood of Christ,
who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God,
cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,
so that we may serve the living God!
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant,
that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance
— now that he has died as a ransom
to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
I think what you're asking/trying to petulantly demand is, "But, but, but, if these verses aren't taken fairly literally and mean what I PERSONALLY think they mean, then what DO they mean?"
How about this:
IT'S FIGURATIVE!
?
Blood sacrifices have NEVER made anyone "clean." They're a figurative ceremonial process to remind of the reality of lives of Grace, the WAY of Grace.
How about that? Why is that NOT an extremely rational, extremely biblical response?
Because you prefer to think it's not? Because, to you, personally, it's not as credible?
If so, who cares? Who made you the Decider and Chief Interpreter?
Like it or not, that IS a rational and even biblical alternative explanation/interpretation of the passage in question.
Again: WHY does an almighty God NEED to have some goofy little bloody hoop to jump through in order to forgive, when we mere mortals can do it without a blood sacrifice?
THAT is a reasonable question that you've not answered.
You merely saying, "Because I SAY that this is how god decided it would be for my godling (but not for humans)" is subjective and question begging.
How do we know that God needs a blood sacrifice?
Because God demands a blood sacrifice in the verses that I interpret that way!
But how do we know that you're understanding those verses correctly?
Because God demands a blood sacrifice in the verses that I interpret that way!
Until you have some rational answer, you have lost this discussion.
Until you humble yourself and admit your subjective human interpretations ARE your opinions and not objective proof, you have lost this discussion.
Remaining engaged in an adult conversation requires respectful, reasonable adult behavior and recognition of reality.
Continually misrepresenting my position is not "adult", "respectful" or "reasonable". Insisting you are the arbiter of what is "reality" isn't either. It's also fascinating to be scolded about perceived disrespect from a guy who's foul language was rampant over four years of Craig's blog postings I reviewed recently for research on another topic. I didn't even read all comments of all posts, but it was hard to walk through yours without stepping in the rhetorical fecal matter you left behind like a San Fransisco homeless druggie. F-bombs galore, along with whatever else you dared believe yourself of having been justified spewing when it suited you to do so.
But now, for want of another excuse to delete rather than confront the truth I present, you exploit this false charge of disrespect, unreasonableness and the lack of maturity as if it's even true.
"When I say literally "I haven't said it's not biblical," you respond, "You said it's bliblical." I don't know how to help you."
How about by not moving the goal posts every time what you demand has been perfectly delivered? How about admitting you've been accommodated in this regard, as if you're a reasonable, respectful adult who cares about getting to the truth? That would be especially helpful rather than forcing me to wade through all your obfuscation, deflection and dishonesty.
"You don't appear to even understand what's being said and, as a result, you don't ask clear, reasonable questions or respond correctly to clear, reasonable words."
This is just a lie. I "don't appear"??? Only to those who don't have the spine to maturely confront direct responses to demands you impose upon your opponents. I fully doubt it appears like I "don't understand" to honest people. I quote your questions, respond accordingly without hesitation, without equivocation, without tap-dancing and you move the goal post in order to pretend I didn't answer directly or that I don't understand you. Yeah...real adult behavior on your part there! Then you provide another example of what I just said:
"1. You've presented NOT ONE objective proof that what you think about PSA is the same as what God thinks about it, or that God's "way" of salvation is objectively proven to be PSA. You have not even tried to objectively prove it."
It's never been about what God thinks. It's about citing Scriptural passages and verses which affirm what is labeled as PSA. I've totally and comprehensively provide incontrovertible proof by citing those passages. PSA is the name given to the teachings about Christ's sacrifice for our redemption. It is the Good News. Your response has been one for or another of "Nyuh uh", but no evidence, no Scripture, no nothing but your hunch that by golly there's no way Christ's death on the cross was required for our redemption.
But despite having provided objective proof from Scripture, you insist that hasn't happened and instead insisted that I need objective proof for the objective proof I've provided. A child telling me I'm not acting like an adult! Incredible.
"2. Once again, merely saying "but, Hebrews 9..." is not objective proof of anything other than that there are words in Hebrews 9 that you conclude to mean that PSA is a fact, but I don't care how you interpret Hebrews 9. It's irrelevant to the question of objective proof that God's method of salvation IS objectively PSA."
Another "Nyuh uh" rejection of what you demanded. Hebrews 9 is objective proof of PSA because it is PSA laid out for our edification. I don't need to "interpret" it, because it is the author's explanation that Christ's sacrifice is how we're able to be forgiven. It IS God's "method of salvation" explained.
"PSA remains a subjective human opinion. No amount of you failing to understand "objective proof" will change that."
No it isn't and I haven't failed in any way that you've been able to explain with anything more compelling than "Nyuh uh". Grow up and do your part. Less whining about me, more bringing actual evidence by you.
More later.
Don't bother, Marshal. I think it's the case that you don't even understand what you're not understanding and I don't know how to explain it to you that you've already made your case that you're just objectively mistaken in your literally, demonstrably subjective opinion.
You're done here. Move on.
The irony of you saying "nyuh uh" in your suggestion that this is what I'm saying...
A suggestion: Ask someone whom you respect and who understands reasoning more so than you to read this conversation and have THEM explain to you how you're just wrong about what I've been saying and that you've "proven objectively" PSA is God's will.
Regardless, no more comments short of an apology for being so obtusely belligerent OR actual data (not, "but here's ANOTHER verse and what I think it means...") to objectively prove your subjective hunches. You can't so you won't.
Move on.
Some questions for you to ponder as you move on that, maybe one day, will help you understand how "off" you are in the conversation:
1. Is every line in the Bible objectively factual, taken at face value? (the answer is no)
2. Is there some Source or Authority that can objectively tell us which passages should be taken literally and which shouldn't? (the answer is, No, there is no authority to appeal to).
3. Is there some objective way to demonstrably, objectively PROVE our opinions about interpretations of passages in the sense of "And THIS interpretation of Genesis 1 IS what God is trying to tell us, objectively!" or "And THIS interpretation of Hebrews 9 is what God is trying to tell us, objectively!"? (the answer is, No, there is no authority to appeal to).
4. If I, Marshal, have NO way to objectively prove my understanding of an idea is what God wants/thinks, then why am I being so arrogant as to suggest I can't be mistaken or that my understanding/interpretation IS the same as God's?
"I think what you're asking/trying to petulantly demand is, "But, but, but, if these verses aren't taken fairly literally and mean what I PERSONALLY think they mean, then what DO they mean?"
How about this:
IT'S FIGURATIVE!"?
First, I don't stutter. I don' stammer as if my position isn't truly as strong an accurate presentation of the unambiguous explanation Hebrews 9 is.
Second, "IT'S FIGURATIVE!" is not an alternate understanding. It's meaningless tripe.
"Blood sacrifices have NEVER made anyone "clean." They're a figurative ceremonial process to remind of the reality of lives of Grace, the WAY of Grace."
OK. Make the connection between butchering animals and "lives of 'Grace'. How is sprinkling blood on anything "the 'WAY' of 'Grace'"? Explain that. Use Scripture to do so and not your inventions.
"How about that? Why is that NOT an extremely rational, extremely biblical response?"
Because it doesn't mean anything. It is not an alternate explanation for what Hebrews 9 is teaching. It's not an interpretation of anything related to any form of atonement. It's just you asserting your fantasies while daring to suggest they are "rational" and "extremely biblical". You wouldn't for a moment accept such a lame answer as evidence of anything.
"Because you prefer to think it's not? Because, to you, personally, it's not as credible?"
No, but because in fact it's neither, and it's pathetically laughable to seriously submit it as such.
"If so, who cares? Who made you the Decider and Chief Interpreter?"
I'm not doing any interpreting here. I'm submitting Hebrews 9 as evidence of PSA being an actual teaching of Scripture...it's the Good News. It's how we are redeemed. You simply choose without basis to reject it, and are now doing so in the most inane manner because it's all you have left to reject what you have no true reason to reject. It's absurd and sign of serious mental/emotional problems on your part.
"Like it or not, that IS a rational and even biblical alternative explanation/interpretation of the passage in question."
Whether I liked it or not wouldn't matter if it was a sensible, reasonable and evidence-backed actual alternative understanding of Chapter 9. But it isn't even close to that. Chapter 9 couldn't be more clear. You couldn't be more absurd. It's sad you don't even see how badly you've embarrassed yourself.
"Don't bother, Marshal. I think it's the case that you don't even understand what you're not understanding and I don't know how to explain it to you that you've already made your case that you're just objectively mistaken in your literally, demonstrably subjective opinion."
Oh, I don't mind, Dan, as you can see in my subsequent comment above.
But the actual case is that there's nothing I'm failing to understand, particularly Hebrews 9, and obviously your inability to prove there's anything subjective about my identifying that as the most accurate definition of PSA. It's proof PSA is in the Bible...not that "maybe" some verses or passages can be understood "by some" to mean what it clearly means. Not only is there nothing mistaken in my position, there's nothing in your many lame attempts to assert that falsehood that could ever so much as hint there is. There's not one actual counter argument that you've offered yet.
"You're done here. Move on."
That's a wild white flag of surrender you're waving there, Dan!
"The irony of you saying "nyuh uh" in your suggestion that this is what I'm saying..."
"Irony"??? In stating the fact that "Nyuh uh" is the alpha and omega of your objection to Biblical Truth? That's funny.
"Ask someone whom you respect and who understands reasoning more so than you to read this conversation and have THEM explain to you how you're just wrong about what I've been saying and that you've "proven objectively" PSA is God's will."
People I respect who understands "reasoning" won't look at my position and say, "Nyuh uh", even they disagreed with the principle of PSA. They'd actually have an argument backed up by Scripture. Bringing such an argument would be a manifestation of "reasoning". What you bring to the table is, "Nyuh uh" and a host of whimsical invention.
Here's a suggestion for you: Go study up hard on what PSA actually is. You clearly don't know.
"Regardless, no more comments short of an apology for being so obtusely belligerent OR actual data (not, "but here's ANOTHER verse and what I think it means...") to objectively prove your subjective hunches. You can't so you won't."
If you understand what PSA is, then you wouldn't have been so obtusely belligerent in the face of the actual data from Scripture which proves Scripture teaches it. THAT was your initial challenge to me and I've not strayed from it a bit despite all your attempts to move the goal posts, obfuscate, deflect with so much which has no relevance to the issue and all your petulant virtual foot stomping. You can't even prove I've been either obtuse or belligerent! That's just you attacking me personally because you can't make your preferred invention real.
And then you lie saying I can't so I won't, when I did because I could so easily prove my position in the only way necessary. Now you want me to get God on the phone so He can tell you He did indeed send Christ to us to be the perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.
"1. Is every line in the Bible objectively factual, taken at face value? (the answer is no)"
I've never claimed this to be the case, but your asking of it is another irrelevancy. It has nothing to do with the issue on the table, and you think because not every line of the Bible is to be taken literally, then you can continue with the wacky suggestion that Hebrews 9 can be considered on of those lines. How desperate! I often wonder when I read your non-arguments if you're typing it with a straight face.
"2. Is there some Source or Authority that can objectively tell us which passages should be taken literally and which shouldn't? (the answer is, No, there is no authority to appeal to)."
This is a part of your standard fraudulent and fallacious argument which continues, like a small child constantly asking "why?" after every explanation, questioning every passage or line which stands as the hard data you demand so as not to honestly respond to it. But yes, I've no doubt there are any number of sources of authority on the issue of Biblical translations. But no matter how many there are and how expert they are in their field, you'll always discount them and dismiss them if the truth they tell disagrees with what you'd prefer the truth is.
The author of Hebrews is an authoritative source and you think he's full of shit or speaking in figurative riddles. You say that because you're give over to your prideful corruption and can't stand the thought of again being shown how non-Christian you are. Too bad. I'm sure it's painful for you.
"3. Is there some objective way to demonstrably, objectively PROVE our opinions about interpretations of passages in the sense of "And THIS interpretation of Genesis 1 IS what God is trying to tell us, objectively!" or "And THIS interpretation of Hebrews 9 is what God is trying to tell us, objectively!"? (the answer is, No, there is no authority to appeal to)."
It always strikes me how you play this stupid game at the same you talk about "reasoning"/"God-given reason" and "adult conversation. You continue to want proof for the proof you demanded that the proof you demanded is actual proof, and then you want proof for that as well, because you refuse to admit you don't know jack and your marxist version of Christianity is not really Christian at all except in the most superficial sense.
And of course you ask these questions and then answer it as the end with no way for you to support your fevered wish that you're right and I'm wrong. Well the, why ask the question? You reject everything you demanded upon delivery anyway. Captain Nyuh uh Trabue.
"4. If I, Marshal, have NO way to objectively prove my understanding of an idea is what God wants/thinks, then why am I being so arrogant as to suggest I can't be mistaken or that my understanding/interpretation IS the same as God's?"
Oh, so you're back to what God thinks or wants when the issue regards what God did. And I'm supposed to be the one who doesn't understand reason. And how is it arrogant to repeat the truth? Are you arrogant by constantly repeating "do no harm"? The arrogance, as with the obtuse belligerence, is all yours. I'm just answering your questions far more honestly and directly than you can stand. Truth is just so inconvenient and uncomfortable for you.
Dan:
"1. Is every line in the Bible objectively factual, taken at face value? (the answer is no)"
Marshal:
I've never claimed this to be the case, but your asking of it is another irrelevancy. It has nothing to do with the issue on the table
Good. You recognize that. That's a start.
The relevance, then Marshal, is WHICH verses/passages/ideas are to be taken literally factual, as if they were proven facts taken literally?
IF you believe in your head that some passages SHOULD be taken literally, HOW do you personally know which ones are literal/factual and which are figurative/metaphorical/hyperbolic?
And IF you have some you take literally as factual, WHY are you the one who decides for everyone else?
Further, EVEN IF you personally happen to think in your head Genesis 1 (for example) or Hebrews 9 (for example) ARE to be taken as literal fact, you still can't objectively prove you are correct in your personal opinion. You can't PROVE objectively that they should be understood literally.
Also, while we're here, let's look again at Hebrews 9, taken "literally..."
He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves;
but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all
by his own blood,
thus obtaining eternal redemption.
HOW did Jesus literally use "his own blood" to enter the most holy? Did he spray the temple down with his blood literally? Did he say to the temple, "Hey, I've got magic blood inside me, I'm coming in! Make way!"
In what sense is this to be understood literally?
And HOW did Jesus having magic blood presumably in his body thus "obtain eternal redemption..."? Literally, HOW?
In the following verses, it says:
How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
So, by Jesus having magic blood and offered it unblemished to God (and what does THAT mean literally?), the magic blood "cleansed our consciences" and THAT is literally how we were saved?
And the next passage mentions a "ransom..." To WHOM was this ransom literally paid? The devil (as many in the early church believed)? To God's Self? How is it literally a ransom if you're just giving blood to yourself?
EVEN IF you try to take this literally, there are so many reasonable questions as to what that even means.
"Good. You recognize that. That's a start."
Thanks. How unjustly and belligerently condescending of you.
"The relevance, then Marshal, is WHICH verses/passages/ideas are to be taken literally factual, as if they were proven facts taken literally?"
It's not at all relevance, because some unrelated figurative verses exist somewhere else in Scripture. If you can't prove or legitimately argue with some degree of evidence that Hebrews 9 is "figurative", then you must take it literally. Merely asserting that it is figurative doesn't get it done. You merely refuse to concede to the truth here.
"IF you believe in your head that some passages SHOULD be taken literally, HOW do you personally know which ones are literal/factual and which are figurative/metaphorical/hyperbolic?"
Until you choose to support your contention that 9 is figurative, this question is irrelevant and a cowardly distraction. At this point, I'd estimate 95+% of your comments were anything other than direct arguments against any passages and verse provided to prove PSA is Biblical teaching.
"And IF you have some you take literally as factual, WHY are you the one who decides for everyone else?"
I'm not deciding anything for anyone. I'm presented what you demanded and did so perfectly. You don't like that I was able to do that, so now you're doing all you can to avoid having to conceded to the truth.
"Further, EVEN IF you personally happen to think in your head Genesis 1 (for example) or Hebrews 9 (for example) ARE to be taken as literal fact, you still can't objectively prove you are correct in your personal opinion. You can't PROVE objectively that they should be understood literally."
Another common ploy. Take two disparate passages and pretend they are near identical. By citing Genesis 1 here, you think a position on Hebrews 9 is no more or less objective truth. If you want to argue Genesis 1, do it is it's own post. It is irrelevant here and nothing you can say about it mitigates the fact and truth of Hebrews 9...and that it's NOT "figurative" language. You don't get to make such assertions as if it's actually true and do so without evidence of your own. I don't care where you do it, be it here or at another blog.
"HOW did Jesus literally use "his own blood" to enter the most holy?"
By His torture and crucifixion.
"Did he spray the temple down with his blood literally?"
He was already covered with His own blood, being the sacrifice.
" Did he say to the temple, "Hey, I've got magic blood inside me, I'm coming in! Make way!""
Go ahead. Keep mocking God. See what that gets you, blasphemer. God's presence is the temple He entered.
"In what sense is this to be understood literally?"
In the sense that the author is describing the reality of atonement. Real Christians understand this.
" And HOW did Jesus having magic blood presumably in his body thus "obtain eternal redemption..."? Literally, HOW?"
Doesn't matter "HOW". What matters is that His Precious Blood (what you insultingly refer to as "magic blood") did. Jesus told us it would. The Apostles affirmed that it did. You reject Scripture in saying it couldn't have. Good luck with that.
"So, by Jesus having magic blood and offered it unblemished to God (and what does THAT mean literally?), the magic blood "cleansed our consciences" and THAT is literally how we were saved?"
Removing the insulting smarmy bullshit, and you're beginning to finally understand basic Christian Truth. Congratulations. There's hope for you yet (probably not, but I'm embracing grace here).
This close to the end and I gotta cut it off for now. The women folk beckon. I'll finish up later. Try to contain yourself.
Oh, gosh! I guess I could have dealt with this before I answered the call of my women folk!
"And the next passage mentions a "ransom..." To WHOM was this ransom literally paid? The devil (as many in the early church believed)? To God's Self? How is it literally a ransom if you're just giving blood to yourself?"
This is another question which has no relevance to my delivering on your initial demand. Moreover, it won't alter the fact that PSA is the proper (and incredibly obvious) description of how come to be redeemed. You clearly don't believe in the Trinity, or else you couldn't ask the last question. God the Son came to serve God the Father by being the Perfect Sacrifice for our sin. Clearly, Jesus paid the ransom as the Son...who came to take our place to deliver us from the wrath of the Father. This is more Christianity 101 which would necessarily be well understood by anyone who truly "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture.
"EVEN IF you try to take this literally, there are so many reasonable questions as to what that even means."
Setting aside you haven't asked one "reasonable" question yet, I don't try to take Chapter 9 literally. I can do no other because it is meant literally. It is an explanation by one who had it confirmed to him by those who heard Him. There's nothing I have found anywhere in Hebrews that suggests figurative speech with regard to the atonement and particularly Chapter 9. It's not like Jesus telling parables. He just straight up tells it like it is and you're scrambling to find a way to assure yourself it isn't. That's so sad.
"And IF you have some you take literally as factual, WHY are you the one who decides for everyone else?"
A question Dan should probably answer.
Anonymous:
A question Dan should probably answer.
It's quite easy: I'm NOT the one who should decide for everyone else on matters of subjective opinion. I've never said otherwise.
On the other hand, when we're talking about objective facts, then I'm STILL not the one who decides. Objective facts are just objective facts.
As a point of demonstrable, objective fact, the Bible has Jesus recorded as saying he'd come to preach good news to the poor. Period. That's observable, demonstrable. It's a fact.
Now, does that MEAN that there was factually a literal Jesus? That this Jesus was literally saying he'd come to preach good news to the literal poor? No, those are matters of interpretations.
From there, we can consider, OK, but which interpretations are most reasonable? Marshal, apart from any real evidence, says that Jesus did not mean the literally material poor in that passage. I note the plethora of passages from Jesus that, on the face of them, appear to be referencing the literal poor - this passage included - and note that we have no textual reason of significance that Jesus didn't mean literal poor. But I can't prove objectively what the author (Luke, in this case) meant or what Jesus - as recorded by Luke - objectively meant.
I've been pretty clear on all this.
Because it is the Holy Spirit who opens the eyes of the body of Christ to new things, Dan doesn’t decide. He pays attention. As members of the body of Christ we try, by faith, as the church, to listen - imperfectly - to the Spirit.
What the body of Christ cannot do is ignore the Spirit and worship a book.
___
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever….
I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have said to you….
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”
“And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”
"Marshal, apart from any real evidence, says that Jesus did not mean the literally material poor in that passage."
This is a straight up, intentional lie. I provided evidence. You deleted it. I offered to re-post it if I could get a guarantee you wouldn't delete it again. You didn't even respond to my offer.
Who doesn't read? Who cannot understand? Who puts scripture ahead of the living godhead when even scripture testifies to the church learning more after Jesus that Jesus did not share. And learning it from the Holy Spirit.
"I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything..."
And then the church promptly DID learn more than Jesus taught: BY WAY OF THE SPIRIT! This shook up all their prejudices... just as the Spirit does to Marshal, Craig, and the other thugs.
“And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”
To Craig:
Scripture is the revelation of the true god. Scripture is not a god. You don't pray to scripture and neither do you "listen" for its rsesponse. Scripture is the revelation of the triune god - and always testifies, ALWAYS TESTIFIES, that god is the one you should listen to.
Scripture's role is to point us to a relationship to god, which is the relationship you should listen to.
But you object. You object because the Spirit blows in directions which you cannot abide. And how much does scripture tell us to NOT BE PEOPLE LIKE YOU?!
You do worship a book.
Look at your respones to me: you cannot deal with John 14. So you don't mention it. It's scripture. You cannot explain why the Holy Spirit is god and the Bible isn't. So you don't mention it. God moves in mysterious ways in the present time. But you cannot deal.
So you wont listen. You read, thereby imprisoning god, god the Holy Spirit, between covers.
You are gutless.
"I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything..."
Wow. This from a guy who claims to have spent time in seminary. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit teaches something which hasn't been covered in Scripture or is somehow counter to any teaching therein. feo's exploits this to rationalize that which is in conflict with Scripture...be it women pastors or SSM or other such perversions of the Truth.
There was no "New Testament" for the Apostles and disciples to reference as they went about preaching the Word of God. The Holy Spirit would remind them of all Christ taught them...not "teach new things". How absurd!
Marshal can't put 2 and 2 together. 2+2=4 Marshal.
1. Acts 11, Peter explaining why he baptized Gentiles:
The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” Starting from the beginning,
Peter told them the whole story.... So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”
When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “SO THEN, EVEN TO GENTILES GOD HAS GRANTED repentance that leads to life.”
___
2. Acts 15, Peter and the Council in Jerusalem (which includes Jesus' own brother, James) deal with demands that the Gentiles must be circumcised:
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that SOME TIME AGO GOD MADE A CHOICE AMONG YOU THAT THE GENTILES MIGHT HEAR FROM MY LIPS THE MESSAGE OF THE GOSPEL AND BELIEVE. God, who knows the heart, showed that HE ACCEPTED THEM BY GIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT TO THEM, JUST AS HE DID TO US. HE DID NOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN US AND THEM, FOR HE PURIFIED THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH.
___
Four things are immediately clear... 4 things. 2+2.
1. Jesus did not prepare the first church for this world shattering discovery that the Holy Spirit teaches them.
2. God does not discriminate about who can believe and who can't.
3. Neither Marshal nor Craig nor any of the other 17th century want-to-be-thugs can read scripture.
4. Neither Marshal nor Craig nor any of then other brutalizing thugs have accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The fifth thing that is true is inferred and not one of the thugs can accept it:
They worship a book. And they do it badly.
And they have no love for the Holy Spirit, to whom the book points them to listen to and pay attendant. But they can't change themselves to do that.
Stan and all book worshippers are most fond of quoting the second letter to Timothy in that, all Scripture is "god-breathed."
But as Marshal just pointed out, like a broken clock, Paul was not referring to Christian scriptures. Paul was referring to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of ancient Hebrew scrolls, the Tanakh. Paul did not even have the standard Hebrew text which is used today: the Masoretic text; it wasn't compiled until the second half of the first thousand years after Christ. And the older Greek version and the newer Hebrew version don't agree in all things. In fact, in many things.
So Paul is saying the Hebrew scriptures in the Septuagint are "god-breathed". What is god's breath. Stan never asks that question. And the right answer to that question is, don't you mean, WHO is god's breath?
Presumably, Stan knows the answer to that question but he won't say it. Because to name the Holy Spirit as the one who animates scripture is to immediate set god the Holy Spirit above scripture. And none of the thugs can do that.
But Paul does. Paul is saying that Hebrew scripture is "god-breathed," and yet Paul has interpreted and used the Hebrew Bible - HIS BIBLE - is ways that no Hebrew and no Hebrew tradition can abide. Paul has REINTERPRETED god-breathed scripture so that it testifies to the coming of the Messiah.
Who gave Paul the authority to do that? HIs vision of the risen Christ, living, and not bound in a book. But how does he use this authority? Well, by the guidance of the breath of god who animates scripture and leads him interpret scriptures not according to their literal sense but by the greater authority of the unparalleled grace of god the Father, god the Son, and god the Holy Spirit. And, further Paul says, he does so only as a member of Christ's body in community together with the community of Christians in every place he's been and in spiritual communion with all other places where Christians gather.
By the authority of Jesus Christ and the grace of god as directed by the Holy Spirit in the living of each day. In that! framework, Scripture is god-breathed. And in reading and interpreting in community, we are guided by the Holy Spirit who is, in fact, god's breath. And new things are revealed.
Just like Jesus' followers who, long after he had ascended, learned a new thing unspoken by scripture or the Christ, but taught by the Holy Spirit.
We, too, as the church learn new things because god is living and loving and moves and directs new things according the grace of god's nature. The Bible as our scripture is made powerful in reflection by the church living in the love of the spirit.
And only in that way is it, in spiritual fact, scripture.
Otherwise, you worship a book.
The Council of Jews in Jerusalem, including Jesus' own brother, James, is the only way we get to be Christians, btw. Otherwise, we'd also have to be Jewish converts with all the religious practice laws.
In the same way, in councils among many churches who don't check their god-imaged brains at the door, we began to listen to the teaching of the Holy Spirit that women are equal spiritual leaders; that gay believers are equal just as much as gentiles are equal to jews - and don't have to relinquish their god-graced identities as much as we, too, did not have to give up gentile identity. And on an on it goes.
Such is the love of god. Universal.
And this is why they consciously need to block me. Because I am the only one trained in Christian scripture, history, theology, and practice.
Since I'm bored and not much else is going on, nor happening on the blogs, I decided I'd entertain myself responding to feo's comments beginning from March 18, 2024 at 8:25 AM. He always amazes me that he thinks so highly of his own intellect without demonstrating why he should. Oh well, I guess it's cool that someone is impressed with him, even though it's only his own self.
"Because it is the Holy Spirit who opens the eyes of the body of Christ to new things, Dan doesn’t decide. He pays attention. As members of the body of Christ we try, by faith, as the church, to listen - imperfectly - to the Spirit."
And how do you know it's the Spirit speaking to you, particularly when so much you think is true is in conflict with Christian teaching? It's clear, given what you "hear" is what you already favor, that's it's likely your father doing the talking. Your Father of Lies.
"What the body of Christ cannot do is ignore the Spirit and worship a book."
What the body of Christ cannot do is ignore the Book by pretending they're listening to the Spirit when what they hear is in conflict with the Book. Real Christians don't do that.
___
"“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever….
I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have said to you….
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”"
This feo tries to pretend means that what the Spirit will teach is something Christ is never recorded as saying, that conflicts with what He had said, that conflicts with what the Apostles said in their Epistles and other teachings recorded in Scripture. He thinks that "teach" and "remind" mean two different things. But when his mommy reminds him to use a tissue when wiping his runny nose, that reminder is still the same teaching she had already taught. The same is true here. There's nothing at all said about the Holy Spirit that suggests anything not already having been said, and certainly nothing so much as hints that the Holy Spirit will negate commandments, such as the prohibition against homosexual behavior of any kind.
feo's "interpretation" is simply giving him license to do whatever he likes regardless of what Scripture teaches (and by "Scripture", I mean what God/Jesus teaches as revealed in Scripture).
"“And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”"
I'm not exactly clear what foul corruption feo intends with this passage. Maybe it will become apparent with subsequent comments from him.
"...even scripture testifies to the church learning more after Jesus that Jesus did not share. And learning it from the Holy Spirit.
"I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything...""
This is another corruption. There is nothing in Scripture which asserts the Spirit would act contrary to God or Jesus as they are all One. There is nothing in Scripture which suggest the early church learned more after Jesus had ascended than was taught by Him prior to that. Nothing. feo's just perverting verses or simply making up things which have more appeal to him and his leftist sensibilities.
"And then the church promptly DID learn more than Jesus taught: BY WAY OF THE SPIRIT!"
No they didn't. And the subsequent passage you quote is not an example of such a thing. Not even close.
"Scripture is the revelation of the true god. Scripture is not a god. You don't pray to scripture and neither do you "listen" for its rsesponse. Scripture is the revelation of the triune god - and always testifies, ALWAYS TESTIFIES, that god is the one you should listen to."
And what God says to us is recorded in Scripture. The Spirit won't contradict it. The Spirit doesn't teach what hadn't been taught and recorded as taught by God/Jesus. By reading and studying Scripture, we listen to God. You listen to something else which identifies itself to you as the Spirit because you're just the type of weak person your Father of Lies finds easiest to manipulate and lead astray.
So here's a tip: If you think the Spirit is telling you anything, study Scripture to see if that suggestion appears anywhere within the covers. If it isn't, it ain't the Spirit you're hearing. More than likely, it's your own corrupt soul.
"But you object. You object because the Spirit blows in directions which you cannot abide."
No it doesn't. It affirms Christ, because Christ, the Father and the Spirit are One. One can't follow God or Jesus as Scripture reveals them to be and object to the Spirit, because the Spirit is not going to say anything which conflicts with what Scripture describes God or Jesus as saying, teaching or commanding.
"You do worship a book."
Nonsense. But you do indeed worship the favor of a fallen world.
"You cannot explain why the Holy Spirit is god and the Bible isn't."
This is just you projecting what you need to be true in order to posture as having a better grasp of Scripture and the Will of God. But we don't regard the Bible as God at all. Never did and don't now. Likely we never will as the very notion is absurd. But to say it's the Word of God revealed to us and recorded for us is accurate. But you won't accept that the Holy Spirit is not your earthly desires. He is God the Holy Spirit and He won't contradict God the Father or God the Son. They are One. You are condemned.
"But you cannot deal."
That's funny coming from a guy who hasn't the guts to admit the LGBTQ+++++ narrative is a pack of lies...that abortion is murder.
"So you wont listen. You read, thereby imprisoning god, god the Holy Spirit, between covers."
First, that's stupid. That's just something you need to believe about us, and only assert without basis. Ironically, you cite Scripture constantly to support your corrupt understanding, yet accuse us of imprisoning God because we revere His Word revealed therein. But the again, you pervert what you cite as your Father of Lies instructs you.
Secondly, it's curious you won't capitalize "God", but capitalize the "Holy Spirit". You clearly don't regard them as One.
"You are gutless."
That's funny coming from a guy who hasn't the guts to admit the LGBTQ+++++ narrative is a pack of lies...that abortion is murder.
"Marshal can't put 2 and 2 together."
You're funny.
"Four things are immediately clear..."
And all of them indict feo as a false priest.
"1. Jesus did not prepare the first church for this world shattering discovery that the Holy Spirit teaches them."
feo forgets this thing referred to as "the Great Commission".
"2. God does not discriminate about who can believe and who can't."
Nor does He stop feo from embracing corruption and false teachings.
"3. Neither Marshal nor Craig nor any of the other 17th century want-to-be-thugs can read scripture."
Don't know about any "17th century want-to-be-thugs", but you've not proven either Craig nor I am incapable of reading Scripture, or that our understanding is in any way inferior to yours...the very notion of which you prove hilarious every time you open your virtual mouth.
"4. Neither Marshal nor Craig nor any of then other brutalizing thugs have accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Don't know about any "brutalizing thugs", but both Craig and I have fully accepted Christ. YOU, however, are all about brutalizing the unborn, the women who murder them, Israelis, emotionally fragile youth and other fellow Americans. You're absolutely heinous in your barbarity!
"They worship a book. And they do it badly.
And they have no love for the Holy Spirit, to whom the book points them to listen to and pay attendant. But they can't change themselves to do that."
Once again, you're just projecting onto us a behavior for which you so desperately need to believe we're guilty. You fail to remember that Christ spoke of the Spirit to those who had not yet had the same Bible we have today. That means, they had no "New Testament" which is basically the Gospel and Epistles. But they did have the Apostles ministering to them with the help of the Holy Spirit. Today, those of us who truly seek the Spirit's guidance do so to understand properly the Word of God as presented to us in Scripture. You pretend you know better...that you've been guided by the Spirit to accept that which contradicts Scripture. You're blaspheming the Spirit to suggest that what you accept is true was that to which the Spirit led you. Good luck with that.
"Stan and all book worshippers are most fond of quoting the second letter to Timothy in that, all Scripture is "god-breathed.""
Stan's not a "book worshiper". I don't know anyone who is, except for you Alinsky-ites.
" But as Marshal just pointed out, like a broken clock, Paul was not referring to Christian scriptures. Paul was referring to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of ancient Hebrew scrolls, the Tanakh. Paul did not even have the standard Hebrew text which is used today: the Masoretic text; it wasn't compiled until the second half of the first thousand years after Christ. And the older Greek version and the newer Hebrew version don't agree in all things. In fact, in many things."
But most of the 27 Books of the NT were well known within the first century. In 1 Timothy, Paul referred to a verse from the Gospel of Luke as "Scripture". Peter refers to “all of Paul’s letters,” and warns believers to not be deceived by people who twist them “as they do the other Scriptures.” So, once again, you're simply wrong in your typical epic fashion.
https://crossexamined.org/when-was-the-new-testament-considered-scripture-5-facts-that-point-to-an-early-canon/
"Presumably, Stan knows the answer to that question but he won't say it. Because to name the Holy Spirit as the one who animates scripture is to immediate set god the Holy Spirit above scripture"
Ah...more projection. Did you learn that level of hatred and arrogant condescension from the Holy Spirit? You have no basis but your unChristian hatred to presume any of us put the Bible "above" God. Whether we read Scripture, have Scripture read to us, recited from memory to us, or see it played out in film...or in any other way receive it...it is for us the Word of God revealed. You are the spawn of evil revealed. You worship yourself above anything. You'd serve yourself better by worshiping Scripture instead of yourself.
"But how does he use this authority? Well, by the guidance of the breath of god who animates scripture and leads him interpret scriptures not according to their literal sense but by the greater authority of the unparalleled grace of god the Father, god the Son, and god the Holy Spirit."
And nowhere, unlike you and Dan, does Paul ever preach anything which directly contradicts Scripture, regardless of what Scripture was for him. Not once. Everything he preaches conforms with Scripture, both Old Testament and that which became New Testament. You pervert Scripture and pretend the Holy Spirit made you do it.
"By the authority of Jesus Christ and the grace of god as directed by the Holy Spirit in the living of each day. In that! framework, Scripture is god-breathed. And in reading and interpreting in community, we are guided by the Holy Spirit who is, in fact, god's breath. And new things are revealed."
This is your Father of Lies talking. Nothing "new" is revealed by the Spirit. He can't contradict Himself, as He is God. You are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
"Just like Jesus' followers who, long after he had ascended, learned a new thing unspoken by scripture or the Christ, but taught by the Holy Spirit."
They learned nothing new, but were taught and reminded about the things Christ taught prior to His Ascension.
"We, too, as the church learn new things because god is living and loving and moves and directs new things according the grace of god's nature."
You're not "learning new things". You acquiescing to your sin nature and calling it "God-breathed". Heresy and blasphemy. God is, was and always will be. What He commanded then, He commands us still. You care more for your craven desires than for God's Will. You call good evil and evil good. Good luck with that.
"The Bible as our scripture is made powerful in reflection by the church living in the love of the spirit."
The Bible is already powerful as it contains the Word and Will of God, and a real church abides in it...not in some "do what you like" perversion so favored by you and Dan.
"And only in that way is it, in spiritual fact, scripture."
The opposite is true. You've made Scripture toilet paper. Your Father of Lies couldn't be more proud of you.
"Otherwise, you worship a book."
So you pathetically and desperately need to tell yourself. Good luck with that.
"The Council of Jews in Jerusalem, including Jesus' own brother, James, is the only way we get to be Christians, btw. Otherwise, we'd also have to be Jewish converts with all the religious practice laws."
This sounds like you're still ignoring the Great Commission to preach the Gospel to all nations. We get to be Christians because Christ sent His Apostles to make us Christians. Someday, you might come to Christ as well. You're running out of time.
"In the same way, in councils among many churches who don't check their god-imaged brains at the door, we began to listen to the teaching of the Holy Spirit that women are equal spiritual leaders; that gay believers are equal just as much as gentiles are equal to jews - and don't have to relinquish their god-graced identities as much as we, too, did not have to give up gentile identity. And on an on it goes."
Your Father of Lies is certainly abjectly proud of you for leading others astray with your heresies. Good luck with that.
"Such is the love of god. Universal."
Ah...so like Dan, you're a universalist, too! The love of God is such that He hopes you'll yank your own head out of your own ass, but allows you to leave it there if you prefer. The former is your only hope. The latter is most likely given your past performance. Good luck with that.
"And this is why they consciously need to block me. Because I am the only one trained in Christian scripture, history, theology, and practice."
This is hilarious!
First, there's nothing in your comments which suggests any successful training. You're so corrupt in your beliefs, and wrong in your attempts to support them that it would be a great service to present where you got your "education".
Secondly, this "training" has nothing to do with you being blocked. You're blocked because you're unjustly arrogant and condescending. You try to push off topic comments because no one would give your blog the time of day if you started it up once again. You've abused your privilege of posting comments in various ways, the most egregious of which was the repeated posting of a single comment 1000 times at my blog and hundreds of times (at least) at both Glenn's and Craig's blogs, if not at the blogs of others, too. You have proven you can't be trusted to be allowed to comment and you revel in the fact that your childishness has resulted in enabling comment moderation and other means to prevent you from soiling otherwise tolerable debates.
But you'll lie about it and pretend that you're just too smart for the rest of us. That's freaking hilarious!
You have no right to question me, mendacious scab. If you want a debate then ask me questions at your blog and be man enough to encounter answers, cowering little boy.
You’re so thick you can’t even read. You don’t read me or Dan or scripture with any intent to understand what is written. You’re anxiety at being disturbed keeps you from any actual courage to engage, you gutless wonder. So you blithely glide over all sense and keep up your defense of nonsense.
You’re blind, you blind yourself, and cannot see that your questions ignore what I’ve said. You presuppose that you only have to keep the problem to me: how dare Feodor?! And that’s not what I’ve written. At all. As in Acts, so today, the body of Christ has reflected on scripture within our experience of the Holy Spirit’s guidance and life with our neighbor. And so we cannot keep faith with Christ’s redemption and God’s will unless we agree with what we see: So then!, even to these we thought were outside the promise, god has granted repentance that leads to life. We are not in control of grace. God is.
We are the same believers as the Jerusalem council who told the Gentile world that they don’t have to keep Jewish law, they don’t have to scar their bodies, they don’t have to reject their cultures. Because of their fervent belief in Jesus Christ the Gentiles have won the promise of redemption. There are zero burdens to faith. Except one only: love all others. As Paul writes of his own meeting with the Jerusalem elders, “They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.”
So, like Peter and Paul and the Jerusalem elders were shocked that god included the Gentiles; like white Christian American was shocked that god included black people as equally belonging to the body of Christ; like male American Christians were shocked that spiritual leadership does not discriminate; so we, too, were shocked that god doesn’t discriminate belief on the basis of sexuality or identity. The love of god is universal. But we still far short of learning his fully.
All that millions of us Christians and dozens of Christian denominations ask of all believing brothers and sisters and non-binary folks - and ask because we are the ones who read the Bible AND we are the ones who worship the Spirit, whom Jesus promised would teach us more and more - all we ask is that we all love each other and take care of the poor and live faithful, honest lives - non brutalizing lives. What does faith say? Are those committed to love and service to others, to the poor, the imprisoned, the outcast, the marginalized, welcoming and living and worshipping equal with all those whom religious bigotry wants to keep outside the promise… following Jesus. Or is it those who worship a book empty of the living Spirit and are enthralled to a man they think serves god’s purpose but encourages insurrection and speaks about “blood baths” if he doesn’t win and about women with horse faces and poor citizens of poor countries as people from “shit hole” countries? Faith doesn’t blink an eye at such idiocy.
We don’t make ourselves judge and jury. We don’t worship a book - our ourselves - over the love of god.
And of this, I am sure, as well: you belong to the party of the Pharisees, the party of enslavers, the party of misogynists, racist, and bigots, homophobes, and white supremacist brutalizers.
Acts 15
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
Galaltions 5
You who want to be reckoned as righteous by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love...
I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!
For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters, only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become enslaved to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
"You have no right to question me, mendacious scab."
Sure I do, especially given how much there is to question. Indeed, more than a right, I'm compelled by duty and obligation to question the likes of you.
"If you want a debate then ask me questions at your blog and be man enough to encounter answers, cowering little boy."
Oh...was this a debate? I took it as more drivel rife with errors as my responses have clearly exposed. You're not welcome at my blog for all the reasons I've listed above. That's on you. Your banishment was requested by your bad behaviors. I have absolutely no confidence that reversing that decision will lead to good things of any kind, as your current insults clearly indicate.
"You’re so thick you can’t even read. You don’t read me or Dan or scripture with any intent to understand what is written."
I read quite well, thank you. Though your attempts to posture as an intellectual is no more than what we used to call "baffling them with bullshit". Like Dan, rather than not being understood, we understand you quite well despite your attempts to baffle. It's that we do indeed understand you which riles you so much.
"You’re anxiety at being disturbed keeps you from any actual courage to engage, you gutless wonder."
Yeah, my anxiety at being disturbed has kept me from engaging with you here in enemy territory, where you're far more at liberty to insult and condescend and spew whatever you find personally witty without the supporting evidence. "Gutless" is choosing to have no blog of your own with the integrity to confront your betters. But then, when you did, you deleted/blocked all my attempts to engage...very much like a gutless wonder.
"So you blithely glide over all sense and keep up your defense of nonsense."
Sure I do.
"So then!, even to these we thought were outside the promise, god has granted repentance that leads to life."
Unlike those of the early church, real Christians don't take this to mean your "anything goes" attitude. God doesn't "grant repentance" as if that means one has no obligation to sin no more, or worse, to dare suggest there sin is sin no more as you and Dan do with your favored sexually immoral LGBTQ+++ people. Again, you pretend the Spirit is guiding you, but He wouldn't guide you toward this sort of self-worship.
"So, like Peter and Paul and the Jerusalem elders were shocked that god included the Gentiles;"
Christ had prepared them for this prior to enacting the Great Commission after His resurrection. "Shock" is an overstatement and I doubt you could find a verse where the "shock" you need to believe they felt was overtly expressed.
"...like white Christian American was shocked that god included black people as equally belonging to the body of Christ;"
True "shock" is in realizing you went this far before inserting your pat racism, ignoring of course it was white Christian Americans who fought and died on behalf of black people and struggled against your kind to pass Civil Rights legislation. Typical.
"...like male American Christians were shocked that spiritual leadership does not discriminate"
Ah...you're referring to how actual Christians abide God's Will with regard to proper roles of the sexes, particularly in leading congregations. We're also not shocked that fake Christians like you ignore that of God's Will you find inconvenient.
"...so we, too, were shocked that god doesn’t discriminate belief on the basis of sexuality or identity."
Oh, but He does! 1 Corinthians 6:9-20 is not rescinded by the Holy Spirit, but by your Father of Lies. If your kind truly has love for such people, you would remind them of this. The wicked might believe in God, but their choice to reject His warning belies that belief. But you don't care because you're more interested in pleasing the wicked than in pleasing God.
"The love of god is universal."
Ah...the Universalist speaks! What you fail to learn...what you reject...is that God might love all in the world (debatable, really), but that doesn't mean He'll accept rebellion. You're in rebellion. You still far WAY, WAY short of learning this fully.
"all we ask is that we all love each other and take care of the poor and live faithful, honest lives - non brutalizing lives."
Clearly except for lives still developing in the womb. Those lives are disposable and less than the Jews were to the nazis and less than the blacks were to the Klan. How brutalizing of you. What a hypocrite you are.
Still scared of an open debate, Marshal? Mendacious and scabrous. So weakly anxious about the fitness of your own faith.
Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
This happened three times
(Peter resists god three times because he doesn't believe what he's hearing. JESUS HAD NOT PREPARED HIM.)
The Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”
(Without the Spirit, Peter would not have gone of his own will. JESUS HAD NOT PREPARED HIM.)
Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection.
(JESUS HAD NOT PREPARED HIM TO ASSOCIATE WITH GENTILES!)
Then Peter began to speak: “I NOW REALIZE HOW TRUE IT IS THAT GOD DOES NOT SHOW FAVORITISM but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.
(This truth is brand new to Peter. JESUS HAD NOT PREPARED HIM.)
___
The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”
(Even when hearing that the Gentiles "had also received the word of God" all they could focus on was the law. JESUS HAD NOT PREPARED THEM.)
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ IF THEN GOD GAVE THEM THE SAME GIFT THAT HE GAVE US WHEN WE BELIEVED IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, WHO WAS I THAT I could hinder God?”
When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “SO THEN GOD HAS GIVEN EVEN TO THE GENTILES THE REPENTANCE THAT LEADS TO LIFE.”
(Peter witnessed a new revelation and the elders were shocked into silence... and then agreeing that this was a new revelation. JESUS HAD NOT PREPARED THEM.)
"Are those committed to love and service to others, to the poor, the imprisoned, the outcast, the marginalized, welcoming and living and worshipping equal with all those whom religious bigotry wants to keep outside the promise… following Jesus."
It is not following Jesus to pretend by spewing that happy talk it represents what you are. When you disregard life in the womb, when you insult and attack blog opponents, opponents with a more accurate understanding of Scripture, political opponents...there's nothing about following Christ which is reflected in any of this. There's no religious bigotry from this side of the divide when we speak of God's Will with regard to that which our reject in favor of worldly pleasures. And here's something else you fall short of fully understanding: It's not a matter of who any persons or people keep outside the promise. It's who God has said will be denied the promise. You enable such people, which puts yourself outside the promise, too. Good luck with that.
"Or is it those who worship a book empty of the living Spirit and are enthralled to a man they think serves god’s purpose but encourages insurrection and speaks about “blood baths” if he doesn’t win and about women with horse faces and poor citizens of poor countries as people from “shit hole” countries?"
First, your constant insistence that anyone worships a book is telling. It expresses your contempt for the Book and all it teaches about God the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit you need to believe has freed you to be so contemptuous.
Second, as so many truly evil men in history have served God's purpose (even you do, too, false priest), a flawed by generally decent man has done much to reduce the struggles of so many Americans. What he didn't do is encourage or incite any "insurrection" and lies about that and his use of the term "bloodbath" and "shit hole" countries are common practice of liars like you. You're so given over to your corruption you can't help yourself.
"We don’t make ourselves judge and jury. We don’t worship a book - our ourselves - over the love of god. "
You pervert reality, reject truth and worship yourselves. Saying otherwise doesn't change that. An improvement in your low character could.
"And of this, I am sure, as well: you belong to the party of the Pharisees, the party of enslavers, the party of misogynists, racist, and bigots, homophobes, and white supremacist brutalizers."
You see what you desperately need to see, because to believe what you need to see, you suppose yourself saved. But lying about your opponents in hopes of accomplishing this fails every time. Those like you and Dan don't grasp what the true problem of the Pharisees was. Those like you and Dan don't understand who the enslavers were (except Dan knows his own family were among them). You and Dan don't understand who the misogynists are, because you don't understand proper sex roles according to His Will. You and Dan are far more racist in your hate for white people than any of us have ever shown for anyone, including the likes of you two. You are bigoted against those who speak the truth of Scripture over the perversions and bastardizations you prefer. The only "homophobes" are those too frightened to speak the truth about and to them...people like you and Dan. The only brutalizers in these blog discussions are you and Dan who defend the murder of people in utero, who defend that practice which has greatly harmed and often killed the women who choose that path, who defend the butchery of our young in the name of the false LGBTQ+++ agenda, who defend unfettered invasion of foreigners across our borders and all the many harms and dangers they bring with them.
God discriminates between the obedient and the rebellious. You are among the latter, mocking and insulting and attacking the obedient as "book worshipers".
You who want to be reckoned as righteous by ignoring God's Will as revealed in the Law under the premise that we are somehow no longer bound by it because of your exploitation of the Spirit Who does NOT guide us toward the "anything goes" attitude you promote.
You use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, and are enslaved to your carnal desires which you pretend are no longer sinful so you can exploit the name "Christian" and be favored by the stupid and the immoral.
Marshal, you’re only vicious with me to deflect from the obvious: you can’t refute your idol book. And you’re vicious with me because I’ve made known to you that you can’t refute your idol book.
That’s what brutalizers do: get vicious when they’ve failed to defend their lies.
"Still scared of an open debate, Marshal? Mendacious and scabrous. So weakly anxious about the fitness of your own faith."
More hilarity. In the meantime, I'm engaging in open debate, so what the hell...?
"(Peter resists god three times because he doesn't believe what he's hearing. JESUS HAD NOT PREPARED HIM.)"
Matt 15:11-20. Jesus prepared him. He didn't make the connection.
"(Without the Spirit, Peter would not have gone of his own will. JESUS HAD NOT PREPARED HIM.)"
This is stupid. Peter was unprepared by Christ because he couldn't know three dudes were looking for him? There's no indication Peter would have resisted going with the dudes had he not been made aware of their search for him by other means. Can you scrape the barrel any more desperately?
"(JESUS HAD NOT PREPARED HIM TO ASSOCIATE WITH GENTILES!)"
Except for that "Great Commission" thing...
"(This truth is brand new to Peter. JESUS HAD NOT PREPARED HIM.)"
Except for that "Great Commission" thing...Matt 26:16-20
"(Even when hearing that the Gentiles "had also received the word of God" all they could focus on was the law. JESUS HAD NOT PREPARED THEM.)"
That's what the Apostles were for...to prepare them in Christ's teachings. Note that the passage you present speaks of the circumcised believers criticizing him, not all apostles and the believers throughout Judea who heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
"(Peter witnessed a new revelation and the elders were shocked into silence... and then agreeing that this was a new revelation. JESUS HAD NOT PREPARED THEM.)"
Peter was preparing them, as was his mission.
So this Book you don't worship remains your source for trying to support your premise it can be discarded in favor of an alleged Holy Spirit telling you new things Christ or God the Father never said. Even if I was one who worshiped "the book", it would be far better than abusing it as you and Dan do to support your preferences and inventions. Clearly none of your citations backs your position, especially since it requires ripping them out of context as well as disregarding other passages and verses which conflict with your fake Christianity.
Doesn't seem I'm scared at all of open debate. But you're certainly afraid to debate honestly.
"Marshal, you’re only vicious with me to deflect from the obvious: you can’t refute your idol book. And you’re vicious with me because I’ve made known to you that you can’t refute your idol book.
That’s what brutalizers do: get vicious when they’ve failed to defend their lies."
That's funny from the one who called me " Mendacious and scabrous. So weakly anxious about the fitness of your own faith." and "mendacious scab." as well as the tired but trusty false accusations of being "homophobic", "racist", "bigoted", "misogynistic", "brutalizer" and a host of other things. Vicious, indeed!
I've refuted everything you've tried to throw at me. The Bible isn't my "idol". The Word is my faith. You reject both. Your idol is you and your undeserved high opinion of yourself.
Another epic failure by feo. His record is still perfect.
How did Jesus prepare them? Just as he prepared the church for our mission of love:
“I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything..."
Marshal can’t read his book.
This is the reason we are baptized in the names of the three person god: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Not in two names and a book.
Marshal fails to know Christian faith at its most basic.
If you can’t worship in a Christian community that believes in and bears testimony to god the Holy Spirit, then who are you when you read scripture?
You’re just a luckily literate 17th century Puritan who condemns your Christian brother who doesn’t look like you, think like you, or have the same genitalia. Or in today’s terms, you’re a White Supremacist.
As Dan has pointed out countless times, if you’re stuck with the book, "’Teaching everything’ does not mean teaching that which is in conflict with what had already been taught by God the Father or God the Son”, means you think slavery is still a viable option. And I’ll remind you that you must also think the sun goes around the earth. You think wearing a shirt made from two kinds of thread is a sin. You think touching a woman during her period is a horror. You think that selling a daughter might be a good idea.
But you use a car to go to church that has carpeting, an HVAC system, and stained glass, with a bathtub for a baptismal, Welch’s for wine, crackers for bread. None of which Jesus did. Nor Peter. Nor Paul. Nor any Christian for 1908 years.
You’re ludicrous.
As Dan has pointed out countless times, if you’re stuck with the book, "’Teaching everything’ does not mean teaching that which is in conflict with what had already been taught by God the Father or God the Son”, means you think slavery is still a viable option. And I’ll remind you that you must also think the sun goes around the earth. You think wearing a shirt made from two kinds of thread is a sin. You think touching a woman during her period is a horror. You think that selling a daughter might be a good idea.
And you’ll need to be of the conviction that the common cold and birth defects are the results of demonic activity.
But you use a car to go to church that has carpeting, an HVAC system, and stained glass, with a bathtub for a baptismal, Welch’s for wine, crackers for bread. None of which Jesus did. Nor Peter. Nor Paul. Nor any Christian for 1908 years.
You’re ludicrous.
Dan, Marshal and Craig are chirping at Marshal’s in anxious defense against me. They so want to believe that I am moderated because of my behavior, they keep perseverating around it. So I sent a stringently clarifying note:
“I take no pride in the brutality you both thrill to. That’s not about me. That’s about your corrupt faith. And your brutality.
The false “world” lived in is yours.
Do either of you worship god the Holy Spirit who, in god’s cosmic plan, teaches us new things beyond 2000 year old papyrus? No.
Why did the belief in god by Gentiles come as a surprise to Peter, the Jewish christians traveling with him, and the Jerusalem elders? You don’t know. Neither of you know the power of the gospel and you’re both terrible at reading Scripture. Because Jesus promised that the Paraclete would teach us. But Marshal and Craig and all thugs like you two stop your ears.
That has nothing to do with me. Or with the millions of Christians like me.
Remember this: Acts 10-15 documents the believers who demanded Gentiles obey all Jewish laws. The Jerusalem Council, including Jesus’ own brother, rejected that demand. Paul rails against such Judaizers and wishes that those who had burdens to faith in Jesus Christ would castrate themselves. People like you. Saint Paul, the writer of Galatians, wishes you would emasculate yourselves.
You really gotta look in the mirror.”
I remember so clearly, Dan, how they attacked you for going on a trip with your wife given to both of you by your kids.
They’re soulless bastards who don’t know joy and have never known non-anxious love. And non-anxious love is the only divine kind. How pitiful they are.
"As Dan has pointed out countless times...etc."
You said that wrong. It should read, "as Dan has perverted Scripture when it suits him to do so as I also do..." This is what you're doing now with the several points which follow the above quote. I won't dignify such blatant lying with a reply.
"And you’ll need to be of the conviction that the common cold and birth defects are the results of demonic activity."
From what book did you get that tripe? It certainly wasn't from the Bible. The Bible doesn't teach that sort of thing. Why must you lie when you've lost a debate?
"But you use a car to go to church that has carpeting, an HVAC system, and stained glass, with a bathtub for a baptismal, Welch’s for wine, crackers for bread. None of which Jesus did. Nor Peter. Nor Paul. Nor any Christian for 1908 years."
Wow. All those books...all that education...Sad. Very sad.
"You’re ludicrous."
You're desperate. Sad. Very sad.
" Dan, Marshal and Craig are chirping at Marshal’s in anxious defense against me. They so want to believe that I am moderated because of my behavior, they keep perseverating around it."
it's funny you think we're "anxious". You're a stitch! We don't want to believe the truth about you. We want to believe you're capable of being the Christian you pretend to be. But you prefer to continue validating our low opinion of you. To wit:
"“I take no pride in the brutality you both thrill to. That’s not about me. That’s about your corrupt faith. And your brutality."
You insist we take pride in brutality, without every presenting any evidence of such a thing. It's just something you need to believe about us while you struggle to find ways of perverting Truth to validate your very unChristian hatred. Sad. Very sad.
"The false “world” lived in is yours."
Just like you, I have no idea what this means.
"Do either of you worship god the Holy Spirit who, in god’s cosmic plan, teaches us new things beyond 2000 year old papyrus?"
The Holy Spirit doesn't teach us "new things", unless you're not familiar with Christianity, which I guess means you're learning new things all the time. But not only does He not teach us "new things" (but instead teaches the same things God the Father and God the Son taught and reminds us of these things), there's nothing in Scripture which suggests that's His purpose. There's only that which you pervert to mean that, as making that invention a fact gives you liberty to promote, enable, celebrate and defend so much God prohibits. Good luck with that.
"Why did the belief in god by Gentiles come as a surprise to Peter, the Jewish christians traveling with him, and the Jerusalem elders?"
It didn't. Particularly it didn't for any of the Apostles to whom Christ sent them on the Great Commission. And you keep citing a passage in which Peter is preparing other new Christians (former Jews) about Christ's command to go out and convert other nations. You might want to actually study Scripture rather than sifting for any means you think you can find to pretend you know something.
"Neither of you know the power of the gospel and you’re both terrible at reading Scripture."
That's especially funny coming from the likes of you. You're a stitch!
" That has nothing to do with me. Or with the millions of Christians like me."
That's funny. You think there are "millions of Christians" like you! My sides are aching!
"Remember this: Acts 10-15 documents the believers who demanded Gentiles obey all Jewish laws"
You pervert this to mean the Holy Spirit taught what not already taught. I've shown you how stupid that notion is. Like Dan, you ignore evidence I present. Now, you prefer to believe that living according to the teachings of Scripture is akin to being a "Judaizer" because of your disordered need to believe yourself superior in knowledge. Abiding Scripture doesn't allow you to do that, so you make shit up and pretend it's from the Spirit and pervert Scripture you reject to validate the shit you make up.
"I remember so clearly, Dan, how they attacked you for going on a trip with your wife given to both of you by your kids."
You remember it tainted by your Christ-mocking hatred. Dan speaks of simple living. One would think if he was truly convicted in this policy he would have thanked his kids but refused the hyper-consumerism of the gift (assuming there was time to cancel the trip to use the money to give to the poor for whom Dan pretends to care so much). I thought it was quite cool the kids did that for their parents, even given one of them is Dan. I still do. But Dan then tried to mitigate the contradiction by saying they were not staying in five star hotels after flying first class. Dan would have been a dick to leave the kids holding the bag, but how could they possibly have thought Dan would accept such a lavish gift given his simply living philosophy? It was a legit question, not an attack, though clearly in your fake Christian way, you need to regard it as an attack. I hope Dan thoroughly enjoyed the trip. I hope God grants you both an epiphany before it's too late.
"They’re soulless bastards who don’t know joy and have never known non-anxious love. And non-anxious love is the only divine kind. How pitiful they are."
I believe this is what Dan calls "embracing grace". And I'm supposed to pretend it isn't your behavior which continues to inform my righteous decision to deny you at my blog. How viciously brutalizing you are! "Non-anxious love"! My how you like to make shit up!
Clearly we're done here. You've proven you've nothing to offer but your hatred and perversion of Scripture.
Marshal does the following:
1. Says that Peter didn't understand Jesus. Which is worse than what we say about the New Testament's historical cultural situation in ancient ethics about gender roles, slavery, and sex.
Since Peter got Jesus wrong, then his letters shouldn't be scripture. What else did he get wrong? Marshal ineradicably tarnished his book god.
2. Forgets that the Great Commission was given by the Messiah of the Jews. The apostles understood that the Jews scattered all around the Roman world - Hellenistic Jews - needed to hear. Which is why they only went to the Jewish temples and synagogues of Asia Minor upon arrival.
As Acts 10-15 makes clear, Gentiles being included was an unexpected surprise to Peter and those with him and the news shocked the Jerusalem elders.
"While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the gentiles." (NEITHER JESUS NOR PETER HAD PREPARED THEM.)
3. Marshal is duplicitous to suggest that millions of Christians do not respect our scriptures. We love scripture. Scripture is the revelation of the nature of God and the living Christ. Scripture points to the coming of and the activity of the Holy Spirit within the body of Christ.
The book makes sense only when animated by belief in the Holy Spirit who is greater than the book. If one worships the book, one cannot live as a Christian outside its cultural limitations. Which is ass-backward stupid.
It is scripture that points to something - someone - greater than it is, and that one will teach all things not contained in scripture.
It is the extremist Christian terrorist who does not believe in the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Bible is an infallible book to the Marshal and the thugs. Without it, they don't know where to stand. Because they have no faith in the living god being present to them.
And just as that contingent that remained constant throughout the New Testament who were committed to having Gentiles be circumcised and obedient to Jewish law, Marshal and the other thugs want the same control of others: change how you look; change your culture; be exactly like us.
4. Objects to calling him mendacious and scabrous. The above brutalities Marshal perpetrates on Scripture and god the Holy Spirit justify even more approbation.
And, maybe I'm wrong, but Marshal gives lip service to the biblical adage: treat others as you would have them treat you.
We all have read as Marshal has heaped profane and abusive spittle on Dan for years. I assume that's how Marshal wants to be treated. Brutalists love that kind of stuff.
___
Marshal is done here because he knows he's ignoring Acts 10-15. He's rejecting his own book god.
Marshal: NO MORE COMMENTS until you answer the question/request below.
Feodor rightly noted the NT text that says:
“I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything..."
Marshal can’t read his book."
Marshal responded:
Sure I can. And it rarely... says what you need it to mean. "Teaching everything" does not mean teaching that which is in conflict with what had already been taught by God the Father or God the Son...
PROVE IT. I GET that this is your personal human opinion and that's fine if you personally want to hold that opinion (even while claiming to be a sort-of literalist, when it comes to the Bible... or at least the parts you personally want to try to take sort of literally).
But admit that this is just your personal whimsical preference and opinion and not an objective fact. That is, "teaching everything" does not mean teachings that might conflict with one or the other rulings/opinions expressed in the Bible, like that slavery is okay or that forced marriages are okay.
EITHER PROVE that God is limited to opinions that affirm older texts with rules specific to an earlier people - PROVE IT OBJECTIVELY - or admit that this is just your personal opinion, not something you can objectively prove.
This remains the log in your eye that I don't know that you even can recognize is there. Thus, the problem with eye-bound logs.
Irrespective of Marshal’s bad faith logic, what he HAS said clearly is that Jesus said something meaningless: whatever the Spirit may teach, it’s already been taught.
Which means that Marshal has also intimated that the Holy Spirit is redundant and foolish.
No one said contradict, liar. Don’t make up myths to soothe your fragile faith.
The Holy Spirit continues to teach us all things according to god’s plan. Jesus, bring the chief prophet, foretells this.
You reject your book god because you’re afraid of the Spirit. You’re stunted.
Marshal always goes to gender slurs when he’s beaten. His masculinity is insecure.
btw, Marshal, this! is what a troll looks like:
content empty
anxiously intimidated
nothing but a juvenile sneer for a mind
DAN!!!
I've gotten a few comments at my blog under this name: "Dan Trabue (Upgraded, Embalmed Version)". As has happened before, I'm not convinced the person submitting comments under this name is you. Can you verify one way or the other?
An open note to Marshal and Craig who continue to talk about me and refuse Jesus:
What's obvious to the most casual observer is that you don't have an answer for John 14:26. Not even one that satisfies either of you. Because in John 14:6, Jesus does not lift up the Bible but instead glorifies the Holy Spirit as the principal guiding hand for the church.
And not just guiding. But teaching more and more. Everything, in fact. And as Yahweh increasingly revealed the plan for Israel in the Hebrew scriptures, and Jesus increasingly revealed more and more of "the secret of the Messiah" in the birth of the Christian faith, so, too, the Holy Spirit, being god has more to teach us about god's plan for us in the christian living.
And so it has been. The church has gone through every human epoch for two millennia with increasing knowledge of love and its practice. How could it have been otherwise? So, what is obvious is that it is not scripture, but rather life with the Holy Spirit that includes scripture, the Holy Spirit giving scripture it's "god-breahted"ness just as the Spirit animates everything good with it's god-breathedness.
And NONE OF THIS DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR! Not even one that satisfies you.
It's not my behavior that you must ignore. It's the thing in your hand that you worship more than the Spirit that you have to block by willful ignorance from time to time. It's your silence - and your diversionary focus on me, and on Dan, too (you treat him with open contempt as a deflection) when you don't know how to deal with your own source of faith.
Your source of faith is a book. And because the book isn't anything without the god the Holy Spirit - eventually you get bogged down, sense failure, and turn away.
That's your behavior. As brutalizing christians, you can't take a loving Spirit.
Marshal, of course the comments on your post are not from me. I would encourage you to just delete whatever it is, as it's likely not even a person, just an AI being used to jerk your chains.
I've deleted all the comments from my own little troll, whatever that was (AI or actual human).
Fred Ted Ted (or whatever the goofy name was), only actual humans with actual names can comment here and you have to have something adult and respectful worth saying.
Marshal, to you, I repeat:
Marshal responded:
Sure I can. And it rarely... says what you need it to mean. "Teaching everything" does not mean teaching that which is in conflict with what had already been taught by God the Father or God the Son...
PROVE IT.
I GET that this is your personal human opinion and that's fine if you personally want to hold that opinion (even while claiming to be a sort-of literalist, when it comes to the Bible... or at least the parts you personally want to try to take sort of literally).
But admit that this is just your personal whimsical preference and opinion and not an objective fact. That is, "teaching everything" does not mean teachings that might conflict with one or the other rulings/opinions expressed in the Bible, like that slavery is okay or that forced marriages are okay.
EITHER PROVE that God is limited to opinions that affirm older texts with rules specific to an earlier people - PROVE IT OBJECTIVELY - or admit that this is just your personal opinion, not something you can objectively prove.
"Sure I can. And it rarely... says what you need it to mean. "Teaching everything" does not mean teaching that which is in conflict with what had already been taught by God the Father or God the Son...
PROVE IT."
No. First of all, this doesn't even reflect the nature of the disagreement. Your boy insists that the Holy Spirit teaches "new" things, but offers no examples except his own favored contradictions of Scripture, such as the toleration of LGBTQ+++ behaviors and women pastors. In his fevered imaginings, it was the work of the Holy Spirit which informed those who happened to already favor those things...not that the Spirit changed their minds about them. So, the burden of proof is on feo and you to support the notion the Spirit would lead people to that which is in conflict with clear Biblical teaching. He doesn't. Prove me wrong.
"But admit that this is just your personal whimsical preference and opinion and not an objective fact."
Not opinion at all, despite how desperately you need to embrace this invention. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One and the Same. Since God is, was and always will be the same, it is absurd to suggest that any of the three entities of the same God would act in conflict with the other two. It is logically impossible. It would be like you telling people that murder is wrong and then putting a bullet in their head right after saying so.
"That is, "teaching everything" does not mean teachings that might conflict with one or the other rulings/opinions expressed in the Bible, like that slavery is okay or that forced marriages are okay."
Why do you keep bringing up examples like these which you've never proven Scripture supports as "OK"? Are you again going to speak of some who might believe that to be the case, as if it has any relevance here? I'm not playing that game anymore.
"EITHER PROVE that God is limited to opinions that affirm older texts with rules specific to an earlier people - PROVE IT OBJECTIVELY - or admit that this is just your personal opinion, not something you can objectively prove."
I never said that God is limited in any way, but that He doesn't change. Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, Isaiah 40:8, Numbers 23:19, James 1:17, Psalm 119:89, Psalm 102:27, Romans 12;2 (an important verse you and feo should repeat to start and end each day, so conformed to the world are you two), Revelation 1:8, Psalm 110:4, 1 Peter 1:25.
To pretend that there are any cases where God is acting in conflict with what has been said already requires proof from you, not proof from me to serve your demands. He's been moving toward the same end game since the beginning and all things He's said or done have served that end game. Nothing is in conflict except to those who pervert out of context snippets to make that case.
It's really tiresome that you pretend to care about "adult conversation" yet constantly default to demanding proof for every utterance, while never doing a damned thing to confirm I'm in error. "PROVE IT!!!" is just another white flag of surrender for you.
Marshal writes as if he’s never called you, Dan, a piece of shit, and 100 other similar nicities.
He’s a committed stone cold liar.
t's really tiresome that you pretend to care about "adult conversation" yet constantly default to demanding proof for every utterance, while never doing a damned thing to confirm I'm in error.
As always, I am abundantly clear when I'm offering my opinions and when they can't be objectively proven. We can't objectively prove that God loves gay folk and doesn't hate the idea of them being married. I'm clear about it. I think it is a rational GIVEN, that it is abundantly obvious from a moral and rational point of view, but I can't prove it objectively. And I'm clear about it.
You, on the other hand, (You, collectively) tend to act and pronounce and exclaim and denounce AS IF you believe you DO hold objectively proven positions on LGBTQ matters, on salvation, on grace, on atonement, etc, etc... AS IF your opinions are objectively proven. IF you're stating that you have objective proof of your opinions, THEN the onus is on you to provide that data.
You never do, not one time, but at the same time, you either act as if you have or say you don't have to.
But yes, you do. In rational, adult conversations, IF one is making a claim of objective fact - especially about something as serious and potentially oppressive as their opinions about God and eternal damnation - THEN such people have to be willing to present that objectively proven data.
Failing that, we can be fairly certain they - you - can't and your failure to even TRY to support your claims objectively, as well as your pharisee-like arrogance in acting as if you don't even NEED to prove your false claims is all the evidence to see that your side doesn't have the rational wherewithal to prove their false claims NOR the humility to admit that they can't. You just have bluster and arrogance and bullying. And while that may work in certain middle/grade school circles, it just doesn't in decent, respectful, rational adult conversations.
But let me try it this way with some easy-to-answer questions:
1. IS slavery always a great and atrocious evil, an affront to human rights and basic decency? ALWAYS and in every circumstance?
2. IS the deliberate and wide spread slaughter of men, women and children and infants always a great and atrocious evil, an affront to human rights and basic decency? ALWAYS and in every circumstance?
3. ARE there times in the Bible where, taken literally, "God" literally commands Israel to enslave people?
4. ARE there times in the Bible where, taken literally, "God" literally commands the wholesale slaughter of a whole city, including the children and infants?
5. DOES God command evil actions?
6. DOES God's rules/rulings on evil behavior evolve, depending on circumstances, times and people?
Answer those questions directly, clearly and without obfuscation. Or, saying, "I don't know" will be allowed.
Some anonymous, unnamed and cowardly stranger asked me to tell feodor to behave, and they did so (if "they" are not just Russian trolls or AI bogeymen) with abusive, vulgar language.
Be adult, little troll. And failing that, move on from here.
Marshal, in a vulgar and childish and abusive bit of nonsense, said...
******* insists that the Holy Spirit teaches "new" things, but offers no examples except his own favored contradictions of Scripture, such as the toleration of ***** behaviors and ****** pastors.
IF YOU are making the claim that, as a matter of objective fact, that a God might create rules in ancient times and that those rules are always and forever in all places, universal, PROVE IT. YOU are the one making a claim. It's not sufficient to make such a sweeping claim and presume it's right and expect others to work around your bigoted imagination. You're begging the question, among other fallacies.
Further, you're making the guess and claim that God opposes women and LGBTQ folks and beginning with that bigoted presumption without proof. That's begging the question.
You can't just claim you're right and expect adults to dance around your bigoted and unproven presumptions.
PROVE IT.
Marshal:
In his fevered imaginings, it was the work of the Holy Spirit which informed those who happened to already favor those things...not that the Spirit changed their minds about them. So, the burden of proof is on feo and you to support the notion the Spirit would lead people to that which is in conflict with clear Biblical teaching. He doesn't.
And in YOUR fevered and unproven and childish imagination, YOU presume that YOU know what God wanted people in ancient times to do regarding some limited personal presumptions that you personally hold and have not proven to be objectively true. So, NO, the burden of proof is on you.
And IF you had proof - objective, indisputable proof - you WOULD provide it. You haven't precisely because you can't. And yet your arrogance and ancient bigotries and sexism will not allow you to humbly admit it. Instead, you do what white men in power have long done (and sometimes non-white men): Try to bully your way into dominance.
But it doesn't work for people who aren't cowards or willing to condone your childish, belligerent oppression.
Marshal:
To pretend that there are any cases where God is acting in conflict with what has been said already requires proof from you, not proof from me to serve your demands.
I. I'm saying that it is RATIONAL and MORALLY consistent to say that IF there is a just God, that such God is not unjust and doesn't make unjust commands. REGARDLESS of what some biblical text may say or how YOU personally may personally choose to interpret biblical text, it's RATIONAL to recognize that a perfectly just God will act in a perfectly just way.
I don't need the Bible or your personal assumptions and bigotries to recognize that bit of basic moral reasoning.
II. I'm saying that slavery is, from a morally reasonable point of view for people with a high view of human rights, ALWAYS a great and terrible evil.
I don't need the Bible or your personal assumptions and bigotries to recognize that bit of basic moral reasoning.
III. That YOU personally, would like to wish that people offer a biblical verse for any given opinion doesn't matter a damn bit. We aren't your slaves to bow to your gutless and cowardly demands. We're adults with moral reasoning. You should learn from that.
I repeat: I don't need the Bible or your personal assumptions and bigotries to recognize that bit of basic moral reasoning.
IV. IF YOU want to argue that God sometimes commands people to literally slaughter children or enslave people or ANY other evil, YOU are the one making the vulgar, evil and irrational claim. The onus is on you.
Your failure to support your claims or admit you can't is proof that you can't because they are stupidly and morally ineptly false.
To say that Peter, his traveling Jewish posse, and the Jerusalem church weren’t surprised that the Holy Spirit came upon Gentiles and accepted them as believers is just a lie against scripture.
Peter Acts 10: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right”
Peter’s posse Acts 10: “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.”
The Jerusalem elders Acts 11: “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning….”
When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
It’s also a deep lie about Christian life. The Holy Spirit has always taught the faithful and the good, new things.
But Marshal chooses ignorance and blindness over the obvious goodness of the living god.
So he worships a book - but doesn’t believe it either.
According to god’s own good time, the Spirit has always taught us more and more. Peter was shocked by the Spirit telling him to go spend time with the Gentiles because god had told Israel never to eat meat with the Gentiles as the did did not keep the laws on training animals of their blood before eating.
Gen 9 “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.”
Lev 17 “I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”
But in Acts 10, the Holy Spirit is now telling Peter something quite different: go, eat with the Gentiles!
What the new Jewish Christian community was learning - by the teaching of the Holy Spirit (things Jesus didn’t teach them) - was that the Gospel promise of redemption in Jesus Christ was now available to all people and not just one group.
Peter stuttered at this lesson.
Paul later reprimands him for turning his back on complete acceptance of Gentiles and their culture that the Spirit had taught him.
And on the universal promise of redemption, Paul was clear that everything had changed from what God once said (according to the Hebrew Scriptures at least):
Paul in Galatians: “If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.”
Paul in Romans: “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.”
Paul to Timothy: “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.”
If Marshal is bothered by what he sees as god’s “contradiction”, that’s Mardhsl’s problem with believing in the Holy Spirit.
As Jesus said in John, there’s more to come and the Spirit - not the Bible - will teach us everything.
“For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.”
As we have learned from the Spirit, Dan, this goes for all good things and all good people. Women are equal to men. Gay marriage as a life long commitment is equal to mine. Etc etc etc.
God is loving, so god is good.
And now we’ve come across another thing Marshal wasn’t able to tolerate much less answer:
Peter, an apostle, went wrong.
Marshal cannot abide that part of the New Testament - Gal 2 - where Paul rebukes Peter for going back on “saved by faith” for the Gentiles when some other Jewish Christian’s were present at Antioch. Peter even led Barnabas astray for a minute.
If Apostles can go wrong in behavior, then we have to read what they wrote closely and examine it in light of our experience with the Spirit. They may have gotten a few things wrong. Only natural. Or they were limited by their time. Which would be natural and no fault of their own.
Jesse, you're welcome to comment here on topic. That's all.
Marshal...
You don't have a single thing which suggests it's possible God would bless and SSM. NOTHING!
? Says who? GOD IS LOVE. What is the DEFINING characteristic of God? LOVE. What ARE the defining characteristics of God as described in the Bible which you pretend to sort of take seriously? LOVE, Love of ALL, Welcome to ALL, Justice for ALL, GRACE. In what rational world would a Perfect God of perfect love, grace and welcoming NOT love LGBTQ folks? In what rational world would a perfect God of perfect love, grace and welcoming NOT REJOICE in people engaging in healthy, loving, respectful, gracious marriage commitments?
WHY would God NOT rejoice in it? It's self-evident IF you aren't a bigot against LGBTQ folks, as I once was. Using moral reasoning to come to a reasonable and "hit me in the face with a 2x4 OBVIOUS" conclusion IS something. You can't say it's nothing because YOU have nothing to support that claim. But you do not appear to even understand that. That is, you're too ignorant to recognize your own ignorance of your bigotry and complete and total lack of ANYTHING to dispute this moral reasoning.
Move on, Marshal.
Using vulgar, oppressive, demeaning words, Marshal said WITH NO SUPPORT:
If the behavior which underlies a relationship is considered an *********, how can any honest person suppose there's any possibility that God would bless a union based on behavior clearly and unmistakably regarded as an *********?
You're begging the question. You have NO FOUNDATION to consider YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN BIGOTRY against an oppressed group to be a given. You're STARTING with the presumption that your bigotry is right and asking that people prove you wrong. You're wrong because you have NOT ONE THING to support your bigoted hateful oppression and vulgar attacks.
You lose.
Marshal will never be able to accept the witness of the Holy Spirit in his own life because he cannot deal with the movement of the Spirit testified to by scripture. Neither can he answer to John 14, Acts 10-15, nor the issue of god forbidding eating like Gentiles and then, after Jesus’ ascension, disregarding that injunction. And Paul’s rebuke of Peter, an apostle, he will also elude with bad faith claims.
Because Marshal worships an idol book that is in husband’s but a book that must agree with what’s in his head. And his head was taught by helicopter engineers and generational white supremacy.
So it goes with all the other thugs, too, and such brutalizing faith is why I name them that. Because on the face of what they write, it’s true.
___
And Marshal is so dense he doesn’t realize that admitting he’s used disparaging language - though more more vulgar - no less then I have is admitting that it’s not my behavior that the thugs block me. It’s because they are triggered by being recognized for their brutality.
It doesn’t take a genius to see it. All decent people see it.
Marshal, in a vulgar and now-deleted comment, said:
So you have this "opinion" you can't prove, which you can't even argue is possible. You simply assert that it's the case without basis of any kind.
1. As a point of objective, demonstrable fact, YOU CAN'T prove your bigoted opinion about a small, petty, graceless, loveless, irrational godling is opposed to LGBTQ folks, opposed to gay folk marrying. And I can't prove it objectively, either. We can't objectively prove our opinions about what God thinks.
If you could, you would. Your (collective) complete inability to even TRY to objectively prove your human bigotries are cool with your graceless godling is evidence of that. IF you could, you would. You all never have and that's just the objective, demonstrable fact.
2. I'm not asserting it with NO basis. I'm saying it's rationally moral to allow gay and lesbian folks to choose who they want to marry because, why wouldn't we. It's REASONABLY rational and moral. You have not even begun to try to dispute the reasoning behind it.
It's reasonable because they are free-will adults who can decide for themselves who they love and who they want to marry.
It's reasonable because adults SHOULD reasonably be able to make their own decisions about marriage, regardless of what some religious zealots may think.
It's reasonable because committing to another to love, honor and respect is OF COURSE a good thing. Because Love, Honor, Support, Nurture, Respect, Rejoice in, Celebrate... these are all reasonably good things.
It's reasonable because children being raised in a loving family - gay or straight or otherwise - is good for society.
It's reasonable because someone having a marriage partner to support them in life is helpful, it's kind, it's compassionate, it's nurturing, it's wholesome.
Whether you personally, in your bigotry and failed human reasoning AGREE with these reasons, they ARE legitimate reasons. Reasons you've not been able to disprove or show to be mistaken.
That you don't agree with the reasons does not mean that I've not pointed to morally rational reasons for supporting LGBTQ folks. YOU are not God. You're not even your pissant little graceless godling.
Marshal, in a vulgar, hateful and unsupported comment that's now deleted, said:
If you're stating my position can't be true, then the onus is on your to provide a legitimate alternative which can be supported with fact.
I'm stating as a point of fact, that you have not and CAN NOT objectively PROVE your bigoted and hateful opinions are objectively factual. That's a demonstrable fact. There is NO WHERE where you've objectively proven your hateful subjective opinions and your ugly, impotent notion of a petty little blood-godling.
IF you could objectively prove it, you would have by now.
MERELY citing biblical passages and telling us what you personally think they mean IS NOT OBJECTIVE PROOF.
I don't think you understand that, but it's just the reality of it all.
Move on. You've lost.
I asked:
"1. IS slavery always a great and atrocious evil, an affront to human rights and basic decency? ALWAYS and in every circumstance?"
Marshal answered directly and clearly (good on you, as far as that goes):
No.
Wow. No. That never gets easier to hear. One of the greatest recognized evils of all of humanity is slavery - one human owning OTHER humans and forcing them into labor... this is NOT a clear and great evil, to Marshal and his colleagues.
It's just incredibly sickening and, well, evil.
If you don't understand why one human OWNING another human and FORCING them as a piece of property to do their bidding - whether that's slaving over a farm or bedding them down against their will - if you don't understand why that's not ALWAYS a great and diabolical evil, there's just something wrong with your moral reasoning.
You're broken. Bent. Deviant. Get help.
The Klan called and said you're giving them a bad name.
I asked:
"2. IS the deliberate and wide spread slaughter of men, women and children and infants always a great and atrocious evil, an affront to human rights and basic decency? ALWAYS and in every circumstance?"
Marshal vaguely answered:
Yes, but it really depends on the people being slaughtered and why.
? IS it ALWAYS a great evil OR does it depend on why they're being slaughtered? Are there SOME conditions where the widespread slaughter of men, women and children is NOT a great evil?
You're irrationally hedging your bets. Come on. This is easy: IS it always wrong to slaughter children and babies?
I asked:
"3. ARE there times in the Bible where, taken literally, "God" literally commands Israel to enslave people?"
Marshal directly but incorrectly answered:
No.
Well, you're just factually wrong. I can point to text in the Bible where, in the story being told, "God" literally commands people to enslave other human beings.
According to an account attributed to God in Exodus 21:
“When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment,
for the slave is the owner’s property.
AS IF that were a rationally moral option.
Also in Exodus 21:
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave,
she shall not go out as the male slaves do.
If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself,
then he shall let her be redeemed;
he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people,
since he has dealt unfairly with her.
What sick perverts. Selling their daughters into sexual slavery. And Marshal, ignoring this literal text.
And in Leviticus 25, "God" again condones slavery:
As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property.
You may keep them as a possession for your children after you,
for them to inherit
AS PROPERTY.
These you may treat as slaves
And in Deut 20, where they speak of enemy nations:
If they open the gates and surrender,
they are all to become your slaves and
do forced labor for you.
But if the people of that city will not surrender, but choose to fight,
surround it with your army.
Then, when the Lord your God lets you capture the city, kill every man in it.
You may, however,
take for yourselves the women,
THE CHILDREN,
the livestock, and everything else in the city.
You may use everything that belongs to your enemies.
The Lord has given it to you.
Or, in Deut 24, where "God" endorses sex slavery:
“If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged and
seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered,
the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver
to the young woman’s father,
and she shall become his wife.
Because he violated her,
he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.
Sick deviant supporters of even sexual slavery and rape.
In short, the Bible has MANY texts where God either condones, allows or commands slavery. You're just factually wrong on this point, Marshal.
How are all these instances NOT God either condoning, allowing or outright commanding slavery? In the literal text, it's literally, objectively, observably there.
More, Deut 21:
“When you go out to war against your enemies and
the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive,
suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and
want to "marry,"
and so
you bring her home to your house:
she shall shave her head, pare her nails,
discard her captive’s garb, and
remain in your house a full month mourning for her father and mother;
after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and
she shall be your wife.
But if you are not satisfied with her,
you shall let her go free and certainly not sell her for money.
You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
Sick perverted deviants. Not even giving her the dignity of calling her a slave, she was just rejected sex objects.
Sick, deviant rapists, looking to a "loving god" to justify their sex slavery and rape. And Marshal defending this indecency and sex trafficking. Or worse, ignoring it.
I asked:
"4. ARE there times in the Bible where, taken literally, "God" literally commands the wholesale slaughter of a whole city, including the children and infants?"
Marshal answered:
Yes.
I asked:
"5. DOES God command evil actions?"
Marshal answered:
No.
So, you acknowledge that SOME TIMES, God literally commanded the slaughter of women, children and babies AND YET, you also say that God does not command evil actions.
Does that mean you do NOT think that the wholesale slaughter of women, children and babies is always a evil action???
Marshal, being an idiot, cannot recognize verb forms. But scripture does. Marshal, you're shown yourself to be absolutely wrong. Totally failed. Absolutely shredded. By the Bible.
"Peter Acts 10: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right”
M: You're assuming without basis that "I now realize" means he just got it…"
No. I am not. I read koine Greek. And Koine Greek is the basis of NT scripture. Ἐπ’ ἀληθείας καταλαμβάνομαι is koine Greek for "In truth, I am now understanding…" Present indicative 1st person singular indicating that the action of "understanding" is actually happening now, in the present time.
This is why all bible translations represent Peter as "realizing just now."
NIV: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.
RSV: “Truly I perceive [present tense] that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
Jer: ‘The truth I have now come to realise’ he said ‘is that God does not have favourites, but that anybody of any nationality who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to him.
As for the Great Commission, Jesus was responding to the disciples asking him if he was going to restore the kingdom. Jesus tells them, "'It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you…" This of course, is yet another time where Jesus, by the testimony of scripture, says that the church will need to be taught more and more by the Holy Spirit and not a book.
FURTHER, Jesus does not mention Gentiles. And the apostles did not go to them when they went to the Hellenistic world. They went to the synagogues. Paul, when he was Saul and persecuting the Christians, asked the High Priest for letters to the synagogues in Damascus (Acts 9) because he was hunting for "disciples of the Lord." And the only places he was looking was in synagogs for people "belonging to The Way, men or women." It is was in synagogues, among Jews that Saul/Paul was looking. And it was on his approach to Damascus that Saul/Paul had a vision striking him down but opening his eyes. And it was the Jew, Anani'as, who the Lord told to go looking for Saul in the house of the Jew, Judas. "And without delay, he [Saul/Paul} proclaimed Jesus publicly IN THE SYNAGOGUE… But Saul went from strength to strength and, and confounded THE JEWS OF DAMASCUS with his cogent proofs that Jesus was the MESSIAH." After which, Saul went back to Jerusalem.
You have no basis, MARSHAL, to suggest that the apostles and disciples were told anything about Gentiles. It just isn't there.
AND STILL FURTHER, as we've already noted but Marshal has rejected, Peter, while he was in Ceaserea - a Jewish town in Israel not outside it - resisted three time the Holy Spirit's declaration that nothing God now called clean is unclean any longer. Peter put up a fight, but the Holy Spirit won. And yet, Peter wasn't the first to speak to Gentiles, forced to though he was. Acts 11: "Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord."
Peter did not want to speak to Gentiles. Marshal lies about this. Peter acknowledges his faithfulness to the Jewish law. Only some of the scattered disciples took it upon themselves to speak to Gentiles. This was new. Jesus handn't said a word about Gentiles. Jews were already cast out into all the nations. This is clearly what the apostles and the disciples were convinced of: tell the Jews the Messiah had come. That was all Paul knew to say at first.
There is no other reading of Acts.
But then! the Holy Spirit taught them that all of Israelite tradition had been turned on its head. It was the Holy Spirit who taught the church more and more as the church developed. Just as Jesus said in John 14. This has always been true. Even today.
Unless, like Marshal and the other thugs, one denies the Holy Spirit.
And then, of course, Marshal makes up total fabrications.
"When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”"
M: Yes, the Jerusalem elders, not Peter. Of course this was in reference to the elders expecting the Gentiles to adopt Jewish practice, such as circumcision.
___
You've made this up entirely, liar.
Nothing in how they reacted had to do with anything except to the unexpected "even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life."
If one actual reads scripture that makes up the book of Acts, we see that is not for some chapters detailing the growing ministry of Paul and Barnabas among Jews AND now Gentiles in Asia Minor that the Jerusalem assembly takes up the question of what Gentiles are responsible for in Christian practice vis a vis Jewish Christians.
Acts 15: "Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question."
You totally lied, Marshal.
John 14
Acts 10
Acts 11
Acts 15
Galatians 5
1 Corinthians 10
1 Timothy 4
Marshal has lied about all of these passages. Openly. Brazenly. With gusto. He lies about verbs and nouns and he puts words in Jesus mouth. All while claiming to believe the Bible.
When you cannot believe in the living god, Marshal, but trap him in a book, you desert your god. You've become a brazen liar and coward. There is no longer a bone of honesty within you. You're lost.
Marshal, entirely missing the point, says:
But because you're a pervert, you pervert Scripture to imply that God specifically targeted children.
I've been abundantly clear that those times which the Bible has texts which suggest that God commands the slaughter of men, women, children and babies of an entire city/region, that the command is the slaughter of men, women, children and babies. I've not said that God specifically said that Israel should ONLY kill the children. THAT is a stupidly and demonstrably false claim. It's nothing I've ever said.
BUT, what I HAVE done is point to the texts in question and note that "God" (as cited in the passages in question) SPECIFICALLY identifies and includes children and babies in the list of those to be slaughtered.
So, two things:
1. Your claim is stupidly and demonstrably false. I never said God said "ONLY kill the children." It's a false claim. Apologize.
2. God IS quoted as saying specifically slaughter the children and babies.
Now that your nonsense false claim has been dispensed...
Until you can come up with an actual evidence based argument for an alternative to what Scripture clearly says, you're not "winning" any debate by these perversions of Scripture.
An alternative? How about this: GOD DOES NOT COMMAND PEOPLE TO TAKE EVIL ACTIONS AND KILLING BABIES AND CHILDREN IS ALWAYS AN EVIL ACTION?
What is wrong with that rational and moral conclusion? WHY do you fight so hard to defend the human theory of an infanticidal blood godling?
Marshal:
You insist that God is unjust or that those who recorded His words and actions lied about Him, yet you make no effort to support this nonsensical, worthlessly self-serving statement.
1. I have never - not one time ever in all of the history of the world - "insisted that God is unjust." That is a false claim and a stupidly false claim. That I disagree with YOU is not the same as disagreeing with God. I think you're stupidly wrong in suggesting that your godling commands evil actions, including the slaughtering of children.
Apologize for your stupidly, demonstrably false claim.
2. I'm not saying ANYONE "lied" about God. Again, a stupidly false claim easily proven by reading ALL my words ever and seeing this is nothing I've said.
3. I HAVE allowed that ancient stories often told in a mythic or legendary manner may not be relied upon as a literally factual history. Because of course, they aren't. It doesn't mean anyone is lying.
4. I'm also noting the reality that the books of the Bible are stories written down my HUMANS, not God. And that, according to the Bible.
5. I'm further noting that the Bible tells stories and lessons in a variety of literary manners, not all of which are claimed to be literal history.
These are all observable realities. You're just factually, literally wrong. These are false claims.
On the other hand, if YOU, mortal, think that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God sometimes commands people to slaughter children and infants, well, I associate THAT claim with you, not with God.
Yeah, Dan, quit deleting everybody's comments. Let readers see whatever it is that you claim is wicked and vile. They can come to their own conclusions about who is right about what. You must think you have a superior intellect and know what is best for everyone else. Well, here's a newsflash: You don't.
"David Riggs," a complete unknown with a totally empty blog and no contact information: IF you have something helpful to say on topic, you can. Unknown and anonymous and unsupported, irrational, "nothing" comments will be deleted, as you're likely not even a real person.
People who consistently make unsupported, hateful, bigoted comments AND who won't admit that it's merely their unsupported opinion, not a proven fact WILL be deleted.
There are real oppressed people who've been harmed by people like Marshal and me, once upon a time. I won't aid in the oppression of people. I support being loving, kind and gracious. I will ally myself with the oppressed. I find this reasonable, even though people like Marshal (and me, once upon a time) may disagree.
If you can't identify yourself, "David," you will be deleted and assumed to be a Russian troll-bot.
Your feigned outrage stems from you irrational insistence that slavery is always wrong, without consideration for situations where it might make sense. I mentioned the prison system.
People going to JAIL to pay a debt to society is NOT slavery. Words have meanings. NO ONE "owns" the people in prison. They aren't being forced to work (or be raped) for the benefit of another. To the degree they work, it's to pay their debt to society.
There may be some places where imprisonment approaches slavery, but it's not slavery and in those cases where it approaches slavery, that, TOO, is wrong.
Slavery is always a great evil. One human (or family) owning another human and forcing them to labor for them or be raped by them is always a great evil.
If you can't recognize that, you are not in a position to reasonably understand morality nor the God of humanity who came to preach good news to the enslaved and otherwise oppressed.
Marshal:
However, in cases where a people support a despotic government, as was the case in Japan in WWII and is now the case in Gaza, it is neither wrong nor immoral to devastate the population in order to stop that civilian supported despotic government from attacking actual innocent people.
Marshal continues to defend the notion that SOMETIMES it's a moral option to enslave people and to kill innocent people, including children and infants.
He does so without being able to objectively prove it. He does so believing in his head that he is agreeing with his "godling" on that point. But he continues to insist that he doesn't have to support this deviant evil on his part.
Not here.
1. You can't objectively prove that the Almighty God of Love and Justice is anything like your shriveled POS deviant pissant godling.
2. You refuse to even admit the reality that you can't objectively prove your evil opinions are "right."
3. You won't post unsupported vulgarities and promote evil here.
IF you want to finally acknowledge that your deviant evil opinions are NOT objectively proven and only your deviant and sick opinion, THEN at least you'd be acknowledging a bit of reality and such opinions, acknowledged as personal and subjective, might be allowed to stay here.
But unsupported and grossly perverted subjective opinions will not.
Move on. You've lost and you're just disgracing yourself.
Unsupported opinions will be deleted.
“Marshal continues to defend the notion that SOMETIMES it's a moral option to enslave people and to kill innocent people, including children and infants.”
Yep. It’s an ideology only possible when one worships a book instead of the Spirit and that teaches how scripture and experience within the body of Christ interpret each other.
If, as a Christian, you can’t worship the living triune god, you’ll allow yourself to be a brutalizer.
And Craig and Stan and the other thugs will justify themselves in their brutalizing politics because they only do it from an armchair.
But god sees the hearts of men.
Indeed, Feodor. Their actions and hills they choose to die on are often very strange. Craig was recently berating me for suggesting that STEALING could sometimes be a moral option, as in the nuns who steal a Nazi's carburetor to allow oppressed Jews time to escape (a la, Sound of Music). Craig appears to want to say that ALL stealing is wrong (God said, "thou shalt not steal") AND YET, he and Marshal, et al are reluctant or just refuse to say that ALL slaughtering of children is wrong.
!
??
So very, very strange.
Partisan loyalty can sure make for some significant rational moral failures.
Marshal:
However, in cases where a people support a despotic government, as was the case in Japan in WWII and is now the case in Gaza, it is neither wrong nor immoral to devastate the population in order to stop that civilian supported despotic government from attacking actual innocent people.
Marshal continues to defend the notion that SOMETIMES it's a moral option to enslave people and to kill innocent people, including children and infants.
He does so without being able to objectively prove it. He does so believing in his head that he is agreeing with his "godling" on that point. But he continues to insist that he doesn't have to support this deviant evil on his part.
Not here.
1. You can't objectively prove that the Almighty God of Love and Justice is anything like your shriveled POS deviant pissant godling.
2. You refuse to even admit the reality that you can't objectively prove your evil opinions are "right."
3. You won't post unsupported vulgarities and promote evil here.
IF you want to finally acknowledge that your deviant evil opinions are NOT objectively proven and only your deviant and sick opinion, THEN at least you'd be acknowledging a bit of reality and such opinions, acknowledged as personal and subjective, might be allowed to stay here.
But unsupported and grossly perverted subjective opinions will not.
Move on. You've lost and you're just disgracing yourself.
Unsupported opinions will be perverted.
Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God, grew up in a brutally occupied country. The country itself had waged war with original residents in order to create Israel. And then, after being conquered and many of them exiled, they had to establish themselves as a nation. Then they were invaded by the Seleucid Empire and waged a revolt for decades until they, once again, established control over their nation.
Then the Romans came.
Not once did Jesus Christ urge overthrow. Quite the opposite. Among the first and closest of his disciples were rebels against the Roman Empire. Jesus pacifies them into apostles.
Because the kingdom of god is a reign of peace within and between the hearts of human beings.
Marshal is advocating a political position that Christian scripture opposes.
But he cannot realize or admit his independence from a book he worships.
Anonymous, in the real world, not the fantasy in your head, you have to back up claims with arguments employing reason. Name the scene where Jesus calls for war. Or violence. Or even mere political action.
I was going to skip the "forced marriage/sex slavery" lies and move to the next bit of Trabue corruptions of Scripture, but then I saw this:
"Sick perverted deviants. Not even giving her the dignity of calling her a slave, she was just rejected sex objects.
Sick, deviant rapists, looking to a "loving god" to justify their sex slavery and rape. And Marshal defending this indecency and sex trafficking. Or worse, ignoring it."
This followed his presenting of a passage of God's instruction to the Hebrews. Dan regards God as a "sick perverted deviant", a "sick, deviant rapist" who justifies sex slavery and rape. Sure. Dan will say he's referring to the writer of that passage, who by most accounts is Moses. But regardless of who, they are quoting God in that passage, yet Dan...without the least bit of evidence of any kind...implies that some dude lied about what God instructed them to do. That's as bad as Dan lying about what these many passages mean, but there's no way to support that vile, demonic opinion.
Once again, these passages have been clarified on the testimony of several people expert in the times, the culture then and the original language and still Dan exploits the less than perfect English word usage to pretend that somehow human preference was inserted among God's Will and thus, we can pretend along with Dan prohibitions against Dan's favored sexual practices can be ignored. Talk about a sick perverted deviant! That's Dan to a TEE!
"So, you acknowledge that SOME TIMES, God literally commanded the slaughter of women, children and babies AND YET, you also say that God does not command evil actions."
Yes.
"Does that mean you do NOT think that the wholesale slaughter of women, children and babies is always a evil action???"
When they are targeted by humans to serve human reasons, I think calling it an evil action is appropriate. When God orders His Chosen People to annihilate an entire population, it is not. God cannot commit evil because God is Good. When you try to run this crap, you intentionally ignore the context in which these commands were made by God. You ignore the "why?" which necessarily makes all the difference. And again, you want to pretend that these tales are somehow fiction, fantasy, myth or anything other than an accurate historical record so that you can pretend we cannot know what "Thou shalt not..." doesn't mean don't do it. Period. Full stop.
How dare you presume to call God a perpetrator of evil! Who are you to question the validity of Scriptural accounts simply because they supposedly offend your fake Christian sensibilities? Well...the answer's in the question: you're not a Christian at all.
Marshal complained...
feo provides no info about himself, yet you allow him.
1. Feodor, while is more harsh towards people in his comments than I prefer, is clearly an educated person with a wealth of information and experience.
2. Given that, I long ago asked Feodor to show me some proof of who he is. I know his name and where he lives and a good deal about him. He's not a stranger and he's not a bot.
3. Someone anonymously coming here to say, ONLY, "feo is a stinky butt" is both clearly childish, irrational and may not even be a real person. They do NOT identify themselves and thus, they are removed. I'm making no room for Russian trolls to help incite the US-born dupes and marks to more outrage, especially when their comments are entirely vapid and, as noted, extremely irrational and childish.
4. I know your name and who you are, I believe, and so I allow your comments AS LONG as you do not attack people, do not make unsupported claims under the guise of an objective "fact," you're not overly vulgar, sexist, racist or homophobic. Hateful, unsupported comments from you will be deleted. If you do not fully answer questions asked of you, you will be deleted. I'm striving to help you learn how to engage in respectful conversation and frankly, you're tiresome.
I had said:
"An alternative? How about this: GOD DOES NOT COMMAND PEOPLE TO TAKE EVIL ACTIONS AND KILLING BABIES AND CHILDREN IS ALWAYS AN EVIL ACTION?"
Marshal responded:
That's not an alternative explanation for the text which presents God commanding the annihilation of an entire population. That's you insisting He wouldn't do it despite the fact that Scripture records Him as doing exactly that.
That is an ALTERNATIVE way to go about considering the question of, "Would a hypothetical perfectly loving, perfectly just God command people to commit atrocities? Atrocities like enslaving people and forced marriages and slaughtering innocents, including children and babies."
You don't have to LIKE the answer, but it is a credible, rational response to the question of how a perfectly loving and just God might behave. As a point of fact. Observe:
1: "Hey, tell me, what do you think of the idea of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God... would such a God command atrocities like killing babies?"
2: "Well,
Given that a perfectly loving and just God would presumably, rationally act in a perfectly loving and just manner (otherwise, they wouldn't be perfectly loving or just)
AND
Given that it's an obvious evil to deliberately choose to kill babies and children
AND
Given that a perfectly loving and just God would not either engage in evil atrocities OR command others to commit the evil atrocities for them...
Then, No, of course not. Don't be obtuse!
It is a rationally plausible, spelled out opinion.
Now, follow this next person. DON'T just knee jerk respond, but listen to the reasoning:
cont'd...
What YOU are wanting is to someone to PRESUME that there are texts in the OT that shows God commanding atrocities such as the killing of babies (along with the children and adults in the town/area) and you want someone to try to make rational sense of that text, which YOU are inclined to take as a literal history of what God actually commanded.
But people need not presume that the text represents an accurate rendering of God's will about sometimes killing babies, any more than people need to presume that Genesis 1 is some kind of fairly literal history about the beginnings of the universe.
We have no rational reason to JOIN in with your presumption. It's NOT a given that these texts demand a literal interpretation OR that we have to find another text in the Bible that explains WHY we need not take it literally.
Frankly, I just don't care that Genesis 1 describes a six day creation and the rest of Genesis describes it as having taken place about 6,000 years ago. AND, I just don't care that the various texts that have God commanding the slaughter of a whole town including the children and babies...
WHY don't I care that it's there?
1. I don't presume the story is being told in a literally factual, historical manner;
2. I don't presume that the story represents God's will as it relates to sometimes slaughtering babies;
3. I don't presume the Bible is a rule or rulings book.
SO, when you say, "but, but, but what about the OT story where God IS portrayed as commanding the slaughter of infants...??!!"
I respond, "What of it? I don't need to prove to you that the text does not need to be taken as literal history. I certainly don't take it as such."
Understand? It does not MATTER if there is a text that has God commanding the slaughter of infants. Especially if that text is earlier in recorded history, where history was not dealt with the same way as we do now."
But, but... what if YOU REALLY want a biblical explanation?
Tough. You aren't owed one. IF it is not obvious to you on the face of it that:
Slaughtering children and infants is ALWAYS wrong.
and
Commanding people to slaughter children and infants is ALWAYS wrong
Well, I just don't care what you think about the biblical text. It is not a rational given that I need to explain it to you. You're begging the question (ie, "But the Bible records God commanding atrocities and SO, that must be dealt with first..." I don't accept the historical presumption you hold.
Whether you like it or recognize it or not, that IS a perfectly rational response. And, even though you don't recognize it, it is also a biblical response.
Put another way:
I'm saying that
I. IF you hold the presumption that there is a perfectly loving and just God
THEN, the notion that such a God would not command atrocities is ridiculous on the face of it (at best - and blasphemous, at worst)
AND I'm saying:
II. IF you hold the presumption that slaughtering children and infants is, of course, a human rights abuse and a great and detestable evil and an atrocity of the worst sort;
and
IF you believe that a perfectly just God would not command evil or atrocities;
THEN, it is a completely rationally-consistent conclusion to presume that such a God would not command slaughtering babies.
AND I'm saying:
IF you hold to conclusion I and II above,
THEN, any text or personal opinion that holds that "But, you know, SOMETIMES, God MIGHT command an atrocity" then it is rational to consider such text or opinions subjective and unproven and logically irrational, given I and II.
You can't have both.
Do you understand the rational problem you're having? (I'm asking sincerely.)
On the other hand, YOU are starting with a presumption:
A. IF there is a story told in the Bible that appears historic on the face of it - at least to me and people like me...
THEN, we must consider that text to BE a literally factual rendering of history and what happened, and anything that God is cited as saying MUST be understood as literal history and literally what God thinks/allows/believes/sometimes endorses.
BUT the problem you're having is that while MANY (probably most) people can see the reasoning in my presumptions and thus, given the presumptions, they could see that it's rationally consistent... but not everyone shares your presumption of a literal text that should be taken as literal history and factual.
You can't just demand that people must share your presumptions about biblical texts. We just don't care what you think and it's not a rationally given presumption and certainly not an objectively proven theory.
Understand?
And again, I'm genuinely asking if you're following the reasoning I'm explaining, even if you don't agree. You DO see how there is no rational reason that your presumption about biblical text MUST be right or taken as a given, right?
And so, to answer your question (which I just did, above, but...)
how does presenting the text as written a defense of a human theory? The text isn't human theory. It's the text
Because it is literally a human theory that Genesis 1 or any of these OT stories about God speaking are a literally factual history;
AND
because it is an unproven human theory;
AND
because it creates rational schisms for people trying to take the Bible seriously.
ANY text that says sometimes, it's going to be okay to enslave people, to slaughter infants and children WILL be considered vulgar and grotesque IF it's suggested we should take it literally.
Setting aside your presumptions and trying to consider it from OTHER perspectives, can you see how that's a morally rational conclusion, that ANY text that purports to make a case that sometimes there are scenarios where slavery and infanticide are acceptable IS going to be considered suspect or just set aside as an evil little nothing?
So, yes, the text is not a theory, it's literally text. BUT, saying, "This text should be considered a literal history with a factually correct description of God..." THAT is literally a human theory.
Understand?
It's just not a given that ANY text in the Bible, the Koran, in the Odyssey or in Harry Potter should be considered literally factual history. It's just not.
I had said:
"I've not said that God specifically said that Israel should ONLY kill the children."
Marshal responded:
Actually, you've said that repeatedly in your desperate attempt to portray portions of Scripture as unworthy of accepting as factual recordings of history.
And
You constantly stress the "innocent children" who are killed in battles commanded by God, so you can stop pretending that you don't do so intentionally and with purpose to serve your agenda...
We're talking about biblical stories where the text says what it says. God was upset with a nation/city/place and God commanded Israel to slaughter everyone there. The men, the combatants, the women, the teenagers, the children, the babies, the oxen and the goats. There's no dispute in the texts we're speaking of (of course, different texts might have different atrocities - some might say kill everyone but the virgin girls, THEM, you can take home and force them to be your wives... but the point remains).
Now, I and many others are opposed to killing ANY innocent bystanders in acts of war. But I recognize fully that you and many others are OKAY with killing innocent adults in acts of war. And so, I point to the innocent children and BABIES because it's easier to make the point. The moral clarity is more obvious: OF COURSE, babies are entirely completely innocent. They are the DEFINITION of innocent. So whatever violence you personally may think is acceptable to visit upon innocent adults in a nation at war, only the most morally bankrupt would say that such violence is ALSO okay to direct towards children and babies.
Of course, we see with Gaza that you and many like you ARE okay with the killing of babies (yes, yes, yes, 1,000 times, YES - babies along with the adults beside them!), it's just more extreme and sickening and for MOST morally rational adults, it is a line too far to say that it is okay to kill children and infants in times of war. THAT is why I use children and infants as a shortcut to the point. To force you to deal with what you're saying is acceptable.
Understand?
I need to address an earlier corruption of my words:
"I've not said that God specifically said that Israel should ONLY kill the children."
Neither did I. I said you focus on that the killing of children to rationalize your rejection of those passages wherein God commands the annihilation of everyone of a population. You do it intentionally with deceitful purpose.
"Marshal continues to defend the notion that SOMETIMES it's a moral option to enslave people and to kill innocent people, including children and infants."
Yes I do. More accurately, however, I'm defending against your blanket claim that it's always immoral, as if you couldn't imagine a situation where that might be a regrettable but necessary action to save one's own people. You want to pretend you're totally willing to let your own wife and kids die a horrible death if it means preventing it would result in the death of your attacker's kids. This is case where clearly there's no immoral component to the death of your enemy's kids, while there is allowing your own to needlessly die to posture as if you're being moral by letting them die a horrible death. It's far more immoral for your enemies to put their own kids in a position where they might suffer due to the actions of their parents. Keep in mind...this scenario implies no other alternative, so don't do your moving the goalposts thing.
"He does so without being able to objectively prove it. He does so believing in his head that he is agreeing with his "godling" on that point. But he continues to insist that he doesn't have to support this deviant evil on his part."
Three lies one right after the other. Let's start with the first:
I've just given you a scenario in which killing "innocent" children is not immoral. That sort of thing is happening now in Gaza. Thus, my point is proven by current events.
Next, I do not deal with any "godling". I do not suggest that we are encouraged by God...Whom you don't worship, but rather exploit for your own profit...to kill anyone if it can be helped.
Last, I never claimed I don't have to support my positions, but I have asserted the fact that citing Scripture where appropriate is indeed evidence supporting my positions. When we're talking about what God does or says, Scripture is the only source for making that case. You only reject that because it fully and completely satisfies your demands.
"1. You can't objectively prove that the Almighty God of Love and Justice is anything like your shriveled POS deviant pissant godling."
I don't know anything about any "shriveled POS deviant pissant godling." I cite facts from Scripture about God. Good luck at judgement referring to Him in this blasphemous manner.
"2. You refuse to even admit the reality that you can't objectively prove your evil opinions are "right.""
Why would I when I've done so? The amount of evidence and the logic of my arguments based on that evidence is what makes me "right", especially when your best objection is "Nyuh uh" and all this crap about me not having done what you've demanded I needed to do. We Christians call that "lying".
"3. You won't post unsupported vulgarities and promote evil here."
You're right. I post facts and truth, all backed by evidence. I leave the vulgarities and evil to you and feo.
"IF you want to finally acknowledge that your deviant evil opinions are NOT objectively proven and only your deviant and sick opinion, THEN at least you'd be acknowledging a bit of reality and such opinions, acknowledged as personal and subjective, might be allowed to stay here."
I don't promote, perpetrate or post "deviant evil opinions". You provide no evidence that any of my opinions are, but only assert such in your typical petulant manner. You do so to rationalize not confronting my opinions like a man ( I don't expect you'd try to do it like a Christian since you aren't one.)
"But unsupported and grossly perverted subjective opinions will not."
Except for you own and feo's, too.
"Move on. You've lost and you're just disgracing yourself."
I've neither lost a thing, nor have I disgraced myself, though many say I do by even giving you the time of day. But you're my calling, Dan, and I can't quit you!
"Unsupported opinions will be perverted."
Hey, wait! I thought this was about me! Your opinions, which are indeed and provably perversions, are NEVER supported. EVER! Mine are neither perverted NOR unsupported. Not that YOU'VE ever been able to demonstrate!
"I had said:
"An alternative? How about this: GOD DOES NOT COMMAND PEOPLE TO TAKE EVIL ACTIONS AND KILLING BABIES AND CHILDREN IS ALWAYS AN EVIL ACTION?"
Marshal responded:
"That's not an alternative explanation for the text which presents God commanding the annihilation of an entire population. That's you insisting He wouldn't do it despite the fact that Scripture records Him as doing exactly that."
That is an ALTERNATIVE way to go about considering the question of, "Would a hypothetical perfectly loving, perfectly just God command people to commit atrocities? Atrocities like enslaving people and forced marriages and slaughtering innocents, including children and babies.""
No it's not. It's just you restating your unsupported premise...a John Cleese form of having an argument. And I don't waste my time talking about a "hypothetical" God, when the issue regards God Himself. And it couldn't be lost on any other honest person than myself that your continued use of the loaded term "slaughtered" is intentional. I don't think it's used by God in His command to the Israelites. Feel free to supply the chapter and verse if you insist I'm wrong on this (I won't hold my breath). You also purposely use the term "atrocities" to refer to practices which have been explained to you with the citing of Biblical scholars well versed in the language, customs, etc. of the times. What's truly atrocious is you insistence on disparaging God in this way instead of providing that alternative interpretation of what Scripture plainly records.
"You don't have to LIKE the answer, but it is a credible, rational response to the question of how a perfectly loving and just God might behave."
Your "hypothetical" god, perhaps, but not the God of Scripture, unless you want to paint the author as a liar.
"1: "Hey, tell me, what do you think of the idea of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God... would such a God command atrocities like killing babies?"
2: "Well,
Given that a perfectly loving and just God would presumably, rationally act in a perfectly loving and just manner (otherwise, they wouldn't be perfectly loving or just)"
Is that supposed to be "evidence"??? That's just you re-asserting your preferred understanding of God, or more precisely, a description of the god you wish existed. It does nothing to resolve how the perfectly loving and just God described in the Bible you reject came to command Israel to do things which give you the willies.
"Given that it's an obvious evil to deliberately choose to kill babies and children"
There you go again, purposely isolating the killing of babies and children like a dishonest person would do to push his unsupported preference about the God he doesn't worship.
"Given that a perfectly loving and just God would not either engage in evil atrocities OR command others to commit the evil atrocities for them..."
There you go again, presuming there's no distinction between God using man to exact His righteous punishment on a sinful people versus man choosing to engage in evil behaviors. God can tell me to visit you every day and break another bone and it would not be an evil campaign. God doesn't do evil. If you think what He commands sounds "evil", that's you doing nothing to seriously and prayerfully study the Scripture you disparage and reject.
"It is a rationally plausible, spelled out opinion."
For it to be plausible, it would have to align with Scripture. Instead, you reject Scripture and pretend what Scripture says is somehow misunderstood by me when you won't address the specific passages and explain where the misunderstanding comes it. You can't do it and not at the same time assert the passage is a willful lie. You just say, "Nyuh uh...it didn't happen because I can't resolve how God...what I think God is supposed to be... could do such a thing!" For it to be "plausible", those passages you can't resolve would never have ever appeared in Scripture in the first place! But they do, and you won't explain how we true Christians are misunderstanding them.
"Now, follow this next person. DON'T just knee jerk respond, but listen to the reasoning:"
"What YOU are wanting is to someone to PRESUME that there are texts in the OT that shows God commanding atrocities such as the killing of babies (along with the children and adults in the town/area) and you want someone to try to make rational sense of that text, which YOU are inclined to take as a literal history of what God actually commanded."
There's no "presumption" required since the text clearly states that God commanded the Hebrews to annihilate populations. You regard them as atrocities because you need to have these passages dismissed as you dismiss them. Christians don't do that. What's more, given God has provided His reasoning in those texts, there's no need for anyone to "make rational sense". God's reasons are rational, even if you God haters don't like the reasoning. It goes to your demand of that God act the way you insist He must, as if He's in any way obliged.
"But people need not presume that the text represents an accurate rendering of God's will about sometimes killing babies, any more than people need to presume that Genesis 1 is some kind of fairly literal history about the beginnings of the universe."
Why are you now talking about "presuming" instead of providing a legitimate, intelligent argument for why the passages should not be regarded as an accurate recording of historical events? I'm not concerned about what "people" might presume or not. I'm looking for you to step up and actually provide that intelligent alternative you believe exists.
"We have no rational reason to JOIN in with your presumption. It's NOT a given that these texts demand a literal interpretation OR that we have to find another text in the Bible that explains WHY we need not take it literally."
Until you can provide that intelligent, fact-based argument for why they shouldn't be, they are accurate records of historical events. And again, it's got nothing to do with any presumptions or desires on my part, so that's a lame angle to play as well. The fact is, you've got nothing but your wish that fact was not fact, that history played out differently than Scripture recorded it as having played out.
"Frankly, I just don't care that Genesis 1 describes a six day creation and the rest of Genesis describes it as having taken place about 6,000 years ago. AND, I just don't care that the various texts that have God commanding the slaughter of a whole town including the children and babies..."
"Frankly" you don't care about most of what Scripture says, so this isn't a news flash.
"1. I don't presume the story is being told in a literally factual, historical manner;
2. I don't presume that the story represents God's will as it relates to sometimes slaughtering babies;
3. I don't presume the Bible is a rule or rulings book."
This is dishonest. You choose not to believe what you don't want to believe. It's not a matter of "presumption", though you presume you have the liberty to reject any part of Scripture you find inconvenient to your agenda.
"SO, when you say, "but, but, but what about the OT story where God IS portrayed as commanding the slaughter of infants...??!!""
First, this is an purposely insulting false presentation of anything I've ever said. I don't replace the text with loaded words intended to disparage those who believe what Scripture accurately recorded as happening. I don't say "God is 'portrayed'" as anything. I state what Scripture records Him as actually having done and said. I don't say He targeted children when He targeted an entire population just to make Him sound like an evil being so as to disparage those who revere Scripture.
"I respond, "What of it? I don't need to prove to you that the text does not need to be taken as literal history. I certainly don't take it as such.""
Yes you do, especially if you're trying to argue against someone who isn't even trying to engage in a discussion about God's command to wipe out evil populations. But if you were honest...a stretch to even consider such a thing...you'd man up and simply say, "I don't believe, despite Scripture recording it and providing God's reason for doing it, that God commanded the destruction of entire populations. I've no way to prove Scripture isn't providing an accurate history, but I'm too much of a weenie to believe God gets that pissed when reprobates are in rebellion against Him." That would at least be honest.
"Understand? It does not MATTER if there is a text that has God commanding the slaughter of infants. Especially if that text is earlier in recorded history, where history was not dealt with the same way as we do now.""
Ah...this lame crap about how Scripture presents actual events. Cheap and lazy.
"But, but... what if YOU REALLY want a biblical explanation?
Tough. You aren't owed one."
Yeah...I get that you don't hold yourself to the same criteria to which you demand everyone else adhere. Then you bitch that I said I don't to present support AGAIN for that which I've provided multiple times over the years. It's Double-Standard Dan Rules!
"Slaughtering children and infants is ALWAYS wrong.
and
Commanding people to slaughter children and infants is ALWAYS wrong"
Not for God. He'll do worse to you in time, but we are all His to do with as He pleases and we're to adapt OUR behaviors, beliefs and understandings to HIS Way. He doesn't have to abide YOUR demands of Him.
"Well, I just don't care what you think about the biblical text."
A more honest statement from you would be, "Well, I just don't care about the Bible."
"It is not a rational given that I need to explain it to you."
It's an obligation for anyone who asserts an objection or alternate opinion to defend it, particularly when you're so adamant about opponents defending every little thing they say, you hypocritical coward.
"You're begging the question (ie, "But the Bible records God commanding atrocities and SO, that must be dealt with first..." I don't accept the historical presumption you hold."
No I'm not. I'm not even begging you to do what you demand of others. You know..."Do Unto Others" You don't accept that either, unless you can exploit it to your advantage. But again, I'm not presenting a presumption by presenting the text as written and awaiting your evidence based reasoning for rejecting it as you do most of Scripture.
"Whether you like it or recognize it or not, that IS a perfectly rational response. And, even though you don't recognize it, it is also a biblical response."
That is so laughably false. It's not a response at all, in fact, and your objection is a reject of Scripture, so how can it be Biblical?
"Put another way:
I'm saying that
I. IF you hold the presumption that there is a perfectly loving and just God
THEN, the notion that such a God would not command atrocities is ridiculous on the face of it (at best - and blasphemous, at worst)"
Ignoring your typo, it's stupidly false. I accept God is perfectly loving and just. You don't want to suppose that He would command the total destruction of a population in rebellion against Him is a just response to that rebellion, and a loving one to all the "innocents" who might be among them likely to grow up to indulge in the same rebellious sin God finds so abhorrent enough to wipe them out. THAT is blasphemous to invent a god of your liking rather than seek to understand the One you don't.
"II. IF you hold the presumption that slaughtering children and infants is, of course, a human rights abuse and a great and detestable evil and an atrocity of the worst sort;"
Without any detail, I can only say that on the surface, targeting children is criminal.
"and
IF you believe that a perfectly just God would not command evil or atrocities;
THEN, it is a completely rationally-consistent conclusion to presume that such a God would not command slaughtering babies."
You freakin' gave me shit for insisting you were whining about God targeting children...that you never said that. Here you're doing it yet again. You're also saying God is evil for having commanded the total destruction of entire populations. You suggest without argument based on any facts presented in Scripture that God is commanding evil. You've never seriously OR prayerfully studied Scripture.
"IF you hold to conclusion I and II above,
THEN, any text or personal opinion that holds that "But, you know, SOMETIMES, God MIGHT command an atrocity" then it is rational to consider such text or opinions subjective and unproven and logically irrational, given I and II."
I corrected your false presentation of my positions and thus I now correct this one. I don't hold that "you know, SOMETIMES, God MIGHT command an atrocity". I deal with what God is recorded as having done and I do so without your smarmy judgement of His Holy Character. There's nothing rational about an unsupported rejection of Scripture's recording of historical events.
"Do you understand the rational problem you're having? (I'm asking sincerely.)"
The only "problem" I'm having is your rank rejection of Scripture without legitimate basis. You craft these laughable arguments which rely on falsehood and missing detail and then expect your conclusions to be sound and worse...Biblical? Incredible!
Marshal wants to hear more from people who say nothing. What a surprise. Nothing comforts him.
Marshal loves their content-empty tantrum spittle. What a surprise. Marshal loves juvenile aggression.
But does he have any comeback for that book he loves? No. Is that book he loves open for discussion? Of course not. He and the other thugs have an idol in their heads. That’s what makes them thugs. The belong to a movement that has been raging spittle for a very long time. The Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation (where Roman Catholicism adopted Protestant hate) were responsible for 18 million deaths in Europe, the genocide of Native Americans in the Western Hemisphere, and the enslavement of 12 million Africans.
This is what happens when the church imprisons God the Holy Spirit in a book.
Can Marshal respond to my claim that he worships a book and ignores the Spirit? Of course not. Does Marshal have a reasoning, integrated, coherent response to what I’ve laid out in actual scripture:
John 14
Acts 10
Acts 11
Acts 15
Galatians 5
1 Corinthians 10
1 Timothy 4
What DOES Marshal have? Nothing. Just angry spittle. No wonder he wants more raging idiocy. It comforts him. What DOES Marshal do?
He has lied about all of these passages. Openly. Brazenly. With gusto. He lies about verbs. He lies about nouns. He lies about New Testament chronology. He makes up bad faith logic and puts it into the heads of Apostles - whom he claims are perfect, but for whom Marshal needs lies to get them to make perfect sense. He puts words in Jesus mouth. All while claiming to believe the Bible.
Peter turned his back on what the Spirit took three tries to teach him - something Jesus said would happen for the whole church, “the Spirit will teach you everything” - but Peter backtracked on the inclusion IN FREEDOM of Gentile believers. Paul rebuked him for this. The very texts Marshal and the thugs think perfect for our time, testify that the people who wrote them weren’t even perfect for their own time.
What makes scripture holy is the living Spirit teaching us as the assembled body of Christ living our lives in faith and experiencing the world by faith in Christ and his love with reflection on scripture and free, unchained movement of the love of god. Just like the Apostles and first disciples.
How can God’s love not surprise us? We are mere mortals.
While the Christian church around the world worshipped at the biblical proclamation of the passion of the Christ, what did these thugs do? What is in their Spirit as the rest of us dwelt with the Triune God in the majestic work of love enacted by the Son of God?
Angry, empty, idiotic spittle.
We know them by their words.
Marshal loves their content-empty tantrum spittle. What a surprise. Marshal loves juvenile aggression.
Strange. Of all the hills to die on, defending someone who comes to say nothing more than "Dan/Feo is a dumdum" and do so anonymously, even though:
1. It's not adult.
2. It's unsupported.
3. It's not on topic (of course).
4. It's just simply nothing, and entirely likely EITHER a juvenile or a foreign troll or just an ai-bot.
There's simply nothing there to defend. It's entirely vapid and vacant of any content. If someone came and said:
"Anonymous:
laa;ldkfaoieure. e;lk;j dqo$$32"
I would also delete it. It's simply entirely Nothing.
Why defend it other than because it appeals to juvenile level degree of bullying that thrills you?
As to the last, I want to again direct your attention to the many comments you've posted at Craig's over the four years of Trump's presidency where you routinely typed all manner of foul language. You might want to do a post expressing at least the appearance of sincere apology for all those comments you've posted there and elsewhere with such vitriol before you again criticize and then delete me for so much less.
Marshal would prefer to bicker about language - though he is the driver of the most juvenile trash - than continuingly be faced with thinking through scripture, where his idol betrays him.
He cannot take the amount of bible I present as support for my views.
He cannot deal here with:
John 14
Acts 10
Acts 11
Acts 15
Galatians 5
1 Corinthians 10
1 Timothy 4
What DOES Marshal have? Nothing. Just angry spittle. No wonder he wants more raging idiocy. It comforts him. What DOES Marshal do?
He has lied about all of these passages. Openly. Brazenly. With gusto. He lies about verbs. He lies about nouns. He lies about New Testament chronology. He makes up bad faith logic and puts it into the heads of Apostles - whom he claims are perfect, but for whom Marshal needs lies to get them to make perfect sense. He puts words in Jesus mouth. All while claiming to believe the Bible.
Marshal has a lot of fans in the tantrum loving 12-year olds from segregated white Christian nation schools.
Marshal rightly noted:
I want to again direct your attention to the many comments you've posted at Craig's over the four years of Trump's presidency where you routinely typed all manner of foul language.
Indeed, when people are speaking abusively or oppressively of immigrants, LGBTQ folk or other oppressed people, I might and have spoken harshly to them in response. But it truly is demonstrably the exception to the rule. I tend to be quite polite and respectful.
What of it?
I'm not saying it's always wrong to use strong language and "cuss" words, even. Just that they should be used in rare exceptions to exceptionally bad behavior. You know, like we see with Jesus and the disciples and the prophets.
Marshal:
I said that you focus on children and babies being killed for effect....which is dishonest.
I've explained this already: RATHER than say, "And God commanded the slaughter of the men, women, children, babies, donkeys, lambs, goats, livestock and baby chicks of the town..." EVERY TIME, repeating the litany of all those God commanded Israel to slaughter, I'm deliberately using the shortcut of "slaughter of the children and babies..." NOT to hide or be dishonest, but to cut to the chase and abbreviate and save on typing. It's a GIVEN that the text says what is says. WHO says it's dishonest to abbreviate it?
Same as with referring to the poor, sick, blind, orphaned, widowed, immigrants, refugees, strangers, lonely, those with leprosy, etc, etc, etc... where I shorten that to the "poor and marginalized." For those reading me, there's no chance of missing what I'm literally referring to.
I don't need to write two dozen words hundreds (literally) of times to satisfy some irrational itch you have to try to control the conversation. You're just not that important. Get over it.
Marshal:
you intentionally choose to use the word "slaughter" for effect, instead of simply using the word the text uses. Not only is this dishonest, it is insulting to God to put words in His mouth the text doesn't record Him as using.
What (one of) the texts actually says:
Now go, attack the Amalekites and
totally destroy EVERYTHING that belongs to them.
Do not spare them;
put to death men and women,
children and infants,
cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
When one goes to a country (village/region) and DESTROYS everything and DOES NOT SPARE them and PUTS TO DEATH the
men, women, children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels, donkeys
THEN ONE is slaughtering them. "Slaughter" is just another word for totally destroy/widespread massacre.
SLAUGHTER: : to kill in a bloody or violent manner : slay.
: to kill in large numbers
: massacre.
Keep in mind what is happening (allegedly) in these horror stories/revenge porn:
Men with spears and swords and perhaps sometimes just stones
are moving into a village and RUNNING a sword or spear EACH man, woman and child in the town. ONE BY ONE massacring EVERYONE there. This is a description of a genocide.
I mean, as evil and awful as it is for Israel to kill thousands of children in their attempts to kill Hamas or for the US to kill tens of thousands of children to try to stop Japan in WWII, at least they had a nominal target - the leaders/soldiers of Japan/Hamas. They wanted to stop the "bad guys" and were willing to accept the slaughter (again, the correct word by definition) of thousands/tens of thousands of innocents.
But in the case of Israel and "god's" command, they weren't using bombs where children and babies were collateral/accidental damage. They were ordered to DELIBERATELY run their swords through babies and children. To bash their heads against rocks. One by one. Deliberately.
Sickening.
And I'M not the one saying the almighty GOD is commanding this/saying this. YOU are the one who is looking at ancient texts and guessing they MUST be treated as literal history, and so, by YOUR interpretation, YOU are saying God is commanding this literal slaughter, massacre, genocide.
Understand your words and how words work.
And in spite of the vulgar pissing upon God you're attempting, I haven't called you vulgar names, EVEN WITH the despicable defense of running swords through men, women and infants.
Hell, that's sick.
You know it's a lie because those like myself have explained ourselves fully on the issue and that explanation has no room for your lie that we're "OK" with killing ANYBODY, even during wartime. Stop lying.
By all means: Make yourself clear. Tell us that it is ALWAYS wrong to deliberately run swords through children and babies. Tell us that it is WRONG and atrocious to bomb in places where you know thousands/tens of thousands of babies will be slaughtered.
Don't tell me I'm wrong. SHOW me I'm wrong.
I would be delighted to apologize if you show me that you are NOT defending the notion that sometimes it's morally acceptable to literally slaughter children/babies/innocent people.
""Slaughter" is just another word for totally destroy/widespread massacre."
Definitionally, slaughter refers to killing animals for food. While it is appropriated for other uses...as so many words are...the point is your intentional selection of the word to describe the judgement of God on the people He regarded as deserving. To suggest you're using the word without such deliberate intention doesn't wash with me at all, because you reject those passages as examples of evil committed by God. Thus, you use words and focus on specific victims to perpetrate this false claim of yours. Again. You're not talking to a lefty who doesn't think.
"Keep in mind what is happening (allegedly) in these horror stories/revenge porn:"
"Revenge porn"??? What kind of asshole refers to God's decrees as "porn"?? We know the answer to that question.
"Men with spears and swords and perhaps sometimes just stones
are moving into a village and RUNNING a sword or spear EACH man, woman and child in the town. ONE BY ONE massacring EVERYONE there. This is a description of a genocide."
No. It's a description of God's justice delivered via human agency. It's no more a genocide than the killing of a violent criminal is murder.
"I mean, as evil and awful as it is for Israel to kill thousands of children in their attempts to kill Hamas or for the US to kill tens of thousands of children to try to stop Japan in WWII, at least they had a nominal target - the leaders/soldiers of Japan/Hamas."
Now you're lying again, suggesting there's no concern by Israel for the deaths of Gazans not allowed to leave the area they need to clear of murderers, or of those who don't leave because they're sympathetic to those murderers. All dead Gazans are dead because of Gazans, not Israelis looking to end the murder, kidnapping and rape of Israelis just trying to live their lives. You're incredibly vile and no better than Hamas for pretending there's no concern for non-combatants by Israel Defense Forces, who put their lives on the line to minimize harm to those while seeking out those who murder Israelis. You're truly hellbound as long as you persist in this lie of yours.
"But in the case of Israel and "god's" command, they weren't using bombs where children and babies were collateral/accidental damage. They were ordered to DELIBERATELY run their swords through babies and children. To bash their heads against rocks. One by one. Deliberately.
Sickening."
Only to those who think they're morally superior to God. You wouldn't whine any differently if they had smart bombs or lazer guided missiles, so who are you kidding? You ignore the Will of God to prefer that the Hebrews just committed genocide and then claimed God told them to do so when He didn't. Stop pretending you're a Christian if you insist on ignoring the facts and details surrounding these stories you exploit for sinful purposes.
"And I'M not the one saying the almighty GOD is commanding this/saying this. YOU are the one who is looking at ancient texts and guessing they MUST be treated as literal history, and so, by YOUR interpretation, YOU are saying God is commanding this literal slaughter, massacre, genocide."
I'm saying...because it's the fact and truth of it...that God's command to destroy entire populations is the manifestation of His perfect justice. YOU'RE pretending He's a moral monster in doing so. You judge God by YOUR criteria like an atheist does. You're no Christian.
" Understand your words and how words work."
That's funny. I've been speaking exactly of understanding your intentional use of the words you choose to make God into a moral monster for dealing with totally corrupted populations. I fully understand all words YOU use, I fully understand how you're using them. Shame on you.
"And in spite of the vulgar pissing upon God you're attempting, I haven't called you vulgar names, EVEN WITH the despicable defense of running swords through men, women and infants."
That's rich. I'm accepting the inspired Word of God as presented in Scripture and you dare suggest I'm the one "pissing" on Him for doing so, while you reject Scripture when it suits you to do so, which is far too often. THAT is vulgar. And you call me names by comparing me to those you pretend to despise (racists, misogynists, etc.) all the time.
By what means would you accept God punishing those who have long preferred to continue in their rebellion (not that it will matter how He chooses to punish YOU!)? Because these ancient people had more limited methods of taking human life, you again play your games with highlighting the means by which they fulfilled God's command so as to again make God out to be a moral monster, the Israelites to be moral monsters, the author of the Pentateuch to be a liar and the whole of the OT to be fiction when you need it to be.
Good luck with that truly sick shit.
"By all means: Make yourself clear. Tell us that it is ALWAYS wrong to deliberately run swords through children and babies. Tell us that it is WRONG and atrocious to bomb in places where you know thousands/tens of thousands of babies will be slaughtered."
I've made myself crystal clear quite enough at this point, but you continue to ignore and pervert. Are you considering running a sword or blade into a child? If so, you're committing murder. If God ordered you to do so, you're doing His Will and the same action is thus not at all immoral or evil.
It is not wrong to bomb places where there are non-combatants if that's the only way to deal with one's unjust attackers. Period. Collateral damage is not in and of itself wrong or immoral, but merely unfortunate. You're quite free to allow your wife and kids to be brutally murdered if stopping it means the death of the wife and children of their brutal attacker. Good luck with that.
And by the way...honest, moral and intelligent people don't take the word of murderers as to how many of their own non-combatant civilians were casualties of the just response by those they try to murder. Modern progressives do, but they're not honest, moral or intelligent.
" Don't tell me I'm wrong. SHOW me I'm wrong."
Don't tell me you're right. SHOW me you're right. So far, all you're doing is telling and doing so without basis beyond your own personal hunches and dishonest intentions.
"I would be delighted to apologize if you show me that you are NOT defending the notion that sometimes it's morally acceptable to literally slaughter children/babies/innocent people."
Another lie. You would continue to try to perpetrate your false understanding of morality, standing on these nonsensical arguments about "slaughtering" children. May your family never depend on your response to hard choices. They're as good as dead now.
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment, raised concerns (that may be too polite a way of putting it, but it will suffice) about my use of cuss words. Marshal, I will allow a diversion. IF you want to cite some specific instance of an ill-used cuss word, cite it. Then we can talk. It's possible you can make a case that it was ill-advised and perhaps I will agree.
Just generally making vague accusations and allegations is, however, so much bullshit.
And see what I did there? An object lesson. I used a vulgar term - bs - but in description of a vulgar practice - making vague, non-specific and unsupported accusations. I have no rational problem with the use of BS in that sentence. On the other hand, your oft-repeated use of vulgar terms for women or demeaning/oppressive terms referring to gay guys are NOT like that.
I suspect that most, if not all my uses of cuss words is of the BS sort. Or: Saying that "I think that sometimes, it's a moral option to deliberately run children through with swords, IF I think god commands it" is a f'd up opinion. I truly think that is one of the most sick, obscene and devoid of morality or justice actions one could take. "F'd up" is an appropriate use of a cuss word to describe, well, a f'd up opinion.
Without a specific example, though, that dog don't hunt.
Marshal:
Are you considering running a sword or blade into a child? If so, you're committing murder. If God ordered you to do so, you're doing His Will and the same action is thus not at all immoral or evil.
Yes, stabbing a child is murder. That's literally what stabbing a child is, murder and a great atrocity.
BUT, "If God ordered you to do so..." BEGS the question: WOULD a Good, loving, just God command something that is otherwise evil? WOULD your godling command a rape and if so, would you do it? What about child-rape, would you do it IF your godling commanded such an atrocity?
It begs the question: IS that a reasonable guess to make about what a perfectly just and loving God would do? You can't just presume because there's an ancient story that says that that it therefore MUST be considered something that God might do.
The FIRST question is to try to decide IF a good God WOULD do it.
It's literally question begging.
"Yes, stabbing a child is murder. That's literally what stabbing a child is, murder and a great atrocity."
Yes. If YOU choose to do it for your own nefarious purpose. It's not murder at all if God commanded you to do it for whatever reason He might have.
"BUT, "If God ordered you to do so..." BEGS the question: WOULD a Good, loving, just God command something that is otherwise evil?"
First, as I've stated and you do nothing to prove otherwise, nothing God could or would command a person to do is evil, even if the act is evil without God's command compelling it. So, whatever a good, loving and just God would command is good, loving and just...not evil.
"WOULD your godling command a rape and if so, would you do it? What about child-rape, would you do it IF your godling commanded such an atrocity?"
I do not abide any "godling" and you're blaspheming to suggest I am when I'm defending the actions of Almighty God.
I don't believe God would ever command anyone to rape anybody. You're a scumbag for daring to suggest the possibility as if it helps you make your false point. God commanded the destruction of entire populations and was justified in doing so, by whatever means He chose to do it. Period. You don't get to judge Him or dismiss and reject those passages in Scripture which record those historical facts, just because you want to posture yourself as more Christian than God.
"It begs the question: IS that a reasonable guess to make about what a perfectly just and loving God would do?"
It's not a "guess" to repeat what Scripture records God as having done. Without the context, you're perverting the events referenced so as to portray His perfect justice as "evil". THAT begs the question of why you continue to insist you're a Christian when you crap on God so much?
"You can't just presume because there's an ancient story that says that that it therefore MUST be considered something that God might do."
Uh...yeah, unless you're embracing grace by accusing the compiler of those historical facts to be a liar. But as it is long been considered that Moses was the author of the first five books, and that he was privileged to routinely be in God's presence without dying to do so, only a lying progressive would insist that we are misunderstanding what is so clearly reported. Therefore, there's no "considering" if it's something God "might" do. It's a matter of accepting that it is something God actually did! because Scripture presents it as fact.
But hey...you're just like the serpent! "Did God really say?..."
"The FIRST question is to try to decide IF a good God WOULD do it."
That's not a question actual Christians ask, because they've actually seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture. You aren't one and never have.
So the question you're asking is always one which relieves you of the obligation to trust the Lord and believe He acts righteously regardless of your emotional response to it. He's not acting in conflict with His nature. You just don't like His nature.
Marshal:
First, as I've stated and you do nothing to prove otherwise, nothing God could or would command a person to do is evil, even if the act is evil without God's command compelling it.
1. The Bible records the notion that God does not "tempt" or command people to do evil.
(" no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone..." ~James)
2. If God can order you to RAPE PUPPIES and that rape would not be evil, then the phrase/notion would be meaningless.
3. There is NO PLACE in the Bible - not ONE place - where God is recorded as saying anything like "IF I tell you to do something... anything - RAPE PUPPIES and EAT THEIR HEARTS - it's all cool, because if I tell you do it, it's okay. You see, there are no moral boundaries, just what I whimsically say. 'Do this, puppet boy! Do THAT, puppet girl! Dance, dance, rape stab and kill my little puppets, bwa ha ha haaaaaa!!!'"
4. It is literally a human theory that there are good and bad actions, but IF God commands you to do bad things, then it's not bad. God has not authored that opinion. Rather, it's people like you when confronted with the mass slaughter passages, that poorly use your human reasoning to create a theory that's not in the Bible. "It must be that way," you all reason, "because that's the only way we can avoid describing God as a giant monster."
Do you recognize that this is literally a human theory, not in the Bible. Something YOU are reading into it that isn't there unless you "reason" your way there?
Marshal:
I don't believe God would ever command anyone to rape anybody. You're a scumbag for daring to suggest the possibility as if it helps you make your false point.
Look at you, ya little boy scout. Good for you! You can manage to make a guess that a perfect God would not command you to rape someone... WHILE still defending the notion that a perfect God WOULD command someone to stab a baby.
Why one and not the other, though? Simply because there's a line in the Bible that you REALLY want to take literally? And if there WAS a line in the Bible, THEN you'd say, "Well, wait a second! That can't be literally factual..." OR would you say, "Welp, okay, rape is on the "acceptable option" list, too?
Marshal:
It's not murder at all if God commanded you to do it for whatever reason He might have.
Put another way:
I. The Bible is clear in 100 ways that killing/murder is a sin/is wrong. Killing or harming children, babies and the least of these is ESPECIALLY awful, in biblical texts.
Correct?
II. NOWHERE in the Bible are there places where there are exceptions to these rules (if you're one to take the Bible as a rulings book). Not one time does God say, "It's wrong to kill. Period. Especially babies... (welllll, unless I TELL you to do it, then you get a pass, a get out of hell free card..." That doesn't happen anywhere in the Bible. That or nothing like that.
III. What we do have are some passages where God is depicting as either allowing or commanding the murder of a whole realm, men, women and children. The question then is, "IS this something that should be taken literally?" That's the question you're skipping and begging. Merely saying, "REAL Christians wouldn't ask the question!" is insane and not logically rational/consistent.
IV. It might be one thing IF we had proof that every line in the Bible and each command in the Bible we KNEW objectively was to be taken literally. But you don't think that.
You have passages like Jesus saying he'd come to preach good news to the poor and you say he didn't mean the literally poor. We have passages like James saying directly and unequivocally, "Is it not THE RICH who oppress you" and otherwise harshly condemning "THE RICH," just like that, which you say, "welllll, that doesn't mean ALL the rich, just SOME of them."
That is, you hold the position that sometimes it's rational and apt to use your reason and say, "Maybe this shouldn't be taken literally..."
So, that STILL begs the question which you STILL haven't answered: WHY would we presume the kill babies texts should be taken literally?
Don't comment further til you answer.
Marshal:
It's not a "guess" to repeat what Scripture records God as having done
It's NOT a guess to repeat what Scripture records God has having done. If the text literally says, "God says, kill them all, men, women, children and babies..." then the text literally says that. No one is disputing that.
What IS a guess, an unproven theory, a subjective opinion is to say:
GIVEN that the text in the OT reads literally, "God says, kill them all, men, women, children and babies...", WE SHOULD, therefore, then presume that this is literal history accurately recording the notion that God sometimes might command the slaughter of everyone, right down to the babes.
Do you understand the distinction? That the text says what it says has never been in dispute. The question has always been, What INTERPRETATION should we have for these texts? What genre should we consider the text to be written in?
Do you understand that these are reasonable and important questions?
Merely saying, "nyuh uh, those I consider 'true christians' wouldn't even question these things..." is absolutely meaningless and pointless and without logical weight. It's a logical fallacy, naught else.
"1. The Bible records the notion that God does not "tempt" or command people to do evil.
(" no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone..." ~James)"
Thus, whatever He commands is not evil, even if it is when you do it of your own volition. Furthermore, there's recording of anyone, having fulfilled God's command to destroy a given population, saying they were "tempted by God to do an evil act". Unlike you, the ancients obeyed God as we're all expected to do. Had Noah's contemporaries, they'd not have been drowned.
"2. If God can order you to RAPE PUPPIES and that rape would not be evil, then the phrase/notion would be meaningless."
But not as meaningless as this statement. What the hell do you mean?
"3. There is NO PLACE in the Bible - not ONE place - where God is recorded as saying anything like "IF I tell you to do something... anything - RAPE PUPPIES and EAT THEIR HEARTS - it's all cool, because if I tell you do it, it's okay. You see, there are no moral boundaries, just what I whimsically say. 'Do this, puppet boy! Do THAT, puppet girl! Dance, dance, rape stab and kill my little puppets, bwa ha ha haaaaaa!!!'""
More blasphemy. Your eternal destination is secured. Bring sun screen.
In the meantime, despite your blasphemous, arrogant condescension and mockery of God, you actually hit on the reality. You can try to make your point by suggesting that which is nothing more than your hubris and contempt for God, but what God says, goes, for any who are more than merely posturing as believers like you are. That you really think inventing a scenario like this reflects truth in any way? God is "whimsical" in commanding what you find personally offensive? Run with that, Dan. I'm sure He's most pleased with you.
"4. It is literally a human theory that there are good and bad actions, but IF God commands you to do bad things, then it's not bad. God has not authored that opinion. Rather, it's people like you when confronted with the mass slaughter passages, that poorly use your human reasoning to create a theory that's not in the Bible. "It must be that way," you all reason, "because that's the only way we can avoid describing God as a giant monster.""
In order for your position to make sense, to be worthy of adult consideration as an adult opinion, is to insist that what God DID command as accurately recorded in Scripture, was evil. It requires that you ignore the complete context in which He made the command and wherein His reasons were made clear. It requires that YOU get to judge His reasons and having failed to measure up to your judgement, His commands were commands to do evil. It requires that God is not Sovereign, does not reign over all of that which HE created and is thus His by definition, including each of us, to do with as He sees fit for reasons of His own without regard for how Dan Trabue finds it off putting. All Dan Trabue does is focus on the children and babies so he can make his case that God either commanded evil or that the passages Dan finds so alarming are lies by the person who recorded them. And if Dan can dismiss these passages in this lame manner and make anyone buy into it, he can then insist that other passages he finds inconvenient can also be disregarded, which is how you roll.
"Do you recognize that this is literally a human theory, not in the Bible. Something YOU are reading into it that isn't there unless you "reason" your way there?"
The "human theory" is yours...that these events didn't occur as recorded in Scripture...that they represent God commanding evil because children and babies were put to death by His command. But that's a lie.
"Look at you, ya little boy scout. Good for you! You can manage to make a guess that a perfect God would not command you to rape someone... WHILE still defending the notion that a perfect God WOULD command someone to stab a baby."
How disrespectful you are in your response! But I'm not "guessing" God wouldn't command rape, because it's an absurd suggestion that He might. To suggest that it would be evil coming from Him, without considering any reason He might have for such a command, is your unsupported claim. In the meantime, God most certainly DID command that entire populations, including their babies among them, be put to death. It's not a "notion". It's recorded historical fact and remains so until you can prove it never happened. I'll wait here while you don't. (Let me just clarify that one can speculate as to the veracity of the presentation of the account, but that's as far as it goes and "speculation" is not proof that it didn't happen as recorded.)
"Why one and not the other, though?"
Because one is a bullshit hypothetical invention of yours unworthy of adult consideration, and the other is recorded history.
"Simply because there's a line in the Bible that you REALLY want to take literally?"
I wouldn't say "want" to take literally, but simply do take it literally until an actual intelligent adult reason not to take it literally can be presented. Do you intend to ever do anything like that at some point, or are you simply going to waste time with the absurd?
"And if there WAS a line in the Bible, THEN you'd say, "Well, wait a second! That can't be literally factual..." OR would you say, "Welp, okay, rape is on the "acceptable option" list, too?"
So, I guess you're going to stick with the most absurd hypothetical you can conjure, rather than provide an actual evidence supported adult explanation for asserting the passages you find offensive shouldn't be taken as presented in Scripture. I think I've made quite clear over the years...every time you try this grade school challenge...that I'm good with whatever Scripture says about God saying or having done. 100% good with it, even if I have personal difficulties with it. For example...I have great difficulty accepting that I would displease God to slap the crap out of a fake Christian from Louisville every chance I had to do so, but as He's God, I abide. That's how Christians and those who strive to be one responds to the tough bits in Scripture.
But at the same time, if God commanded rape as you need to put it because you're so twisted, it wouldn't make raping people OK for you to do if you felt so inclined. God doesn't command evil, so there is nothing evil about anything God might command, no matter how evil it would be for you to do it if you weren't commanded by Him prior. This covers absolutely any goofy-assed hypothetical you can imagine in order to legitimize your rejection of these passages you find difficult.
"I. The Bible is clear in 100 ways that killing/murder is a sin/is wrong. Killing or harming children, babies and the least of these is ESPECIALLY awful, in biblical texts.
Correct?"
No. Not correct. First of all, there's a distinction between murder and killing which is clear in Scripture. One is wrong, not necessarily the other.
Secondly, intentionally inflicting harm of any kind on anyone is wrong without any hint of favoritism, with one exception which comes to mind: Leading children into sin..which you do as a matter of personal policy.
"II. NOWHERE in the Bible are there places where there are exceptions to these rules (if you're one to take the Bible as a rulings book). Not one time does God say, "It's wrong to kill. Period. Especially babies... (welllll, unless I TELL you to do it, then you get a pass, a get out of hell free card..." That doesn't happen anywhere in the Bible. That or nothing like that."
God says, "Thou shalt not murder." To exact His judgement on an entire population by putting them all to death in the manner commanded by God is not murder. That's happened in the Bible on more than one occasion.
"III. What we do have are some passages where God is depicting as either allowing or commanding the murder of a whole realm, men, women and children."
Let me correct this intentional corruption as well: What we do have are passages where God is recorded as having commanded (not "allowing") putting to death entire populations. He never commanded murder.
"The question then is, "IS this something that should be taken literally?" That's the question you're skipping and begging. Merely saying, "REAL Christians wouldn't ask the question!" is insane and not logically rational/consistent."
You're not accurately presenting anything I've said, and doing so on purpose I've no doubt. The question is "on what basis can you insist these passages shouldn't be taken literally?" That's the question you don't answer. My position is that we're reading recorded history and until you can provide solid evidence those events did not occur, there's no legitimate reason to reject them as not true events which actually occurred. My position is that real Christians don't reject distressing passages simply because they're distressing and then try to come up with ways to rationalize having done so. There's no way an honest person could have failed to understand what I've said on these points.
"IV. It might be one thing IF we had proof that every line in the Bible and each command in the Bible we KNEW objectively was to be taken literally. But you don't think that."
I don't pretend that there's any reason to reject such passages as those we perhaps shouldn't take literally. I also don't pretend you have any legitimate reason to refuse to take them literally. They're not written as if a parable or a fiction, but as actual events which had taken place in the time referenced. You just reject them because it depicts facts about the nature of God which don't work for you and your pseudo-Christian fantasies. You want God to conform to your criteria. I try to conform to God. Accepting these passages as accurate recordings of historic events presents no problems for me and my relationship with God, nor of my acceptance that He's perfectly just and loving. No conflict at all.
But then, I actually study Scripture, so...
"You have passages like Jesus saying he'd come to preach good news to the poor and you say he didn't mean the literally poor."
And I do so with actual evidence...testimonies from scholars who understand the original languages and word usage, as well as other aspects you ignore to insist on your lazy understanding.
"We have passages like James saying directly and unequivocally, "Is it not THE RICH who oppress you" and otherwise harshly condemning "THE RICH," just like that, which you say, "welllll, that doesn't mean ALL the rich, just SOME of them.""
Well, that's only because James was directly and unequivocally speaking to a specific people regarding the specific rich people who oppressed them.
But then, I actually study Scripture, so...
"That is, you hold the position that sometimes it's rational and apt to use your reason and say, "Maybe this shouldn't be taken literally...""
I hold the position not all "reasoning" is honest or intelligent. I hold the position that to reason as you do is neither, and not really reasoning at all in the manner you pretend it is. I don't believe you're honest in how you use the word "literally" given when and how you use it.
"So, that STILL begs the question which you STILL haven't answered: WHY would we presume the kill babies texts should be taken literally?
Don't comment further til you answer."
I've answered this many times, but as you insist on being false in your obstinance (including stubbornly highlighting killing babies for effect), I'll repeat myself yet again: Because these are recorded as having happened, and until you can prove these events never did happen, honest people assume Scripture isn't lying like a modern progressive.
Don't question the validity, veracity and truthfulness of a passage until you can provide compelling evidence to the contrary.
Answer the questions below in bold, Marshal, or go away (not the first one, though).
Dan:
"So, that STILL begs the question which you STILL haven't answered: WHY would we presume the kill babies texts should be taken literally?
Marshal:
Because these are recorded as having happened, and
until you can prove these events never did happen,
honest people assume Scripture isn't lying like a modern progressive.
A. Define "prove." Do you mean objectively prove as an established fact? Or merely convinces you by making a strong case, even if it can't be proven objectively?
B. You're saying, BECAUSE these texts are there, UNTIL SOMEONE "proves" to me, Marshal, that these events never happened literally as recorded, then they MUST be assumed to be a literal fact, is that right?
C. PROVE that "honest people assume Scripture isn't lying."
i. With the caveat that you just DON'T seem able to understand: Saying a text is written in a figurative manner is literally and factually NOT the same as saying someone is lying. That is a demonstrable false claim.
ii. Thus, PROVE that "honest people assume Scripture is written always in a literal historic manner with all facts and dialogs being what literally happened."
iii. HOW are you going to prove that "honest people" would agree with your premise? You know that you can't, right? So that would be a false claim, right? Just partisan bias on your part devoid of reality, right?
cont'd...
D. Has someone objectively proven to you that James did not mean all rich folks as he literally said? That Jesus did not mean he'd come to preach to the poor, sick, blind and imprisoned as he literally said?
The answer to that is a definite, NO, correct?
E. Of course, it is, whether you admit it or not. And so, by "prove" you don't mean to prove objectively because you routinely interpret literal texts in a less than literal manner when you don't like the literal meaning,* so, again, define "prove..." You mean make a case for that you find convincing enough?
F. If so, what of those of us who have found the case AGAINST your interpretations to be stronger than what you've concluded... do we not get the grace to dare to disagree with your unproven (objectively) opinions? Why?
======
* That raises a question: What FIRST made you think that Jesus did not mean literally preaching good news to the poor? That James did not mean literally "the rich," as opposed to SOME rich? You appear to have a BIG bias towards presuming all biblical text is literally factual/historic and all dialog is what was literally said (is that fair?), so when Jesus said "I've come to preach good news to the poor, healing for the sick, sight for the blind, freedom for the captive..." did you IMMEDIATELY presume it was saying just what he literally said or did that raise a red flag for you right away and you were suspicious of a literal interpretation? If so, why?
I suspect that you, like most of us adults, will automatically evaluate text as you're reading, given what you've learned throughout your life, and if a literal text does not "sound like" it should be taken literally, you immediately question it. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just asking.
In the case of Luke's sermon on the mount/plain, when he said Blessed are you who are poor... but WOE to you who are rich (which on the face of it, sounds literally like he's speaking literally of the poor and rich), what was your process for making it figurative for you? In that case, I would guess that you, like many/most conservative evangelicals, had the Matthew SOTM text drilled into you... "Blessed are the POOR IN SPIRIT..." and so, you perhaps just assumed that's what Luke was saying... maybe not even realizing it wasn't literally the same line. But you tell me.
Would you be surprised to hear that when most conservative evangelical churches preach about the SOTM, they nearly always use Matthew, rather than Luke?
Dan:
"Do you understand the distinction? That the text says what it says has never been in dispute. The question has always been, What INTERPRETATION should we have for these texts? What genre should we consider the text to be written in?
Do you understand that these are reasonable and important questions?"
Marshal:
The distinction was never lost on me and the fact that you continue to make out as if it has been is as unnecessary as it has always been. You can stop it now.
But then, why do you keep saying that if we take a text to be figurative, mythic or legendary, then that makes God a liar. It literally doesn't. That Jesus told stories in parable (ie, fiction) form, doesn't make Jesus a liar. He's not trying to pass on the literal facts of a story, he's TELLING a story for a point. THAT is why it's important - essential - to begin textual evaluation by understanding the genre and writing tropes involved. You give no indication of understanding that.
The only rational "interpretation" is that it is a factual recording of actual events. The "genre" doesn't matter.
PROVE IT.
Who says? On what authority? Just because YOU claim that the only rational interpretation is that it is historically accurate does not make it a fact.
Do you acknowledge that simple, demonstrable reality?
As to genre, again, of course it matters. If it's a FIGURATIVE, fictional, mythic story (ie, Jesus choosing to tell a parable, the creation myth) and you try to make it literal history (the rich man was literally having a conversation with God about Lazarus... the earth is 6,000 years old), then you WILL be missing the point and possibly making terrible conclusions and extrapolations.
If a doctor is going to operate on you to repair your heart, do you want him to have studied medical surgical texts or the instructions for the old game, Operation?
Of course, genre matters. And this is NOT a liberal opinion. I was taught that by my sainted conservative forebears.
"Since Scripture is not monolithic because it contains multiple genres and was written over a vast period of time, by many authors, in different languages, it requires discernment to know which rules of interpretation to apply to any given text to find its intended meaning."
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-is-hermeneutics
"If you want to understand the Bible better, one of the most important concepts is Bible “genres.”"
https://renew.org/bible-genres/
"the topic of genre would take center stage in the material. This is clearly an important topic in modern studies in Biblical hermeneutics."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7679/how-is-genre-determined
Of course, genre matters. The difference between myth and literal history is the difference between lightning and lightning bug.
I'll entertain direct, clear, respectful answers to these final questions but for the most part, we're done here, Marshal. We're approaching 200 comments and you demonstrate a great deal of lack of understanding on where your arguments are failing, that you are literally offering your subjective and unproven opinions, NOT facts and, just generally, an inability to understand what I am and am not saying. You rarely directly answer questions (although you have many words to say in RESPONSE to my questions...) and offer unsupported fact claims about other matters in lieu of answering my questions.
I've given you about all the time I have for this discussion. But I would still love to see your direct clear answers to these last questions. Sadly, it will likely be more of the same.
Marshal:
The only rational "interpretation" is that it is a factual recording of actual events. The "genre" doesn't matter. It could be presented as a limerick and it wouldn't matter as regards whether or not it represents an actual event.
Factual history report:
George Washington was the first president in the US. He was born in Virginia while the US was still a colony. he had training as a surveyor and mapmaker. In his 20s, he joined the military and served in the French and Indian War in 1754. He married Martha Custis who had a good deal of land and together, they owned 84 human beings. He struggled with the moral acceptability of slavery, nonetheless, he owned human beings for 50+ years. He played a central role in the Revolutionary War and that led to him running for and being elected (by the landed white men who could vote) as the first president in 1775.
Limerick:
There once was a man named George
who killed all the British at Valley Forge
His slaves all sang
of the Revolutionary War Gang
and then he retreated to Red River Gorge
Legend
George Washington was conceived by Zeus in a romantic tryst with George's mother, Mary Ball. Zeus was not involved in George's life, thereafter, but the god-blood in his veins made George nearly god-like. He was basically the Hercules of the Colonies. With only his great power and the jawbone of an ass, George single-handedly wiped out the British, along with their wives and children living in the colonies. The people rose up and demanded he be made KING, but George modestly said, "Yes! I AM KING!" And his kingdom reigned in peace and joy for 100 years and finally, at the age of 200, George left the earth on a chariot of fire and went to Mount Olympus where he lives with the gods and goddesses.
Genre matters.
And lest you not understand:
In this limerick, the story of an actual Washington is being told. There are even some facts (he WAS at Valley Forge, he DID have slaves), but in limerick, the facts are not important, the humorous rhyme is what matters.
In the Legend, again, we see some facts. Washington's mother, the Colonies, the fight with the British. But in legend, the point is to lift up and honor a beloved hero and the facts are secondary to that.
You may go to recess now, Marshy.
"A legend is a genre of folklore that consists of a narrative featuring human actions, believed or perceived, both by teller and listeners, to have taken place within human history. Narratives in this genre may demonstrate human values, and possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude.
Legends are stories that are handed down through generations. They are partly true. Robin Hood features real people from history. Unlike myths, legends don’t have magic or monsters, because they’re based on reality.
Legends resemble folktales in content; they may include supernatural beings, elements of mythology, or explanations of natural phenomena, but they are associated with a particular locality or person and are told as a matter of history. "
https://edubirdie.com/examples/some-of-the-literary-elements-of-a-legend/
No, Dan. I'm going to respond to everything, not just the bold stuff several posts down:
"A. Define "prove." Do you mean objectively prove as an established fact? Or merely convinces you by making a strong case, even if it can't be proven objectively?"
You mean you've had a "strong case" this whole time and chose not to present it when this whole thing began? How do you justify such an egregious omission?
Given...despite your self-serving rejections...Scripture presents a record of history, it remains established fact until evidence can "objectively" prove it isn't. Such evidence would be required for that which is put forth as a "strong case". Strong cases don't exist without such evidence.
Which definition of "prove" have you been using all these years when you demand I prove anything you can't otherwise counter? Use that definition. You'll fail regardless, so what the hell.
"B. You're saying, BECAUSE these texts are there, UNTIL SOMEONE "proves" to me, Marshal, that these events never happened literally as recorded, then they MUST be assumed to be a literal fact, is that right?"
Yes, because that's the way it works with any presentation of events. I say I rescued an abandoned baby from a burning building and that's how it happened until someone can prove I didn't. You're always free to reject such records of events without logical, adult legitimate basis. It isn't an honest rejection, though.
"C. PROVE that "honest people assume Scripture isn't lying.""
Define "prove". Then prove the contrary.
"i. With the caveat that you just DON'T seem able to understand: Saying a text is written in a figurative manner is literally and factually NOT the same as saying someone is lying. That is a demonstrable false claim."
Fascinating. Totally irrelevant, but fascinating. In the meantime, the style in which an event was recorded has nothing to do with whether or not one should believe the tale. On what basis can you assert a report in Scripture of an event such as those we're discussing is untrue even if it's presented in Haiku? The lie is that we don't have to believe the stories aren't accurate reports of the events happening. You're saying the author is lying by presenting something which isn't truly as stated. In the meantime, you offer nothing in the way of a rational, intelligent alternative understanding, and expect THAT should be taken literally!
"ii. Thus, PROVE that "honest people assume Scripture is written always in a literal historic manner with all facts and dialogs being what literally happened.""
It's not necessary to prove what is so logical and obvious. It is presented as a record of events. Why wouldn't an honest person...particularly an honest, actual Christian person...suppose it isn't an accurate representation of actual events? Maybe it's time you presented this alleged "strong case".
"iii. HOW are you going to prove that "honest people" would agree with your premise? You know that you can't, right? So that would be a false claim, right? Just partisan bias on your part devoid of reality, right?"
Oh, I see. Now you're just moving to another tangent because you failed yet again to demonstrate I might be wrong or that you are justified in rejecting Scriptural passages you don't personally like. I don't need to prove what other people believe. This is between you and me. Support your case for a change with your definition of "prove". It's an absurd notion that honest people would read these passages and presume it could be other than a factual presentation of actual events.
OR, I can use YOUR "reasoning" and demand you show me where Scripture says one mustn't regard these passages as truthful presentations of actual events. You're always demanding that Scripture must say what you don't want to hear in order to agree or admit what is affirmed by others. Now's your chance to do the same. Show me where Scripture says not to believe everything you read within its pages. I'll wait here while you struggle to find an honest response.
If you want to present a "strong case" which would disabuse honest Christian people of believing what they read in any passage is true and factual and accurate, do so. As I continue to insist in vain, I'm open to actual arguments. You never present any.
"D. Has someone objectively proven to you that James did not mean all rich folks as he literally said? That Jesus did not mean he'd come to preach to the poor, sick, blind and imprisoned as he literally said?
The answer to that is a definite, NO, correct?"
No, it's not. "Has someone objectively proven to you that James did not mean all rich folks as he literally said?" Yes. James. He is writing to a specific group of people and as the NIV in front of me attests, he gives greetings to "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations", which would most naturally apply to Jewish Christians. He's certainly addressing Christians, which is plain in 2:1 and 5:8. As leader of the Jerusalem church, he wrote as pastor with knowledge of their trials and oppression. Thus, he's referring to rich people who've been messing with these people, not all rich people the world over.
As to who Christ was referencing, I've provided my evidence from scholars about what the original language meant and how it would have been understood. You deleted it and never guaranteed that you wouldn't do it again. If you wish to make that unconditional guarantee now, perhaps I will submit it for posting again.
"E. Of course, it is, whether you admit it or not. And so, by "prove" you don't mean to prove objectively because you routinely interpret literal texts in a less than literal manner when you don't like the literal meaning,* so, again, define "prove..." You mean make a case for that you find convincing enough?"
You're playing games again with the notion of "taking Scripture literally". It's a fluid meaning for you, to contort it as it serves you to do so. "Texts" aren't "literal". They say what one determines to be that which is taken literally on its face (exactly as written) or as the underlying meaning intended. This is why you take figurative examples to argue against that which is to be taken literally, and regard as a literal understanding that which is actually a shallow understanding, where the meaning is based on the context and other verses and passages.
For the purpose of the passages in question here and now, they are either records of actual events or they are not. They depict explicit commands of God or they don't. They Hebrews took God at His word or they didn't. They are rather straight forward, not at all "figurative" except that you insist they must be taken that way. So prove they are. I don't have to prove they aren't. They read as they read, just as any other rendering of any other battle in recent times, none of which you have a problem taking as written.
"You mean make a case for that you find convincing enough?"
I mean if the battles didn't happen as described, it's up to you to prove it. My proof is Scripture until something more compelling can be produced to dissuade me from believing what it says. I'm guessing it's in that "strong case" you've been withholding. Let's see it.
"But then, why do you keep saying that if we take a text to be figurative, mythic or legendary, then that makes God a liar."
I don't. I'm focused on whatever text you're rejecting at the moment. There's no legitimate argument to suggest that these passages regarding God exacting His judgement through human agency does not suggest any figurative, mythic or legendary possibility. That's just your imposition on texts you find personally offensive. By suggesting we aren't meant to take it as written more than implies intentional falsehood on the part of the writer of the text.
If you think I said something, go back and find my exact words. I never said your antics makes God a liar. I said it makes the text a lie and thus he who penned it.
"That Jesus told stories in parable (ie, fiction) form, doesn't make Jesus a liar. He's not trying to pass on the literal facts of a story, he's TELLING a story for a point. THAT is why it's important - essential - to begin textual evaluation by understanding the genre and writing tropes involved. You give no indication of understanding that."
The parables of Jesus are presented as parables. The wars of Israel are presented as history. There's no denying that regardless of "the genre" in which it is presented. I'm well aware of myth, fiction, legend and fairy tales. These passages are none of those and until you can prove the events never happened, or can provide a "strong case" which indicates they are not truthfully recorded history, there's no reason not to regard them as such. None whatsoever. These stories simply conflict with your fantasy understanding of God's nature, and thus you won't abide.
"PROVE IT."
Define "prove" and then use that definition to prove the stories aren't true as told in Scripture. You're the one disputing what is written. You're the one disputing what is written must be understood in a manner apart from how it is written. YOU prove it. That's how it works. I've presented evidence and proofs to counter your corruptions of other verses. Your turn to provide proof these passages aren't true records of actual events.
"Who says? On what authority? Just because YOU claim that the only rational interpretation is that it is historically accurate does not make it a fact.
Do you acknowledge that simple, demonstrable reality?"
That's a dodge and nothing more. I'm not making a claim about the veracity of the text. YOU are. YOU have to prove your objection. I don't have to prove agreeing with what's clearly presented.
Gotta cut it off here. You post so much and then dictate which I'm supposed to address. Just for fun, leave it alone until I've totally caught up with everything up to your last comment on April 3, 2024 at 2:22 PM. I'm not going to respond to anything new until I do anyway.
Marshal: “I'm focused on whatever text you're rejecting at the moment.”
Feodor: Marshal I've been focused on the increasing number of texts you lie about and corrupt:
John 14
Acts 10
Acts 11
Acts 15
Galatians 5
1 Corinthians 10
1 Timothy 4
What DOES Marshal have? Nothing. He has lied about all of these passages. Openly. Brazenly. With gusto. He lies about verbs. He lies about nouns. He lies about New Testament chronology. He makes up bad faith logic and puts it into the heads of Apostles - whom he claims are perfect, but for whom Marshal needs lies to get them to make perfect sense. He puts words in Jesus mouth. All while claiming to believe the Bible.
Got a little time at the moment. I'll cover what I can and return later.
"As to genre, again, of course it matters. If it's a FIGURATIVE, fictional, mythic story (ie, Jesus choosing to tell a parable, the creation myth) and you try to make it literal history (the rich man was literally having a conversation with God about Lazarus... the earth is 6,000 years old), then you WILL be missing the point and possibly making terrible conclusions and extrapolations."
None of the passages describing warfare to exact God's judgement on entire populations are in any way akin to parable or other such fictions. The attempt to group them as the same or similar is intended to dismiss them as not facts. These stories are set forth as descriptions of actual events and you're not bringing anything akin to evidence to compel any mature, intelligent consideration they might not be. So stop referencing parables and fiction and deal with the passages themselves. Bring that "strong case".
"If a doctor is going to operate on you to repair your heart, do you want him to have studied medical surgical texts or the instructions for the old game, Operation?"
Another example of your inability to craft an intelligent analogy. There's no comparison between the passages in question and this tripe.
"Of course, genre matters. And this is NOT a liberal opinion. I was taught that by my sainted conservative forebears."
Yeah. Whatever. I've no way to know with any degree of certainty what your "sainted conservative forebears" taught you, or whether they were worth a damn as teachers. What I do know is that the likelihood of your grasping their lessons if they were good teachers is shamefully low. What's important here is whether or not whatever "genre" you wish to impose on these stories is accurate and honest. On what basis, for example, can you honestly suggest these passages are fiction or any other form of story telling which is other than an honest presentation of actual events? So far, the only basis is that you desire that they be fictitious in some way and not be taken as presentations of actual events. That doesn't get it done. But without the least evidence they are fiction, it is dishonest to presume they aren't actual events being presented.
The text is the starting point. The text relates events to the reader. Right there, there is no reason to question the text. One can wonder, but from that initial point of wonder, it is incumbent upon the questioning reader to find HARD DATA which can better inform as to the veracity of the events related. But you just deny. You don't bring evidence to mitigate the veracity of the text. So it's not a question of why anyone should agree with me, but why should anyone doubt the text? You certainly give no reason. You just disagree that it's accurate.
"I'll entertain direct, clear, respectful answers to these final questions but for the most part, we're done here, Marshal."
Those are the only kind of answers I give, with some snark thrown in on the assumption you're not a tight ass...which indicates a degree of respect to proceed on that assumption.
"We're approaching 200 comments and you demonstrate a great deal of lack of understanding on where your arguments are failing, that you are literally offering your subjective and unproven opinions, NOT facts and, just generally, an inability to understand what I am and am not saying."
This is something you assert without basis. You haven't demonstrated I've misunderstood anything at all. Saying so doesn't make it so. Worse, the issue here with regard to these passages about the Hebrews acting as God's means of exacting His judgement, I've no obligation to provide anything to prove what Scripture says about those episodes are true. YOU, on the other hand, assert they can't be taken literally and thus it's YOU who is obligated to bring support in favor of your unwarranted opinions. Thus, I understand clearly and beyond question that you're not saying anything except that I'm wrong and somehow unreasonable in standing firmly in defense of the veracity of the test.
"You rarely directly answer questions (although you have many words to say in RESPONSE to my questions...) and offer unsupported fact claims about other matters in lieu of answering my questions."
This is just a lie. You know this is a lie because you've deleted so much evidence I've put in the effort to find and bring to the table. When you remove those instances where you've asked me the same questions multiple times, I'm not obliged to continually post the evidence again and again and again only to see you again and again and again ignore, dismiss or delete it. Thus, it is far more truthful to say that on occasion I don't directly answer questions. to say "rarely" is demonstrably false, even considering just those comments you haven't deleted.
"I've given you about all the time I have for this discussion. But I would still love to see your direct clear answers to these last questions. Sadly, it will likely be more of the same."
What could possibly be sad about getting what you constantly demand, unless getting what you demand is not what you hoped to receive? This is the way it goes here, and then you pretend you're the one having patience tested? How arrogant!
Regarding your absurd example from April 3, 2024 at 2:14 PM:
This is about as insulting an attempt to persuade as any you've ever dared attempt. You begin with a biography and then move to a limerick crafted with intentional distortions and actually suppose this is what I meant by using a limerick style to relate an actual event? Then you do worse with your "legend" and by clear implication dare to suggest either the limerick or legend is comparable to the passages we're discussing??? There's no snark or profane epithet I've ever thrown your way which is any more disrespectful than daring to suppose I could be persuaded by this lie of an analogy. The passages are presented in the same way as your "Factual history report", with the only differences being that of detail and the presence of the supernatural God you claim to worship in the report.
I've taken more time than I should have, but I'm so close to the end I'll proceed.
"In this limerick, the story of an actual Washington is being told. There are even some facts (he WAS at Valley Forge, he DID have slaves), but in limerick, the facts are not important, the humorous rhyme is what matters."
The bullshit here is the assertion that limericks must only be used to get a laugh. But that's not what "genre" asserts. The style of limerick can be used to say anything, including giving an accurate account of actual events. That you chose to compose one as you did is purposeful, but doesn't legitimize the lying you're doing in both the poem itself as well as your reason for composing it as you did. Humor is NOT a requirement for composing a limerick.
"In the Legend, again, we see some facts. Washington's mother, the Colonies, the fight with the British. But in legend, the point is to lift up and honor a beloved hero and the facts are secondary to that."
Here again you purposely include wild-ass invention along with some truths to push your weak argument that the passages in question should not be taken as written. But even legendary tales of Washington which exist do not include obvious lie like being conceived by Zeus or George being like a god. The legend of him chopping down his father's cherry tree, for example is clearly made up, as there is no actual evidence the event ever occurred, but was to highlight his honest nature. While that is no more true than your blatant Zeus bullshit, that too doesn't compare to the passages in question.
Thus, again, I'm not in any way misunderstanding you in the slightest, or wrong in my position about the passages in question.
Finally, I know what a legend and a myth is. By your "logic"...and I use the term about as loosely as one can grasp something without dropping it...the the entire Bible is "legend" or "myth". It is about a deity...the One True God Who actually exists. It's not about Zeus or Apollo or any other pagan religion about which no evidence exists to suppose it might be true.
You exploit the fact of God being a part of a passage to reject it as "myth" or "legend" if you don't like the passage. It's akin to "selective hearing loss". You hold as truth what appeals to you and reject as myth or legend what doesn't. It's that simple. To suggest I have any trouble at all understanding what is so transparently clear is just another attempt to deceive.
I've not "lost" in any way at any point in this entire thread from the first comment on to now, be it in engagements with you or with your boy feo. You've just run out of ways to "win" like the Black Knight.
Okay, Marshal, we're done here. I can't help you understand what you're not understanding.
But note: Moving forward, ANY comment you make from this day forward, IF it is a claim of fact that is either not factual or of dubious and unsupported merit, WILL be deleted. IF you're making an objective fact claim, THEN you have to support it with objective - demonstrable to all, even if they don't agree with your opinions and traditions - data.
Failing that, if it's a claim that you can't objectively support, then ALL you have to do is make clear: THIS IS MY, Marshal's, OPINION, and it's one I can't objectively prove. You're fine to post your subjective opinions IF you remain respectful and IF you make clear it's your subjective opinion. Once you've done that, you're free to say why you think it is a reasonable subjective opinion, but no more making claims as if they're objective facts when they're not.
No more.
Unless my memory fails (as it often does), I WILL hold you to this Marshal. I'm fine with you having subjective opinions and stating them here (ie, "I REALLLY believe that the Biblical texts REALLLY should be understood to REALLY being inerrant and pointing to PSA... this is my subjective opinion which I can prove, but I REALLLLLLLLLY think it is correct...") but the arrogance of insisting you don't have to prove claims you make as if they were objective facts and as if you were above questioning is just tiresome and takes too long to muddle through.
And before you make this mistake (again) MERELY citing a passage from the Bible (ie, "in Genesis and the rest of the Bible, they speak of 174 generations between Adam and Jesus...") is NOT objective proof of anything. MERELY telling me how you interpret it is not objective proof of anything. Merely saying, "All TRUE Christians agree with me..." is not objective proof of anything.
All ANY of that does is show you are conflating yourself with God and you just ain't that.
Now, move on.
Marshal:
assume everything I submit is totally opinion. Now what are you going to do? You're going to demand I support my opinion.
THERE. THAT would be the starting point. Yes, IF you can get where you say, "These are my subjective opinions about matters I can't prove objectively about what God thinks..." THAT is the starting point. We don't care about what you think God thinks, insofar as that goes. THAT is a significant starting point.
From there, YES, then we can proceed as rational good faith adults to have a conversation:
* IS it reasonable, knowing what we know, to think that the earth is ~6,000 years old?
* IS it reasonable to deny basic human liberties to LGBTQ folks?
* WHO should make abortion-related medical decisions for a woman?
* IS it reasonable to try to prevent immigrants fleeing dangerous situations in their home nation from seeking refugee status here?
* Is it reasonable to make that difficult and make refugees spend months/years waiting in insecure settings to secure their refugee status?
etc.
And IF someone leads with, "Well, the Bible says... X, which I think means Y..." we can say, "Cute. Is that all you have, just what you personally think what God thinks? What about human rights concerns? What about self-determination? But, okay, we've noted that you think that 'god' thinks. Now, given that we don't care what you think about that, let's move on."
The rest of your comments will soon be deleted because they're full of unsupported and irrational claims and that violates your rule for commenting.
Marshal made rude and unsupported claims and they were deleted, per his new rules.
Marshal, just to help you learn... THESE are unsupported (and rude, crude) claims:
[Dan asked: "Is it reasonable to make that difficult and make refugees spend months/years waiting in insecure settings to secure their refugee status?"
Yes, and more so under current conditions made totally untenable by a guy morons insisted was a better choice for president in 2020...
Given modern progressives/socialists/marxists/Democrat/leftists in general have proven themselves incompetent in determining what constitutes sound immigration policy,..
to pass through other nations which are fully capable and willing to provide refuge only to get here belies their claim of fleeing danger which directly threatens them...
I'm quoting Scripture and it's up to you to prove what Scripture says isn't what it means...
Given abortion is never necessary, civil law reflecting the Constitutionally protected right to life should do away with the practice...
For example and starters. ALL of that in two relatively short comments.
You are no longer free, here, to make unsupported claims of facts. And being rude and vulgar is not going to help your cause. You have a new rule to live by here: SUPPORT your claims as objective facts OR admit they are your subjective opinions.
Do you understand?
And once again, rational people don't CARE what you may think God thinks or how you personally might interpret ancient religious texts. You citing an ancient religious text is proof of NOTHING except that the text exists.
Move on. Your continued unsupported claims and arrogance only makes it clear you have nothing to stand on but rudeness, vulgarity and bullying.
Marshal said, in another unsupported and now-deleted comment:
When I cite passages, it's to support Biblical facts. Thus, doing so is objective proof of the proposition I'm defending.
Look: "The Bible mentions the four corners of the world. That makes it a BIBLICAL FACT that the earth has four corners and is thus, a square." I'm given you "objective proof" of that proposition... by YOUR irrational and just wrong proposition.
Merely citing biblical text is NOT objective proof or a biblical fact of the way that YOU interpret it (or of how anyone interprets it). It just doesn't. You're factually mistaken.
"The Bible says that James said it is the RICH who are oppressing you. James can only be speaking of ALL the rich because that's what the literal text literally says. I've now objectively proven it as a biblical fact based on Marshal's opinion/method of establishing facts."
"The Bible says that Jesus said he'd come to preach good news to the poor, sick and imprisoned, so it can ONLY be taken to mean he'd come to preach to the poor, sick and imprisoned just as he literally said. I've now objectively proven it as a biblical fact based on Marshal's opinion/method of establishing facts."
You're just wrong. The existence of an idea in a biblical text is NOT objective proof that the idea mentioned, taken literally, is an objectively biblical fact.
Marshal, isn't posting multiple comments saying the exact same thing the thing that made you "ban" Feodor? You must not approve of it on some level. And yet, here you are, doing that same thing.
Again, if you don't provide support for an unsubstantiated claim, it will be deleted. My blog, my rule for you.
Upset? I'm not upset. I'm embarrassed for you. This is so incredibly childish. And to the degree that it may or may not be true of someone else, that's incredibly childish for them, too. If it's an attempt at some kind of low scale direct action, it's a failed one, in my opinion. Move on. If you want to comment here, comment on topic and if you make objective fact claims, provide objective proof. You can't. You never do. So, just move on.
By your "logic"...and I use the term about as loosely as one can grasp something without dropping it...the the entire Bible is "legend" or "myth". It is about a deity...the One True God Who actually exists.
The oldest parts of the Bible were written in a pre-history manner. That is, stories just weren't told with an eye to literal facts. Legend and magic are regularly included, alongside some humans who may or may not have existed.
The newest parts of the Bible were written in an early-history era of storytelling. Beginning ~500 BCE and moving through ~500 ACE and beyond, there was an increased emphasis on literal, linear history. Thus, I'm not presuming to be so bold or arrogant as to suggest that ancient people should have been telling stories in a more modern way that we prefer.
The details of the stories in the Bible, therefore, I do not consider as important or relevant as the TRUTHS contained in the Bible. Was Jonah actually swallowed by a "great fish" and then spit out three days later? I don't know. I see no reason to presume this was telling a literal history of Jonah. Rather, to the storytellers who passed it on, the TRUTHS involved were that God loves us all, even the most depraved (Ninevah) and God wants to include us all... the Truths include that one can't run from responsibility or from God or from duty to neighbor... the Truths include the notion that we should never be angry that God extends grace and forgiveness as Jonah was towards the end of the story.
These Truths are sound and reasonable, whether or not there was an actual fish that managed to swallow a human, that a human could live in the belly of a fish (or whale, if you prefer - and you know, there's no oxygen in the belly of the few whales who might be able to actually swallow a human, right?) for three days and then survive and be vomited out. What reason do we have to prefer to try to make this a literal story? Does it hurt the Truths involved if the story was not completely factual?
Not that I'm wanting your answers, as you won't likely answer them directly or you'll just make up an unsupported claim, but that's my response to your comment.
Also and likewise, I'm much less concerned about the details of Jesus' resurrection and more interested in his actual teachings. I know that for some of you all (perhaps including St Paul), your faith is undone or worthless if Jesus did not physically have a resurrection from death to life. I'm not that way. For what it's worth.
Which goes to show you, perhaps, that a faith in the literal veracity of each story told in the Bible may mean you're worshiping/emphasizing the book, not the God of the Book. Just something to consider.
Marshal, HERE is why your comments are being deleted. HERE I am explaining to you how you're not answering the questions and you're not supporting your claims, nor admitting they are your subjective opinion.
I had asked:
"Was Jonah actually swallowed by a "great fish" and then spit out three days later?"
You responded:
According to Scripture, yes.
I did not ASK you if there was a story in the Bible of Jonah being swallowed by a great fish. You understand, don't you, that this is NOT the question you were asked?
I asked you if it actually, literally happened. Saying, "The story's in the Bible, so Yes," is begging the question. I'm not asking you if the story is in the Bible. I'm asking you if it actually happened. Your answer is an example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, of making unsupported presumptions and of begging the question, PRESUMING that your unsupported presumption is a given.
I had asked:
"What reason do we have to prefer to try to make this a literal story?"
You responded with a question, rather than an answer:
What reason do you have to prefer to regard this in any other way? For most people, a story heard is accepted as true without mitigating circumstances which might put the story in question.
And you also made the latter claim (a story is presumed factual without mitigating circumstances) that is wholly unsupported. There are all manner of stories I hear and that YOU hear that you do not presume to be factual. And the mitigating circumstances, in this instance, is that Jonah reads like a legend and it's scientifically impossible for a human to be swallowed by any fish (or dinosaur, as some of your type sometimes say) and while I'm not opposed to miracles/unexplained phenomena, I don't presume a miracle just because it reads that way in a story. YOU do not believe the miracles attributed in stories about Julius Caesar, Gilgamesh or Zeus. The mitigating circumstances are these are all stories told in a legendary or mythic manner, long ago in a time when literal factual histories of the sort we're familiar with now just didn't get passed on in that way. Or at least there's no objective evidence of that.
These non-answers and answers to different questions rather than the one I asked are why you are getting deleted. That, and your absence of objective evidence for your claims.
Post a Comment