I've requested that frequent commenter, Marshal, only comment and make claim facts IF he provides objective proof of his claims. I'm holding him to that requirement because he so frequently offers his opinions as if they were THE Word of God. As if they were objective, proven facts. I am relatively sure that he doesn't even understand that his opinions are not objectively proven, but I can't say that without sounding presumptuous. Nonetheless, that's how it seems.
I also suspect that, at some level, Marshal recognizes that he can't prove his opinions, that they are indeed, subjective human opinions based upon his traditions, but he can't bring himself to admit it.
Nonetheless, I am interested in commenting on a comment he made a couple of posts back (where his non-answers went on for 200 comments and I'm making that a hard deadline).
I had said:
"Also and likewise, I'm much less concerned about the details of Jesus' resurrection and more interested in his actual teachings."
And Marshal responded:
To what "details" are you referring? That He actually rose from the dead, or something like what He wore that day? Regardless, His teachings are worthless and not at all binding without the resurrection. Without the resurrection, He wasn't Who He said He was.
Marshal states that HE personally believes that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, Jesus' teachings are worthless. We should not gloss past that. Listen again:
Marshal personally holds the opinion that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, Jesus' teachings are worthless... NOT AT ALL BINDING.
Wow.
Marshal doesn't care about Jesus' words, apart from a resurrection. In Marshal's own words, he said:
His teachings are worthless and
not at all binding
without the resurrection.
Without the resurrection,
Jesus wasn't Who He said He was.
That's an astounding claim to make for someone who claims to love Jesus and his teachings and to love God and God's way. IF Jesus did not rise from the dead, he was not God.
Put another way, IF Marshal finds out that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, Marshal would not believe in Jesus as God or Christianity, I suppose. That seems like a reasonable thing to take away from Marshal's words. (Marshal, you may clarify if you'd like SO LONG AS you don't make a fact claim that is actually a subjective opinion and treat it as a given.)
Now, Marshal has not supported his claim that Jesus could only be God IF he rose from the dead. That is Marshal's subjective opinion, not a proven fact. As if God were limited to being God with a resurrection. And he's welcome to his opinion. But he should not treat it as a proven fact or anything but a subjective opinion.
For what it's worth, I happen to believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead. I think there is sufficient proof for that, although it certainly can't be objectively proven. My point is only that I follow Jesus because I follow his Way, his Teachings, what he considered important. NOT because he rose from the dead. Jesus' teachings are sound, impressive, life-giving and life-affirming. His teachings ARE a resurrection, regardless of whether he physically rose from the dead.
I think that I, in the past, was missing the point when I focused on the resurrection and not the teachings, not the Way of Grace. I hope not to make that mistake in the future. In the past when I held that position, I was limiting God, and that's not a good look.
17 comments:
Conversely, when Marshal ignores what Jesus says - *as *well *as *clear and *obvious *inferences - he betrays the terms he sets for his own faith.
Jesus: “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.”
Jesus did not promise a book. God is greater than the Bible. If, for Marshal, that’s not true, then god does not have the power to rise from the dead
Good point. Marshal is painting a rather frail idea of his god.
"I'm holding him to that requirement because he so frequently offers his opinions as if they were THE Word of God."
This is a lie you like to tell as if you're getting paid every time you say it. I never offer opinions as if "THE Word of God". I offer the Word of God as revealed to us in Scripture. You then proceed to pretend I've perverted the meaning of the Word of God as revealed to us in Scripture.
"As if they were objective, proven facts."
To cite from Scripture what Scripture relates to us stands as objective, proven facts. If your problem is with taking any given citation as accurately understood, it's up to you to prove the citation was somehow misunderstood. It's up to you to bring facts, evidence and data to support your objection...not to simply say I'm "speaking for God".
It's also necessary and obligatory to consider why I presented any citation...what the purpose was in doing so. Neither matters to you when doing so results in exposing your false beliefs.
All this type of thing would not require your misrepresentations (intended or not) were you to discontinue deleting my comments for nonsensical reasons put forth to rationalize the practice.
"Marshal personally holds the opinion that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, Jesus' teachings are worthless... NOT AT ALL BINDING."
Well certainly His teachings that He is the Word, the Truth and the Life would not be worth much, as His resurrection fulfilled all He came to do. His main message regarded our being redeemed...not caring for the poor with the money from other people. The purpose of His death on the cross would have been a lie, as there would be no way to confirm anything about why He gave His life willingly. His resurrection IS the faith... it is the most essential component of the faith, and without it, you're still dead in your sin.
All which regard as most important about His earthly teachings (apart from His Kingdom not being of this world and about how He is the only way to God the Father) are no more than what any other religion or atheist preaches. As such, to abide them means nothing other than you believe them personally to be important. Clearly, in this world, and among those you support politically, those teachings are meaningless beyond pandering. Atheists insist they are generous without any need for a Christ, so how do those types of teachings have any more weight because this dude from Nazareth said them? Not any. It's just what's fashionable.
"Put another way, IF Marshal finds out that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, Marshal would not believe in Jesus as God or Christianity, I suppose."
Nice hypothetical. I'm sure you feel really superior believing this invention. But if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, there IS no Christianity. It was that every event which compelled the spread of Christ being God. Recall that Scripture tells of the Apostles doing miracles. Are any of the them God? I don't think so. Prior to His resurrection, there were only His claims of deity. The resurrection proved it beyond any doubt. Because of that, those who had doubt proclaimed boldly His being God. From that, Christianity spread. Without it, there's no such thing. But given that He did rise from the dead, there's no "IF Marshal finds out that Jesus didn't rise..."
"Now, Marshal has not supported his claim that Jesus could only be God IF he rose from the dead."
But that's only because I never made such a claim. Why you have problems dealing only with what I actually say rather than what you need me to have said has confounded many for a long time. Such results in so many wasted keystrokes.
"My point is only that I follow Jesus because I follow his Way, his Teachings, what he considered important."
What He considered most important was God the Father, obedience to Him and our redemption. All else can be found by you in other religions without the burden of pretending to be a Christian.
"I held that position, I was limiting God, and that's not a good look."
You continue to limit God by rejecting as inconvenient or untrue that which conflicts with your preferred alternatives.
Marshal believes the book is perfect.
But he cannot address himself to John 14. He avoids it by diversion, deflection, and the dodge.
The only natural conclusion available to the most casual observer is that he’s been caught in corrupting his own faith. And he’s too fragile a person to admit to himself his house of cards standing in for faith in the living god.
Marshal, these are examples of unsupported claims that just aren't factual, and certainly not proven as objectively factual.
I never offer opinions as if "THE Word of God". I offer the Word of God as revealed to us in Scripture...
To cite from Scripture what Scripture relates to us stands as objective, proven facts.
If your problem is with taking any given citation as accurately understood, it's up to you to prove the citation was somehow misunderstood. It's up to you to bring facts, evidence and data to support your objection...
What [Jesus] considered most important was God the Father, obedience to Him and our redemption...
But if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, there IS no Christianity.
etc.
These are ALL your opinions. Further, you offer no clarifying support such as, "MY opinion on the matter - while I can't prove it - is..." or "And HERE is the objective data that shows MY opinion is not only my opinion, but also an objective fact, proven with this data..."
I'm fine with you offering your opinions here AS your opinions. But since you appear to not differentiate between subjective opinions and objective facts, I'm asking you to make it clear WHEN you're offering your subjective opinion and when you're trying to offer an objective fact. AND if you think you're offering an objective, proven fact, then you prove it.
But since you almost never HAVE any proof of your claims, you should play it safe and stick to "These are MY personal opinions..." as your starting point.
Marshal...
If your problem is with taking any given citation as accurately understood, it's up to you to prove the citation was somehow misunderstood.
Why? WHY is your subjective understanding of the text the Given, the Starting Point which must be accepted unless someone has what you accept as proof otherwise? Who died and made you God?
And explain what you mean by "citation..." I suspect you think that I need to provide another biblical verse/set of passages from the Bible to show why I think you're mistaken, as if the Bible were some sort of magic rule/rulings book. But THAT is, itself, an unproven premise.
Do you understand that? Because I don't think you do.
I had said:
"Put another way, IF Marshal finds out that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, Marshal would not believe in Jesus as God or Christianity, I suppose."
Marshal responded:
Nice hypothetical. I'm sure you feel really superior believing this invention. But if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, there IS no Christianity.
So... is it fair to say that IF Jesus didn't rise from the dead, that you would not believe in Jesus as God or give any weight to his "worthless" words?
I get that you're saying that in your opinion, Christianity as a faith system would not have emerged... which as a hypothetical, is not anything we can prove one way or the other. But IF Christianity emerged as a faith system/philosophy that was based on the actual teachings of Jesus, would you dismiss it as worthless?
Do you feel that Jesus' actual teachings - apart from any literal resurrection - are truly worthless, as you literally said?
Some questions you are free to answer with your responses/opinions.
As to your hypothesis that there would be no Christianity without a Resurrection, I will remind you that other humans who "merely" taught their philosophy have had a strong religious following even without their resurrection. Buddha, for instance. So, a literal resurrection is not necessary for a religion to form based on someone's teachings.
Marshal still has this problem:
To cite from Scripture what Scripture relates to us stands as objective, proven facts.
Jesus literally said he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized. When John the Baptist asked Jesus if he were The One, Jesus replied by saying that the good news is preached to the poor, the sick are healed.
So, citing from Scripture what Scripture relates (literally, in these cases and the many, many more like them), then that means by your vague and irrational measure that it IS an objective proven fact that Jesus came to preach good news to the poor. And yet, you reject that literal biblical conclusion. YOU do not believe that merely citing biblical passages is objective proof of an idea, even when it is so very clear to the casual and serious reader.
Also, another problem you have, as I've noted already, is limiting your "proofing" of various biblical theories you hold to other pages in the Bible, as if that were the ONLY way of knowing something. It's not.
Taken literally and as history, Genesis and the Bible depict a humanity that is ~6,000 years old (or less) and that some humans live to be ~900 years old. And yet, we don't need the Bible to note that there is no evidence for these theories and yet, there IS plentiful evidence in a wide variety of observed sciences that they can't be factual. We don't NEED a Bible verse to say that, no, the other is not a flat square, that NO, the universe is not something like 6,000 years old.
Your "biblical citation" measure/criteria is a failed one.
I “cite from Scripture what Scripture relates to us stands as objective, proven facts.”
And I’ve done it repeatedly: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything…”
Marshal fails to deal with this because the “objective, proven facts” this passage “relates” destroys Marshal’s claim that the most important thing was to obey God the Father according to a book. The basis of radical, extremist protestantism is destroyed by Jesus’ own words:
The Holy Spirit is coming to teach us everything because the story of Israel and God isn’t everything. The story of Jesus and his teachings isn’t everything.
There is more. And it is the Holy Spirit, sent by God the Father and glorifying God the Son who will teach us everything.
Presumably in the same manner that Jesus himself said about his own teaching: when we are ready.
In this way Marshal fails to understand his own words, fails to understand the radical extremist evangelicalism is built on rotten piers, fails to see his corrupt idolatry of a book Jesus never mentions BUT one the Spirit illuminates for us. Stan’s “god-breathed” doesn’t start with the book, as Stan dimly demands, but, easily enough for believers to understand, starts with the breath of god: The Spirit!
And Marshal, committed to corruption, stands teetering on losing his legalistic world where the only ones unscathed by his judgments are straight white men.
Putrid. Death dealing. Brutalizing ideology.
Craig has admitted that he’s fine with 5-8 discarded embryos - or as he believes, 5-8 murders - per patient via IVF (the average for women to get pregnant) if everyone knows each other: father/mother/surrogate.
“I can see how IVF can allow couples to become pregnant with their own babies when all else fails and I'm not sure that's a bad thing…. I'm not sure that asking a sister to carry the baby for her sister/brother in law, is a totally bad thing either.“
But he’s offended if the woman really wants to raise a child without having a partner.
“Likewise with surrogacy. I'm not sure that asking a sister to carry the baby for her sister/brother in law, is a totally bad thing either. But what gets me wondering is the stories we see about two people who are physically incapable of reproducing, who go buy some eggs/sperm, fertilize the in a test tube, then rent the womb of someone they don't know to carry the child. I could be wrong, but that sounds like simply purchasing another human being.”
He’s made clear that pro-life isn’t about an embryo. It’s about archaic, patriarchal ideas of decency. He doesn’t want a wanted child to be so wanted that a couple f do isn’t care about DNA. But he supports adoption.
But he’s fine with forcing a pregnant woman to birth an unwanted/unsupportable child into this world.
The wicked lies that they tell themselves.
All the harm they want to do. Radical extremist evangelicals.
"I'm fine with you offering your opinions here AS your opinions."
How dishonestly gracious of you.
"But since you appear to not differentiate between subjective opinions and objective facts, I'm asking you to make it clear WHEN you're offering your subjective opinion and when you're trying to offer an objective fact. AND if you think you're offering an objective, proven fact, then you prove it."
This is dishonesty as well, because I don't "appear" as you need to believe I do. No. You are projecting that crap onto me rather than meeting your obligation of proving your objection is legitimate. Stay with me here...
"But since you almost never HAVE any proof of your claims, you should play it safe and stick to "These are MY personal opinions..." as your starting point."
I ALWAYS have proof for my claims...at least solid evidence...which you summarily dismiss without legit counter argument of you own. But this statement also is wholly and purposely general and ambiguous. It has no relation to any specific situation nor allows for the context in which my initial "claim" was made. Here, we're again speaking of what Scripture says and the meaning of what it says. Continue staying with me...
"Why? WHY is your subjective understanding of the text the Given, the Starting Point which must be accepted unless someone has what you accept as proof otherwise? Who died and made you God?"
Here's where we get to the crux of it. First, you presume my understanding is subjective. No, wait...that's not accurate...first, you ASSERT my understanding is subjective.
Second, you assert it was the starting point, which is blatantly untrue.
Thirdly, I don't need to be God to present what He has said or done according to Scripture's presentation of it.
So it works this way:
Dan puts forth that which Art claims as contrary to Christian teaching. Dan demands proof. Art provides passage/verse which supports Art's claim. Dan demands I prove it means what the text itself implies to most anyone who doesn't agree with what Dan first put forth. The problem is that it is at this point where Dan should be providing evidence to demonstrate Art's understanding is mistaken...NOT demanding Art proving it isn't. The ball was in your court. You began the volley by putting for that which I know is counter to Scripture. The ball is in my court and I return volley by saying it is counter to Scripture. The ball is in your court and you demand I support my objection. The ball is in my court and I return volley by providing passage/verse which supports my objection. The ball is in your court and you return volley by saying I misunderstand the passage/verse provided. The ball is in my court and I request evidence which suggests what seems so plain is not true. The ball is in your court and you again demand me to support my position. That's not a return volley. That's not even swinging your racket at the ball. It's not that I need to prove "thou shalt not" means "thou shalt not". It's for you to prove it means something else. Why would anyone suspect "thou shalt not" means something other than "thous shalt not"?
The above was a very simplified yet very spot on description of how you fail in discourse. You don't have to believe my understanding is correct. But to demand only I have any obligation with providing clarity for what my citations actually mean...only to have you continue to dismiss and reject every damned thing I bring to the table...is not only dishonest, but a clear indication that you have nothing to provide to so much as hint that I have it wrong. It's the "Nyuh uh" defense. If a verse doesn't mean "X", then what does it mean? You NEVER provide. And when most every verse or passage I provide says "X", on what basis would I suspect it doesn't mean "X"? You NEVER provide.
"And explain what you mean by "citation...""
From Collinsdictionary.com (the first one that popped up):
"A citation from a book or othr piece of writing is a passage or phrase from it."
Pretty standard stuff given the context in which I used it.
"I suspect you think that I need to provide another biblical verse/set of passages from the Bible to show why I think you're mistaken, as if the Bible were some sort of magic rule/rulings book. But THAT is, itself, an unproven premise."
No. Again, the point is when I provide a passage/verse and you suggest my understanding of it is wrong or otherwise mistaken, it's up to you to provide evidence to support your contention. Still again, I don't present passages/verses which present problems for the average person in terms of understanding. They're almost always quite straightforward to an extent that misunderstanding is is next to impossible for the average honest person. So while it's possible a different verse could render my understanding of that which I presented in error, it could be a commentary from some Biblical scholar or some such. In any case, you NEVER provide either or anything else, but simply demand I prove "thou shalt not" means "thou shalt not".
And by the way...enough with the "magic rule book" crap. Unlike you, I have an honest, adult reverence for Scripture that clearly precludes any such self-serving bullshit. You desperately need to believe my regard for Scripture is akin to some backward, superstitious rube in order to defer from accepting truth. It's easier to disparage than to do your duty to defend your position, but it's really beyond boring at this point. Man up.
Do you understand that? Because clearly, you don't.
Do you understand that? Because I don't think you do.
"So... is it fair to say that IF Jesus didn't rise from the dead, that you would not believe in Jesus as God or give any weight to his "worthless" words?"
First, I never suggested Christ not being God makes His words "worthless". They would simply have no more binding authority than the words of any other human philosopher or teacher. And that would be because...
Secondly, if He didn't rise, then He isn't God but just a dead guy.
"I get that you're saying that in your opinion, Christianity as a faith system would not have emerged... which as a hypothetical, is not anything we can prove one way or the other. But IF Christianity emerged as a faith system/philosophy that was based on the actual teachings of Jesus, would you dismiss it as worthless?"
Again, I would not regard His teachings as having any more binding authority than I would of any other human being. Could Christianity have emerged as a faith system had Christ not risen? Faith in what? That the words of some dude has any binding authority? What's more, there was so much He said which would then be a lie. His resurrection proved what He said about Himself was true. THAT is what makes His words authoritative and binding upon His followers. NOT the words themselves. If He didn't rise, then Jesus of Nazareth was a liar and as a liar, why would anyone buy his message? I know you do that with the Democratic Party, but...
"Do you feel that Jesus' actual teachings - apart from any literal resurrection - are truly worthless, as you literally said?"
They're worthless in terms of not being any better or worse than the teachings of any other philosopher, as without the "Christian" aspects (miracles, Way to the Father, redemption, salvation and all that really important and primary stuff) it's just talk.. I might agree with all of it, but doing so doesn't bring me anything of great importance compared to what He truly brought.
"Some questions you are free to answer with your responses/opinions.
As to your hypothesis that there would be no Christianity without a Resurrection, I will remind you that other humans who "merely" taught their philosophy have had a strong religious following even without their resurrection. Buddha, for instance. So, a literal resurrection is not necessary for a religion to form based on someone's teachings."
Are you Buddhist? Are you muslim? Do you regard any other faith as true? It's not about religion, but about what is true. Christ died and rose. That proves His claims of Deity were true and because it proved that, it also proved what He said was true. By this I mean the important things He said regarding God the Father, our redemption/salvation and eternity. No other "religion" provides any of that. So it doesn't matter one wit what humans have said, even if what they said resulted in the formation of a false religion.
I know you like to draw comparisons between Christianity/Scripture and other religions when you think it serves your position, but it never does. Ever. Christianity is unique in that it is true. It stands apart from all that isn't and I've no concern for anything but.
"So, citing from Scripture what Scripture relates (literally, in these cases and the many, many more like them), then that means by your vague and irrational measure that it IS an objective proven fact that Jesus came to preach good news to the poor."
It's not that Scripture presents Christ stating He came to preach good news to the poor. It's what He meant by "poor". Unlike you, when I see something in Scripture which seems to conflict with other aspects, I then seek out explanations, clarification and understandings to get a better sense of what's going on. That is to say, unlike you, I actually did what I insist you should be doing when you object to my understandings. The totality of Scripture, particularly Christ's own words, suggest He wasn't referring to the materially poor.
Also, unlike you, I don't presume that those to whom Christ spoke were all abject backwoods rubes devoid of intellect and understanding of how words were used in their own time.
"YOU do not believe that merely citing biblical passages is objective proof of an idea, even when it is so very clear to the casual and serious reader."
But I've not insisted that a mere citing of any passage is the be all/end all. You don't even recognize the difference between when I cite passages and why versus when you do. What's worse, if I was to take your methods, any citation of Scripture you make would require without objection a comprehensive body of evidence to prove what you understand about the cited passage is in any way accurate. But you don't follow your own every changing rules you enact for me to follow.
"Also, another problem you have, as I've noted already, is limiting your "proofing" of various biblical theories you hold to other pages in the Bible, as if that were the ONLY way of knowing something. It's not."
It's certainly part of it, but more to the point, it's enough for you. When there are few verses speaking to an issue, you use that to reject an opposing position. But any superficial similarity of verses and passages are all gathered together by you as evidence in support of YOUR position, even when the verses and passages you've chosen are not all apples. Both of these claims are easily affirmed by your rejection of the few verses which prove homosexual behavior is always sinful and forbidden...and because they are few you pretend it's not enough to speak the truth those few verses confirm, and the other claim is affirmed by your voluminous gathering of any verse or passage which has any mention of wealth/poverty and rich/poor as if they're all preaching the same message.
But when verses are cited which are direct and specific to a position, they confirm the position taken is either aligned with God or not. It is then when the opponent needs to provide evidence to rebut the use of those verses as wrongly understood. You never do this. You simply insist the other person is wrong, speaking for God, acting like God or any of the other weak attempts to deflect from your obligation to support your opposing position. I might be wrong about everything I've ever said about Christianity. There's never been any reason to believe that's true based on any objection alone you've made, because you object without basis beyond your dislike of the things I've said. Never do you bring the goods. Ever.
But to the point, I've never insisted every citation ends the discussion, nor have I suggested ANY citation ends the discussion. Indeed, each discussion remains open because you bring nothing compelling or unassailable to close it. EVER. Indeed, if I bring but one single verse, you can't pretend it's not good enough if you do nothing to suggest why it isn't good at all.
"Taken literally and as history, Genesis and the Bible depict a humanity that is ~6,000 years old (or less) and that some humans live to be ~900 years old. And yet, we don't need the Bible to note that there is no evidence for these theories and yet, there IS plentiful evidence in a wide variety of observed sciences that they can't be factual. We don't NEED a Bible verse to say that, no, the other is not a flat square, that NO, the universe is not something like 6,000 years old."
But there is indeed evidence. It's not fashionable to consider any of it. We get the same thing on other issues of science because science isn't populated by nothing but honest people dedicated to truth. What's more, it's subjective interpretation of the available data by those who, like you, aren't prepared to accept Scripture for a variety of personal reasons. With respect to the age of the earth, it's ALL speculation by those you prefer to cite as more worthy of your faith than the authors of the OT. But none of it is provable. None of it is more solid than the subjective desire that it be proof of an older earth. What's more, it requires rejecting all notions of the miraculous.
People lose or risk losing their jobs for daring to question the naturalist explanations for the age of the earth and other such atheistic positions. There is no evidence proving an old earth or universe. There are only subjective interpretations of the data.
"Your "biblical citation" measure/criteria is a failed one."
Your "biblical citation" measure/criteria is a failed one.
This demonstrates again your ignorance or purposeful attempt to corrupt why I cite Scripture when I do. Never have you shown any of my citations as having failed to provide what was demanded of me. Never have you shown how my understanding of any cited verse or passage is wrong. What is truly a failure is your response to them. "Nyuh uh" isn't evidence. It isn't proof. It is a white flag of surrender while pretending you're "winning".
Post a Comment