Moving Past Milk, 2

 

Stan said, with ZERO support...

Sin is not primarily horizontal; it is vertical.

A crime against a neighbor is finite. A crime against the infinite God is not.

and then, presumably to support these unsupported guesses, Stan said:

This is why Scripture describes sin as lawlessness (1 John 3:4), rebellion (Isaiah 1:2), enmity against God (Romans 8:7), and falling short of His glory (Romans 3:23). Sin is not merely doing wrong; it is rejecting the God who is right.

Looking at his proof texts, then, 1 John 3...

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin.
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.
No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

Okay, some points, right off the bat. John is clearly speaking metaphorically or figuratively, here. Even the conservative religionists are glad to acknowledge that even THEY "continue to sin" after coming to "know" Jesus.

Setting that aside, is there ANY support in this passage for Stan's theory that " a crime against the infinite God is not finite..."?

No. It's just literally not saying anything about that. At all.

Isaiah 1...

Hear me, you heavens! Listen, earth!
For the Lord has spoken:
“I reared children and brought them up,
but they have rebelled against me.
The ox knows its master,
the donkey its owner’s manger,
but Israel does not know,
my people do not understand.”

It's a passage where Isaiah is speaking specifically about a rebellious Israel, saying ISRAEL (in this specific time and place) does not understand.

Setting that aside, is there ANY support in this passage for Stan's theory that " a crime against the infinite God is not finite..."?

No. It's just literally not saying anything about that. At all. As we see in reviewing Isaiah (whether listening to rabbis or just regular people reading the book), the "guilty" groups in Isaiah, the ones who are threatened with just punishment, are those who specifically ARE rebelling (ie, not everyone) and even more specifically, the rich and powerful who would abuse the poor and marginalized.

No, it's literally NOT offering any support for Stan's theory.

Romans 8...

Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

This passage is not talking about a condition of all humanity, only those who live "according to the flesh." Which goes undefined and is obviously figurative/metaphorical language.

Setting that aside, is there ANY support in this passage for Stan's theory that " a crime against the infinite God is not finite..."?

No. It's just literally not saying anything about that. At all.

Moving on to Romans 3. This chapter, I'll note, contains the infamous, "There is no one good, no not one..." line, which, itself, is a quote from the OT, from Psalm 14 which says, in part, that there ARE no good, there are "none who seek God." Pretty inclusive (although not support for Stan's theory). BUT, if you keep reading, you will see what you always see in the OT warnings against the evil - it's ultimately a warning to rich oppressors to quit harming the poor and marginalized. "They (the evil ones) devour my people," God says. "You evil ones frustrate the plans of the poor, but I am their refuge..." As we see in context, the psalmist is not saying here that there are NO good people, rather, it's indictment upon the rich oppressors.

And not what Stan is saying.

But moving on and getting to the verse in question...

now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify...

ie, don't oppress the poor and marginalized, over and over that is made "known," made clear IF one is reading the OT in context and not ripping passages out of context. Continuing...

This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Which speaks to God's grace and acceptance of all those willing to be part of the beloved community of God, BUT, it doesn't address Stan's theory. At all.

So, yes, Stan IS throwing out all sorts of verses out there AND he's making many claims. But do ANY of the verses support ANY of his claims?

Objectively, no.

Oh, one more claim from Stan that I skipped past:

Sin is not merely doing wrong, it is rejecting the God who is right.

Do ANY of those passages say that? 

Literally, no. Not in those words or any other words that suggest that.

More later.

I am curious (if you fellas are going to answer anything here), do you suspect that we WILL find any biblical support for Stan's theories that he keeps throwing out with no support? Do you suspect that at some point near the end, he'll finally be able to say, "And HERE is the verse that ties all those other verses and my many unsupported claims together..."?

I have to say, given past experience, the answer is almost certainly, No.

Moving Past Milk

Conservative bloggers, Marshal and Craig, are complaining that I "never" make my case for my positions or to explain what's wrong with the conservative's position when I engage in conversations with conservative religionists with whom I dare to disagree.

Of course, this whole blog, for over two decades, has largely been devoted to doing just that - me explaining, step by step, reasonably and looking at what the Bible says (although I don't view the bible as a rulings book in the way they do anymore), why I disagree with their human theories. They're complaining about it now, saying that another blogger, Stan, has recently posted about his theories on sin and it's "full" of biblical citations. The post:

https://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2026/05/consider-sin.html

Now, setting aside that I've been methodically disputing these human theories for years now, let me tackle it more directly from what they view is the "biblical" point of view (which is, of course, their personal human interpretations of various selected passages and how they use those interpretations of theirs to form another opinion that's not in the text.

So.

Stan:

Sin is not small because God is not small. Our culture measures sin by the size of the act; Scripture measures sin by the worth of the One sinned against. David understood this when he prayed, “Against You, You only, have I sinned” (Psalm 51:4)

I won't cover the whole of this entry, not today. But let me start here. Stan begins with an unsupported assertion: "Sin is not small because God is not small."

To which I respond, as always, says who? In this case, it's Stan who says this. Jesus didn't say anything like this nor is there a text anywhere in the Bible that says this. It's Stan's personal human take as he starts building his personal human case for his personal human theories about "sin," "Sin nature," "SIN," "Inheriting a 'sin nature' from Adam," and related topics.

It's not at all a given that "sin is not small because God is not small." I mean, if my children disobey me in some minor way and I respond, "HEY! Even though you THINK that was a little white lie, you told it to ME and that makes it BIG!" It just doesn't follow or is not a given. It's literally an unsupported theory at this point that I suppose Stan thinks he's going to support. Moving forward then.

Our culture measures sin by the size of the act. Presumably Stan is noting that we judge how horrendous a misdeed is by its awful, harmful impact on others. A person who drives 28 MPH in a 25 MPH zone is committing a civil wrong, but we DO view it as relatively minor as compared to the person who is drunk and driving 70 MPH in a 25 MPH school zone, which is a greatly bad behavior, and made worse when that person actually kills a child as a result of his bad behavior. So, YES, we do measure sin by the size of the harmful impact of that sin, and rightly so. I suspect that if we pushed Stan, Craig, Marshal, et al, they could probably agree. Genocide is vastly more evil than stealing a cookie, which barely rises to the level of "bad," much less evil. At least to rational people. Again, our conservative theorists probably can agree.

Continuing:

Scripture measures sin by the worth of the One sinned against.

There are no biblical texts that say this. Presumably Stan will try to make his case, and he begins with David repenting for his truly awful sin when he raped/seduced Bathsheeba, then arranged for the murder of her husband, Uriah. Psalm 51:

Have mercy on me, O God,
    according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
    blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity
    and cleanse me from my sin.

For I know my transgressions,
    and my sin is always before me.
Against you, you only, have I sinned
    and done what is evil in your sight...

So, yes, David says that his sin (rape, abuse of power and murder to cover up his rape) was against God only. But is that factually correct OR is David, in his penance, engaging in hyperbole?

In this case, David's sin is literally NOT against God only. He abused his power to seduce or rape this woman. He abused his power to arrange for Uriah's death so he could "have" Bathsheeba as his own wife. His sin is against many people, including his whole nation. He is NOT literally correct in this claim.

Reading Rabbis talking about this topic, they will note that David's actual crimes merited the death penalty. David was desperately pleading for his life and of course, engaging in hyperbole to sound penitent (and he probably was truly sorry, if we want to give him the benefit of the doubt.)

But that David engaged in hyperbole here is NOT biblical or rational proof that his "sin was against God alone" OR that Scripture measures sin by the worth of the one sinned against. THAT claim of Stan's is simply not supported in this verse. At all. Literally not supported. It's an extension of an idea that Stan is trying (and failing) to extrapolate out some reasoning for his personal human theory. And he fails.

Continuing, Stan made more empty claims:

He had sinned against Bathsheba, against Uriah, and against Israel, but he recognized that the ultimate offense was against God Himself. Sin is not primarily horizontal; it is vertical. A crime against a neighbor is finite. A crime against the infinite God is not.

David HAD sinned against multiple people, Stan acknowledges. THEN Stan theorizes that David's claim (against you, alone, God, have I sinned) is that 

a. David was making a claim that "the ultimate offense was against God..." The text does not say that. Stan is reading that INTO David's hyperbole.

b. Sin is not primarily horizontal, it is vertical" Another unsupported and empty claim. The text literally does not say that, Stan is reading that INTO the text. And again, if you read Rabbis speaking of this passage, they will not take that stand, but rather emphasize that David was desperately begging for his life.

c. "a crime against a neighbor is finite, a crime against God is not." The text does not say that, reason does not insist upon that. It's Stan's unsupported theory to try to build his case.

But he is failing on every point so far. 

So, you can see that a rational person can look at Stan's theorizing and recognize holes right away, but it takes some time to wade through and play the Bible game that these Bible-as-rulings-book conservatives like to do and, truly, it's a waste of time. But I will continue for at least a bit more, later. Just to point out how devoid of both reason and biblical acuity this line of conservative religionism is.

Stan, Craig, Marshal, can you at least concede that, at least THIS far into Stan's attempt to make a case, he hasn't done it yet? That indeed, so far, as he's done is make several empty claims?

Unanswered Questions for Hell and Totally Depraved Human Theorists

Some of the questions that I've regularly asked conservative religious theorists and rarely get full answers that meet moral or rational levels:

1. Do you believe that some sins deserve eternal torment?

2. What specific crimes or misdeeds warrant eternal torment?

3. Do you believe/theorize that even one sin, one single lie to your mother, justifies eternal torment?

4. But how is that consistent with justice or ideas of justice as justice is normally understood?

5. Do you believe in the perfectly loving and perfectly just God? 

6. How do you define perfectly loving and perfectly just? Based on what?

7. Do you believe that it is God's will that none should perish or be tortured, not one human? 

8. Why would you take a verse that says something about eternal hell literally but not the verse that clearly says God is not willing that any should perish? 

9. What is your rubric for deciding which verses should be taken literally and which figuratively? 

10. Can you clarify that you can't objectively know which passages should be taken figuratively and which literally OR do you think that you DO have that power to understand perfectly the literal and figurative verses? 

And other questions like these...

I'll note that while they are glad to answer these questions in part, it's only in part... never fully filling out a rational basis for the larger questions. Yes, they may say they believe in a hell of eternal torment and separation from God, but WHAT is it that deserves that sort of punishment? 

Yes, they may answer that question with the simplistic, "Sin" or "having a (theoretical and unproven) 'sin nature...'" but the necessary follow up questions that immediately comes up - Which sins? ANY sins? EVEN ONE "sin..."? How is that worthy of eternal torture/torment? How would eternal torture be in any way a just or loving response?? - these questions go unaddressed. I'm relatively sure that this is because they are so grounded in their human theories that they can't even recognize how these are reasonable questions OR that they have no reasonable answers for them.

There's more to this topic that I'm still wanting to write about, but I thought I'd at least get these reasonable unanswered questions out there.

 

[NOTE: The butterfly pictured is the Question Mark butterfly, thus, my using it for this post.] 

 

How Do We Recognize Good?

I've long tried to get answers from my conservative friends and family about their theories of the corrupt nature (totally depraved) of humanity and how "there is NO ONE who is good." There are holes in their arguments that they just leave unaddressed. We've covered that on this blog before.

But this week, Stan and his colleagues over at the conservative "Winging It" blog have been addressing their theory (again, without dealing with the holes in their arguments or even acknowledging them) and that has caused one of them (Lorna) to ask some questions. I'll answer her questions here as a back door way of pointing out the very holes that they are ignoring. 

The statement was made...

"Of course there are good people," we all want to counter. "Just open your eyes. Even bad people do good things.” We even contend that humans are “basically good” ….

Lorna replied:

I can’t offer any rebuttals not already said by others, but I am always struck by the illogical nature of such a contention. For humans to distinguish “basically good people” from “particularly wicked individuals” among us is a completely relative exercise, requiring a subjective, sliding scale. On such a spectrum, when does “good” become “wicked” and how much of one behavior causes a person to fall solidly into one category rather than the other?

When does good become wicked? When it starts to cause deliberate, awful harm. Is that a precise measure? NO. Is it a reasonable measure, generally understood in the real world?

IF, in the attempt to do some good action - say, protecting a baby from falling over and hurting themselves - someone accidentally slips and, instead of stopping the baby from falling over, actually causes that baby to fall... that is not a wicked act. Of course. We all recognize that good intention and just an accident that happens.

IF, in the attempt to stop the baby from falling out of a window, the do-gooder rushes over and startles the baby who THEN actually falls out the window, resulting in terrible harm, that still isn't wicked. Of course. It's an accident in the process of trying to do good.

IF, in the attempt to keep baby from hurting themselves, someone kidnaps the baby and locks them in a padded cell for the rest of their lives, THAT has crossed over into catastrophic harm and an obvious human rights abuse, EVEN IF the intentions were good.

Truly, I don't think this is as hard as some may think. I'd love for these conservative types to think it through with me and answer such questions, but they don't/won't.

When does someone fall into the category of wicked rather than good? Again, not as hard as they seem to think: WHEN they take deliberate actions that are abuses of human rights and cause harm. EVEN IF their intent was good (hint: It often isn't).

I'd love for some of them to explain why they think it's difficult?

Which is not to say there may not be hard to call exceptions. What IF someone is concerned about an active shooter and they have a gun and open fire at the shooter and, as a result, they hit innocent bystanders? Probably still not wicked, just perhaps ill-advised and poorly executed. Still, the point stands: It's just not that difficult as a rule to recognize the significant difference between actively wicked and good.

Lorna continued:

Who sets these standards and what causes them to change--i.e. which humans qualify to judge “good” and “wicked” and in-between? 

Common sense. Moral reasoning. I'd suggest that perhaps the best standards are ideals like the Golden Rule, which are universally recognized across cultures and religions, even if not universally agreed upon in practice. Another standard would be basic human rights. Does an action actively cause harm to someone/some group? Does an action deny someone's humanity? Does an action imprison or sicken someone? These are the building block standards for recognizing good from evil.

Do you disagree? (Another question to go unanswered).


For those who'd disagree with these common sense guidelines, I always ask what they would propose instead? Someone's interpretation of holy texts? Which holy texts? WHOSE interpretations? On what basis would we choose one person's/group's interpretation of a given holy text over someone else's? Their say-so?

That's just not good enough. It's a whimsical human opinion not based in anything more than their opinions and interpretations and, perhaps, their particular human traditions.

We can see that it’s impossible to even judge people’s natures by their behavior, since “even bad people do good things” (wouldn’t’ that make them “good people”?) 

I would disagree. Or rather, I'd clarify. It's not possibly to PERFECTLY assess someone's nature by their behavior, but their behaviors and motivations ARE reasonable tools for understanding their character. By their fruit/actions, you will know them. Again, this is just common sense. What would you propose to gauge their character by if NOT their observation of their words, attitudes and actions?

There are some rational, common sense answers to her type of questions. But will they ever deal with the obvious questions that arise from their human theories?

I've not met conservatives yet who can/will/do. I'm sure they are out there, but I've not found them.

A Better Way

Some of the best parts of being in the Beloved Community of Progressive- and Open-minded folks include:

- We are a part of a truly beloved community with beautiful, amazing people all around us from all parts of the world that we get to share life with;

- All the wonderful people who are observably good, trying their best, just wanting to have their own safe, peaceful, loving place in this world. What's to disagree with in that?

- It's a beautiful world that we all share, and we are fired up to celebrate and care for it;

- It's a beautiful world, and we're enamored with spending time in it;

- Hiking;

- Gardening;

- Recycling garbage into art!

- Freedom;

- Human rights;

- Live and let live;

- If you don't want to marry a guy or a gal, you don't HAVE to...
you're free to be you and WE'RE free to be us;

- If you don't think a specific medical process is right for you, NO ONE will force a medical procedure upon you! You're free to be you and make your decisions... and we're free to make ours; 

In short, the best things about belonging in the Beloved Community are Liberty, Love and Grace. THESE are our common ground, or can be, regardless of political party or partisan leanings! We are part of a welcoming, empowering, supportive beloved community of All who wish to join... and if you don't want to join, that's fine, too. Just don't cause harm to others. Because, Love, decency and just basic common sense, friends.

Let's tear down the walls that divide, protect the marginalized and love, love, love.

Oh, and one last thing: When someone not only rejects being part of the Beloved Community for themselves, but they try to deny rights to the rest of us, we in the Beloved Community can and will stand in solidarity with each other. Of course, not everyone IS making good, non-harmful decisions. The Beloved Community is there to fight against those who'd cause harm, too, as well as celebrate all the great things that come with belonging in what Wendell Berry would call the Membership.