Looks like you're speaking for God, which I'm told is a big no-no. I note you did not supply the book, chapter or verse for this "quote" from God. Why is that?
So you’re offering a line from a part of the Bible you characterize as “myth”, as if it’s actually some sort of authoritative example of “God’s word” or something.
You can’t even prove that God exists, let alone that He actually said that.
1. I like how you left some things out of your paraphrase. 2. Are you suggesting that all of Deuteronomy 10 should be taken equally seriously as an “Enough said” quote from God? 3. You do realize that of all the books in the Bible that Deuteronomy is literally the primary “rule book”?
1. And in doing so, you left out part of the saying that alters the meaning from specific ways to aid aliens, to a general statement about immigrants.
2. So your suggesting that this one small portion of a larger section be taken differently from the context you’ve taken it out of. Or are you suggesting that this one out of context, altered, line is more authoritative than the rest of the context? 3. Thank you for agreeing that Deuteronomy is in fact a book of law, or rules as you’d call them.
Actually, they aren’t necessarily moral rules, but civil rules.
That's odd. Deut 11 is all about obeying God. Obey what, exactly? My NIV says, "his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always." Why does that sound like "rules" to me? Equally odd is that Jesus...you know...your Lord...tells us to obey God's commandments as well. All these rules, but the Bible is not a rule book. The Bible IS a rule book. It is also a history book. It's a prophetic book, a poetic book and a book of letters. It is all these things, but it is indeed a rule book. That is, except to those for whom the rules are inconvenient.
Among these commands from God is to obey civil authorities for their authority comes from God. As such, there are civil rules which determine how to deal with immigration. So while we demonstrate love and welcoming toward the alien, the alien is to enter our borders by the laws of our land, and we're to welcome him in the same manner...not simply to let them walk in any old way they please regardless of what motivated them to come here. We also can't love the alien at the expense of our fellow citizens, which suggests that loving the alien is a command to individuals, not the nation as a whole. WE...each of us...is to love the alien who is among us, but that does not mean abetting his illegal entry. Obeying our nation's laws does not indicate an absence of love or concern for the alien.
“He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
1. I’ve seen no translation that uses the term immigrant, which in this current climate is a loaded term. 2. It specifically says give them clothes and food, as well as love. It says nothing about legal status, citizenship or rights. So by moving it from the specific to the general, you certainly altered the meaning.
3. You’re taking this myth pretty seriously.
Hey, here’s another message from God
““And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good.”
I’m guessing you probably don’t feel quite the same way about “God, on the law one obedience.” “Enough said.”
Of course, there are laws in the Bible. Never said otherwise.
There are laws about, for instance, when you sell your children how to do it right. Or about how much to pay off a father for raping his daughter. Of course there are laws in the Bible, including in Deuteronomy.
What I said is that THE BIBLE is not a rule book. And it's not. Treating it like one is anti-biblical and irrational and no one really does it... but some people do cherry pick SOME laws that they want to treat like rules.
1. re: Immigrant translation?
At least the Common English Bible translation uses the term.
2. So? MY point is that if you believe in a loving God and take seriously (as opposed to literally) the MANY times that foreigners, immigrants, refugees, etc are listed as people under special protection by/concern of God, then it is reasonable to think that God DOES love immigrants... especially, as we're talking about in our modern context, those who are merely seeking safety and stability, away from oppression, hunger and persecution.
And if you take seriously the notion that God loves - and we SHOULD love - immigrants, then advocating for their protection is a reasonable thing to do.
If YOU want to argue against providing safe haven to those seeking refuge, you may do so, but I do not consider that a moral position to hold, nor a rational position to hold.
We are all, after all, immigrants and refugees.
3. I have not addressed anything about the literal status of this passage or this book. Please stay on topic.
"What I said is that THE BIBLE is not a rule book. And it's not. Treating it like one is anti-biblical and irrational and no one really does it."
Of course it is. You can tell by all the rules that are in it...both Testaments. Thus, it can hardly be said to be "anti-biblical" since it is so full of rules, and even less so to regard as irrational anyone who says it IS a rule book. What's more, by YOUR standards, there is nothing anywhere in Scripture that says it isn't, nor should be considered, a rule book, so to say it is anti-biblical to say it's a rule book would be an extra/anti-biblical opinion...especially considering...you know...all those rules. And clearly, as long as I live, you certainly can't say that "no one really does it" with regard treating it like a rule book. I do. I also treat it as a history book. And a book of poetry and prophesy. ------------------------------------------------------
Since you have no understanding of conservatism, I'm not surprised that you misunderstand the conservative position on immigration, and specifically "those seeking refuge". Part of that position is our objection to people like you being so generous with money that isn't yours as you push for protections for refugees. Money's no object for people like you when it ain't your money being spent. And as Craig suggests, there's a huge difference between helping foreigners and giving them citizenship and all manner of welfare possibilities simply because they, and jokers like you, insist they're deserving. Somehow, those with the money aren't allowed to have any say in determining such things. Those with the money are greedy bastards who don't care. It's easy to care when it's other people's money. -----------------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Why the heck does that sound so much like a rule to me?
If by "we" you mean you and your head lice, that might be true. I'm second generation and thus, neither immigrant nor refugee. Or are you using those terms metaphorically now?
WE...each of us...is to love the alien who is among us, but that does not mean abetting his illegal entry. Obeying our nation's laws does not indicate an absence of love or concern for the alien.
If our nation's laws require us to criminalize people who are merely seeking safe haven, then yes, those laws are bad laws that indicate an absence of compassion and basic human decency. We have a moral obligation as human beings to aid one another in times of persecution and oppression, in times of hunger and threat.
Even if you don't believe in God and loving immigrants, just basic human decency would compel us to take actions. And if our laws criminalize those merely seeking safety, then it's time, as a matter of justice, to break laws.
Disagree if you must, but I do not find such "love" to be worth much.
If you might recall another ancient writer said,
"If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
Or, yet another famous ancient teacher (and, for at least me, my savior and God) said,
"but he turned to those on his left and said 'Depart from me! you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
I was a stranger and you did not invite me in..."
So, in short, I would say that loving the immigrant (as God commands God's followers to do in the passage cited) does require us to take in those in need, to provide assistance to, shelter to, refuge and justice to. Failing that, such "love" is vomitous pablum meant to make the one assuring the other of their "love" to feel good about themselves, but of no practical use in the real world.
Why the heck does that sound so much like a rule to me?
Because you embrace a rules-based faith, not a grace-based one?
We are immigrants and the children of immigrants. My family came over in the 1700s, but I am STILL a child of immigrants.
We, like many today, were trying to escape death and persecution by religious zealots and thankfully, we didn't have to jump through the immoral and irrational hoops that we force people to do today.
Just because my family came in from a time before modern criminalization of immigration doesn't mean I have forgotten.
As God says over and over in the Bible, "Work for justice for immigrants, for foreigners, for refugees... BECAUSE YOU WERE ONCE IMMIGRANTS, too." God was not speaking of those people directly, but of their families.
In THAT sense, I was once an immigrant, too.
If you want to criticize God, you'll have to take that up with God.
"Why the heck does that sound so much like a rule to me?
Because you embrace a rules-based faith, not a grace-based one?"
Wrong answer. The correct answer is, "because it is a rule." You certainly put it out there as if it is...as if it is something all Christians should do. Why do you have such problems with rules, particularly those of God's? Here's some reality for you, since you're all about reality: it is YOU who picks and chooses from among God's rules, not us. You've decided rules like "love the alien" are important to follow, but denying one's sexually immoral urges is not. Both come from God...the God described in the Scripture that you reject. The God you think you can know without Scripture having informed you.
"We are immigrants and the children of immigrants."
C'mon, Dan. This is absurd. My grandparents were immigrants. I am not. I was born here. I am of Polish ancestry, but I am not Polish. I'm an citizen of the United States of America by birth. If this is true of the babies of illegal immigrants when born here, it certainly is true of the both of us. Please don't redefine any more words.
"We, like many today, were trying to escape death and persecution by religious zealots and thankfully, we didn't have to jump through the immoral and irrational hoops that we force people to do today."
There were always "hoops" through which one had to jump in order to enter this nation. See stories of Ellis Island. Having policies and protocols to regulate immigration is a protection for the people who are already citizens, the only people with whom the government is required to concern itself. That some people might fail to meet the terms of the laws of this country doesn't make those laws immoral just because you want to posture yourself as someone who cares more than others.
"Just because my family came in from a time before modern criminalization of immigration doesn't mean I have forgotten."
Now you're just plain, flat out lying. We do not criminalize immigration, particularly so long as we have laws and policies that continue to allow people to enter this country. Some who seek to enter criminalize themselves by daring to enter without regard to policies put in place to regulate entry. The immoral are those who do so and those who enable them to do so...in other words, YOU!
"As God says over and over in the Bible, "Work for justice for immigrants, for foreigners, for refugees... BECAUSE YOU WERE ONCE IMMIGRANTS, too." God was not speaking of those people directly, but of their families."
Actually, God was speaking to those who were actually refugees when he enacted the civil laws of the nations of Israel concerning aliens. No where does He suggest that aliens could enter on THEIR terms, and not God's or the Israel's.
"If you want to criticize God, you'll have to take that up with God."
This from the guy who criticizes God for outlawing homosexual behavior. We aren't criticizing God, but your bastardization of His teachings and your lies about American immigration policy.
1. You’re the one with the “rule book” phobia not us.
2. You’ve clearly gone beyond the specific biblical command.
3. No one is kicking against those seeking refuge. We’re simply pointing out your double standard and willingness to edit scripture in order to make it fit your political views.
4. Our nation’s laws don’t “require us to criminalize those seeking refuge”, they simply provide a process that they need to follow in order to gain refuge.
What’s interesting is that once more you’ve shown a willingness to propose that the secular US government adopt a law taken from the theocracy of ancient Israel, it’s pretty damn amusing.
It’s almist as amusing as you insisting that this one, out of context, edited, Israelite law is not a “rule”, and is 100% God literally speaking.
1. just noting the reasonable opinion that treating the Bible as a rule book is not rational, moral or biblical.
2. I disagree. I think I'm getting directly TO the point, oft-repeated in the Bible, about accepting and supporting refugees, immigrants, those in need. I think this is a central biblical teaching, within the greater teaching of grace. There is certainly MUCH more support that Jesus/God wants us to welcome immigrants than there is ANY support for something as flighty and human as "inerrancy."
Feel free to disagree.
3. There are literally people lined up, seeking safety, which many conservatives are actively seeking to block and hinder. Shame on them. And shame on Democrats and liberals for not doing more on this front, too. We have GOT to fundamentally change our policies to more reasonable and just ones. And NOT because there is a line in the Bible telling us to (although, if that helps you want to follow God and do that, by all means, do it for that reason), but because it is the moral and reasonable thing to do.
Golden rule and all that.
4. Our nations laws have literally made it a misdemeanor to cross the border improperly. Our nations conservatives and anti-immigrants have turned to imprisoning and chasing out and demonizing and worse immigrants merely seeking safe haven. This needs to change, if we want to be a moral and just nation.
Feel free to disagree, but I don't think the conservative approach is moral or just. And certainly not biblical. If that matters.
The following is one of many commentaries I could have produced that speaks to the points I tried to make in my last comment. At the bottom of the piece there are a series of links to other commentaries, the first of which relates:
Of course, Marshall, I agree with your discounting of support for immigrants to a mere "civil law" for Israel. The welcoming of immigrants is a constant moral imperative throughout the Bible and is core to Jesus' teaching summed up in his Golden Rule. It's not a mere, "well, if a nation is okay with immigrants, it's okay to let them in... or if a nation has a rule against it, it's okay to keep them out... it's whatever the civil law is."
Nations are repeatedly condemned for failure to welcome immigrants, for failing to provide justice for those needing it.
It's core to morality. It's core to Christianity. And, by Christianity, I mean, the teachings of Jesus, not the white-washed, milquetoast pablum that too often passes for much of "evangelical" Christianity (or too much of Catholic Christianity, as far as that goes...)_
Your author on your link starts off poorly, along this same line of discounting teachings about immigration as found in the Bible. He says...
The immigration laws given to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament were for Israel alone.
Of course, ALL the laws given to Israel were for Israel alone. Literally, according to the text.
But that doesn't change that the moral teachings and principles spoken of throughout the Bible, including and especially in Israel's case in the OT, were exactly about the great moral imperative to welcome the stranger, "For you were once aliens/foreigners/immigrants in Egypt..." is repeated over and over, driving home the principle that being welcoming - ESPECIALLY to the oppressed and needy - is core to following God, as found in the Bible.
And lest anyone is confused about what I mean by principles, let me give an example. When the Bible says...
"The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt..."
it is offering a rule (aliens should be as a native, in regards to just treatment), but beyond that, it is offering a principle. The Golden Rule principle.
Because YOU RECALL that you were aliens, once, and mistreated, and didn't like that. Of course you didn't! Why would you?
FOR THIS REASON, we should love everyone, we should welcome everyone, we should look out for the needs of everyone... ESPECIALLY those like the widows, the orphans and IMMIGRANTS, who are more likely to be abused.
It's a principle about living a loving life of grace for the Ideal of "Doing unto others..."
That, as opposed to a rule, "Make the immigrant NOT WORK on the Saturdays..." or "When you sell your children, do it like this..."
If you don't see the difference, so be it. I've explained all I'm likely to explain. I think the point is reasonably made and will be understood by people who want to do right.
There is no denial or rejection of the Golden Rule simply because a nation has policies, protocols and laws regulating immigration, regardless of how badly you want us to believe that's the case. There is no active agenda by conservatives to deny immigrants and/or refugees as you falsely assert there is. The problem is that you want no borders whatsoever, and that you believe you're have some right to demand unlimited funding of your immigration/refugee positions when it's other people's money used for the purpose.
Said another way, "doing right" to you is insisting no consideration for your countrymen or how much of THEIR money is spent to satisfy your socialist sensibilities and the Biblical rules YOU'VE picked and chosen to follow.
Dan, to be clear. If you actually had the spine to fall out say that Dueteronomy was literally God speaking to Israel, and that you were treating the entire context in the same way, I wouldn’t have much disagreement with you. But the fact that you’ve taken this one line out of its context, edited it to mean something different, and applied extra biblical eisegesis to align with your political views is problematic.
1. Unless it’s convient for you to support your political views. You’re literally paraphrasing a “rule”, claiming that the secular government of the US should abide by/go beyond that “rule”, while denying your premise.
2. You’re right, it is mentioned that Israel/The Church/Believers should offer succor to those in need. It’s something I, my family, my church and my friends have traveled far and wide to do, (as well as locally) and what I’ve spent over a decade doing. So I/we are walking the walk. But, your extra biblical leap to trying to dictate government policy and advocate virtually zero control of how people immigrate is pure politics.
3. It’s not about “block and hinder”, it’s about reasonable, common sense, means to control the process. Personally, I think it would be reasonable to expect our immigration laws to mirror the immigration laws of the immigrants country of origin. What could be more fair than having an immigrant from Switzerland be treated exactly the same as an immigrant to Switzerland? Of course why would we want to ignore the recent experience of many European countries who’ve done exactly what you propose.
If you want to enshrine the “Golden rule” (I’ll ignore the irony for now) in civil law, just say so. But maybe you should live it first, then criticize your brothers and sisters who are ignoring it loudly and publicly.
4. Yes, it is a crime to cross the border “improperly”. It’s not a crime to cross the border. To suggest that anyone is suggesting otherwise is simply a lie. I and most conservatives advocate reasonable, common sense laws that regulate immigration in a sane and orderly way.
Given that you’ve already made your excuses for not continuing, I’ll pass on spending a lot of time asking you to prove your assertion that the “conservative approach” is not biblical. It would clearly take a lot of work, given that you’d have to minimally prove the following.
1. That there is a “conservative approach”, and what that specifically means. 2. That there is a specific biblical approach that is intended to be applied to a secular government. 3. That there is biblical authority. 4. That this one tiny, out of context line from Deuteronomy is actually the actual voice of God speaking a universal, objective, moral Truth. 5. That God exists and that He “speaks”. 6. That Deuteronomy isn’t “myth”.
I’m sure you won’t go to all that trouble, when you can just assert that “It’s only my opinion”.
Got it. So that one edited line is not from a book which contains numerous laws given by God and it’s not from a chapter that explicitly says (I quoted it earlier, which you must have missed) that the expectation is that those who follow God will obey the laws.
My bad, I guess reading the whole chapter for context was a mistake, I should have just uncritically accepted your edited version and uncritically accepted that you were speaking for God.
Again, I'm sorry I can't help you understand my points. I've tried and I've tried and you keep devolving into misunderstandings of even the simplest points I make.
That there is a “conservative approach”, and what that specifically means.
The "conservative approach" I'm talking about here is that practiced by the current head conservative, the president. He has continually relied upon racist demonizing and dog whistles that inflame the fears and passions of racists and others who are so strongly opposed to immigrants, especially ones from "shithole" countries. Those who'd come in to rape and kill, that horde of invaders who are going to eat babies and ARRRGGGH!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!
THAT kind of conservative approach that is being embraced and peddled by the commander in chief of the conservatives.
It is deeply troubling, morally offensive and a blow against justice.
As opposed to THAT model, I'm suggesting the rather simple model of, "If you're oppressed or starving and can find no other options, then we welcome your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free..."
THAT is a model of justice and compassion, the sort of which is advocated throughout the Bible, but aside from the Bible, is just the moral, decent human thing to do... and to do for reasons of self-interest, because we all, at times, may find ourselves to be in a similar scenario and we'd want others to do unto us.
If you disagree with the model of welcoming those in need of safety and stability, then I disagree with you and think you're embracing a selfish, anti-Christian model of doing things, and an anti-human decency model.
If you agree, well, then we agree, and good for you.
As to this...
That there is a specific biblical approach that is intended to be applied to a secular government.
There is a consistent message in the Bible of being welcoming, as opposed to being a dick. That can look like many things, including at the federal level. Certainly, in the Bible, whole nations are condemned for their policies that did NOT look to the needs of the poor and oppressed, so I think a reasonable consideration of the various stories in the Bible would say that, yes, nations are accountable for how they handle immigrants and the poor.
Now, IF as a nation, the people take it upon themselves to generally look out for the poor (setting aside a portion of their fields for the poor to glean food, for instance) and the poor immigrants aren't blocked by the nation at the federal level from accessing that private assistance, it would not necessarily HAVE to be at the state level, but it is a state level decision to criminalize immigration and that is a problem, from a moral point of view, and I think a fair and reasonable reading of the Bible in toto would reach that conclusion.
If you hold a different human opinion, you are welcome to it, but I think you'd be clearly mistaken, in my human opinion.
that there is biblical authority.
This does not exist. The Bible is a book and as such, only as useful as what one reads into it and what actions it inspires (or fails to inspire). But the Bible is NOT a magic "sole authority" on all points of morality or reason or philosophy. I don't think anyone who would read that into the Bible is reading it aright. You are welcome to disagree with my human opinion, if you do, but I think you'd clearly be mistaken in your human opinion on that point.
Not that I expect you'll really understand any of that any more than you are understanding the words I've already written, but I thought it might be helpful to any others who may read.
As I stated on the other post, you lie about what the current administration believes and is saying about the immigration situation as it now stands. While you pretend he's inflaming racists, I don't believe it is incumbent upon him to frame his words in a manner that won't. Racists and other immoral people will hear what they wanna hear regardless of how it is worded by one who is known for his unpolished manner.
At the same time, what the president has actually said is not untrue. There are, as a result of a variety of failures, the worst of other countries entering freely and then being protected by lawbreaking citizens, and worse, lawbreaking government officials. To pretend otherwise is just another lie. No one is "criminalizing" immigration. Those who ignore our laws that govern immigration are acting criminally.
The problem, of course, is not that we are not a welcoming people, but that we aren't as welcoming as those like yourself, who won't be footing the bill, insist we must be, regardless of the impact on our own people. There is no Biblical backing for such a nonsensical and childish position. Indeed, your problem is that you do "read into" Scripture that which pleases you personally, rather than taking from Scripture what it intends to convey...as if that's so hard to figure out in the lion's share of cases.
As to the Bible as "sole authority", it is certainly the prime authority on morality and behavior and all that you like to cite as worthy of inferring understanding on those areas cannot be given more prominence over what Scripture teaches. Any "Christian" who doesn't see Scripture as the main source, the prime and supreme source, on matters of morality and behavior are worse than mistaken. This is true despite the fact that in the western world, where "progressive" worldly ideology hasn't totally corrupted one's soul, there is no other source that isn't directly or indirectly based on or influenced by Scripture.
So you can’t point to a specific “conservative approach” in any sort of official policy sense. I do think we’d want to regulate those who want to come to the US in order to commit crimes, but if that doesn’t bother you, cool.
Again so, you can’t point to a specific biblical approach that you can specifically apply to a secular government.
Hey, you’re the one who’s posted an edited paraphrase of a tiny bit of the Israelite theocratic legal code and credited it to “God” and acted as if it’s got some level of authority, not me.
But, I was right about you not being willing or able to demonstrate what’s necessary to give your paraphrase any real force or authority beyond your opinion that it’s s nice sentiment.
I do love the irony of you lecturing someone who’s soent the last 20 plus years of his life hiring the homeless, traveling across the ocean to help provide medical care, been an active part in feeding literally millions of children, and played a significant role in providing affordable home ownership to literacy hundreds of immigrants, about your caracture of my alleged “conservative” position.
I'm pointing to the specific actions of the man a bunch of conservatives voted into office. He has been creating policy, albeit whimsically and on the fly, with no serious data-based consideration given, by all appearances. As that appears to be how he does everything.
I'm sorry if the very specific actions of the titular leader to modern conservatism on immigration is not clear enough to you.
I'm also sorry that this idiot (and his supporters) don't HAVE official policy, but that's on them.
I AM speaking of specific actions that are wrong. I hope you can understand that much.
As to the rest of your words, they still indicate an inability to understand anything I've actually said. I'm sorry I don't know how to help you understand.
For instance, I haven't said anything about your specific "conservative" position, have I? But you appear to have found that in my words, even though it's not there.
We're to love all people. Who here is disputing this in any way? It's really kind of a silly thing to say as a stand alone point. As in, so what, we're to love everyone. But there's no way that's all you meant or you would have said that after the first comment and left it at that. You didn't though. You went on to chastise a president of whom you choose to believe the worst, as if you know the details of his proposals on anything, which you've never demonstrated that you do. You prefer to point to distorted versions of things he's said in his unpolished manner. And as to "specific actions", I've no doubt you could accurately list any that aren't also a distorted version of reality.
Indeed, who would dispute that? All I know is I made a rather obvious comment quoting God saying that he loved immigrants and that we should love immigrants. And then I got all this push back from you two. So perhaps you should be asking yourself and Craig who is disputing it?
Again, you say you’re speaking of specifics, but can’t identify them. One way I can tell is your use of the “dog whistle” term, which means you have to impose racism or whatever where it isn’t explicit.
1. There’s so much on topic that you’ve ignored that it’s not funny 2. My actions speak for themselves 3. God loves everyone
“And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good.”
Once again, since you missed it, I’ll let my actions speak for themselves when it comes to how I treat immigrants.
I’m not the one who took it upon himself to announce what God’s final word was, that was you. If you can’t treat the context around your paraphrased snippet with the same definitiveness, then I guess that sends a message.
No idea what you're talking about, but it appears to literally have nothing to do with anything that I've said.
I'm sorry I can't explain my point in words that you can understand. I would have thought, "God loves immigrants. We should love immigrants." would be about as simple to understand as I could make it.
Of course, your right. You announcing that your paraphrase of a small section of myth as God’s “enough said” on immigrants was clearly not an attempt to speak for God. Just as clearly you’ve ignored or missed what I’ve said repeatedly above about loving immigrants.
Let’s not let things like facts and reality get in the way.
"All I know is I made a rather obvious comment quoting God saying that he loved immigrants and that we should love immigrants. And then I got all this push back from you two"
But again, what would be the point except to be provocative by specifically citing one group of people, since we're to love all people?
"The point of the post is the moral, rational, biblical and just support for loving immigrants."
And of course, we (Craig and myself, for example) and indeed the United States, love immigrants. We even love those who do NOT obey our laws regarding the legal entry into our nation, just as we love all lawbreakers and sinners. Dealing with lawbreakers according to the laws of the land does not imply a lack of love. Enabling lawbreaking does. You enable lawbreaking.
Craig, I'll politely ask you to keep your comments on topic. Further off topic nonsense will be deleted.
I'm sorry if this is difficult for you and I get that you don't understand my points, but I don't know how to help you. The point of THIS post is that God loves immigrants and that we should love, support, work for and with immigrants.
An extension of that is that we ought NOT criminalize those who are seeking refuge, that such behavior is not of love, but of fear and selfishness.
I am sorry if you don't agree or don't understand, but that's the point of the post. Please keep comments on topic. Your last comment was nonsense, having nothing to do with reality or anything that I've said.
what would be the point except to be provocative by specifically citing one group of people, since we're to love all people?
sigh.
The Bible REPEATEDLY makes the point over and over and over and over and over and over time and again that we should love everyone AND ESPECIALLY, we should love, watch out for, support, welcome, embrace and care for "the least of these..." the poor, the widow, the orphan and the foreigner/immigrant.
WHY do biblical authors repeatedly make this point? We aren't told their motivation, but for many reasonable people, the reason is clear: Those who are already marginalized are at even greater risk of harm, oppression, rape, murder, theft, etc.
WHAT is the point? The point is to defend the least of these, those seeking and needing refuge.
WHY is that the point? Because it's what it takes to be a decent human being. Because WE ARE ALL IMMIGRANTS, at some point in our lives. We are, or our families, or our loved ones and because we should do unto others as we'd have them do unto us.
Because, in the words of God quoted in the Bible, "For YOU were refugees once."
I don't think "Take care of those in need of refuge" is a provocative point at all. You are free to disagree, but do it somewhere else, you've made your point here.
I am sorry if you don't understand how wrong it is to oppose giving refuge to those needing it, but it is wrong. One day, I'm sure you'll recognize that. I just pray, for your sake, you don't learn it when YOU are in need of refuge and YOU are turned away.
I’m sorry that you consider referring to the wording of the paraphrase in your original post off topic. I’m also sorry if demonsting examples of the defined and concrete ways I’ve showed love for immigrants and others in need is off topic.
I’ll once again point out that you didn’t “quote” God, you paraphrased Him.
The fact that you can’t understand that there is ample opportunity for legitimate refugees to gain succor which don’t involve breaking the law, as well as a process for those who choose to break the law to demonstrate that it was necessary.
But none of that matters, nor does the topicality of the comments, you’ve chosen to retreat to your safe space behind the delete key.
The point of THIS post is that we should give refuge to those in need. If someone is fleeing another nation to escape oppression or starvation, it is moral to give them refuge and it is immoral to refuse it.
Do you agree with that idea?
If so, say so clearly. If so, then we agree and you can move on, because that is the sole point of this post.
What "claim above..."? Given your deleted comments, you're almost certainly talking about a "claim" that was never made, but I'll give you a chance.
My guess would be that you're talking about this kind of comment from me...
"I am sorry if you don't understand how wrong it is to oppose giving refuge to those needing it, but it is wrong."
Thinking that it is a "claim" that you disagree with giving refuge.
It is not. It is a question, a conditional comment. "IF YOU DISAGREE" being the pertinent language. If you don't disagree, then it's not addressed to you, is it?
And okay, so you agree with the premise. Then you and I are in agreement on the point of this post. Move on, as there's nothing more to say.
But perhaps you can understand when the ONLY point I've been making is that we should support those who seek refuge and need safety and you two have been going non-stop on senseless attacks about this phrasing or that phrasing or whatever the hell it is you're objecting to, that it raises the question: WHAT are they disagreeing with?
Myself, if I agree with someone's post, I may comment, "Yes! I agree!" but there's not much more to say. You two, instead, have been picking and picking over nonsense.
So, instead of demonstrating that we’ve actually opposed giving refuge to those in need, you’ve played more semantic games.
But, by all means continue to mispepresent what we’ve said and to delete on topic comments so you can lie about them.
The fact that even after multiple repetions of me agreeing both in word and deed, the fact you you lack the wit or grace to recognize that says all I need to hear.
"WHY do biblical authors repeatedly make this point?"
I dunno. But I'm gonna guess that because there are people like you who don't abide teachings that aren't repeated ad nauseum. Of course, OBEY is repeated quite a bit as well, but that doesn't seem to matter to you. Clearly, it isn't the number of times a rule is repeated, it's whether or not you like the rule that matters.
As to objections and with what we disagree, it's the charge that our nation is not doing enough to please YOU with regard to refugees. It's the charge that some are turned away without just case...not that there is no error, but that turning away anyone is just a willy-nilly decision of some kind. It's the suggestion that because our system isn't perfect and doesn't perfectly account for massive numbers of people and the variety of cases among them that they system and laws governing them are immoral.
I’m confused, are the “biblical authors” making this point or is God. Clearly the title of the post suggests it’s a direct word from God, yet then it switches to “biblical authors”. I guess consistently doesn’t mean much.
Either that or it’s not God or the biblical authors at all. It’s just Dan and his flawed, imperfect, sinful, human opinion which means that there’s no reason to take them seriously at all.
I’m confused, are the “biblical authors” making this point or is God.
We don't know, specifically, authoritatively, demonstrably, do we?
CLEARLY, the human authors are the literal ones making the points. That much is the only fact we know.
We hold the OPINION that God inspired these people to make the points, but that's not a provable opinion, just one that who believe so, hold.
Some hold the OPINION that God inspired these stories AND TO THESE PEOPLE, they THINK in THEIR OPINION that this means (in their human theories) that God meant for it to be taken word for word as a literal teaching. So that, IN THE OPINION of these people, when the human author wrote, "And God told the Israelis to kill off ALL the people in the land - men, women and children... - but spare the virgin girls to take home to forcibly wed them..." that it means that GOD actually commanded those things literally... that sometimes God wants us to kill children and forcibly wed captured virgins.
I hold the opinion that this is a rather ridiculous portrayal of how a perfectly holy and good God would act. That, as the bible teaches elsewhere, God does not command us to do evil, and so clearly, that can't be taken as a literal point from God, as it would be self-contradictory.
Craig, I happen to think that ALL good things come from God. And thus, GOOD principles and ideals come from God. And thus, "Love immigrants" comes from God.
That is consistent. I hope you can understand that.
Again, just trying to clarify. Because your original paraphrase of the biblical author’s words is attributed (by you) directly to God. So, when you then change your tune and attribute things to the biblical authors, you can understand why there might be some confusion.
It is a literal quote - paraphrased slightly but in no way to change the meaning - from God found in the Bible. I'm not judging whether God ACTUALLY said it or not.
When I quote the Apostle James...
"Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial..."
~James
and I change "man" to "one" (Blessed is the one), I am not changing the meaning. It's still a recognizable quote from James with a slight adaptation to make it flow better and be more appropriate/understandable (the point was NOT that only men who persevere are blessed... it was to all people...). Same with this quote. God is quoted speaking of God in the third person. I changed it to first person to make it more clear. The quote is still literally correct in meaning.
Thank you for admitting that you’ve paraphrased. It’s too bad that you don’t think that substitution of a vague, general term in place of very specific terms to not be changing the meaning of the text.
So, your attribution of your paraphrase (you’ve admitted it’s not a quote, so why keeep pretending it is), to “God” was a mistake? Was your choice to refer to “God” as opposed to your much more common “god” an attempt to give your paraphrase more gravitas?
Ultimately, I’m not sure (other than stubbornness and ego), why you won’t just admit that it’s a paraphrase and that attributing it directly to “God” was an affectation designed to give gravitas that you wouldn’t get by attributing it to the author of the myth.
1. It’s a paraphrase, not a quote. 2. So you’re saying that God (who you can’t prove exists) specifically spoke the original words (in the original language) to the author and the author wrote them down (passed them down) in a manner that is so literally historically accurate that you feel like you can make a (semi) objective claim that the original quote was directly from God. Despite this being in the context of literature you’ve consistently described as being “myth” and not literal history. Does this mean that you would confidently assert that the passage that I quoted (not paraphrased) earlier is also a direct word from “God”?
2. So, I'm saying that the author quotes God saying, "I love immigrants. You should too." If you disagree, that's fine, disagree.
I don't care if the quote is directly from God or not. I see no data to suggests that God inspires us in a way that we can say, "I was inspired to write these specific words from God, literally from God's lips to my pen to these words," so I rather doubt it was inspired in that way. You are free to hold that opinion if you want, but I don't think that's a required or even reasonable biblical opinion.
Got it, so you really have no actual, demonstrable, provable reason to attribute your paraphrase to “God”. For some reason you just can’t quite bring yourself to actually just say that.
"I hold the opinion that this is a rather ridiculous portrayal of how a perfectly holy and good God would act."
You hold the opinion that this is a rather ridiculous portrayal of how you think a perfectly holy and good God should act according to your standards for the behavior of a perfectly holy and good God. The rest of us don't suppose that our discomfort with certain reported actions of God means we can reject those actions as less than perfect and holy.
"That, as the bible teaches elsewhere, God does not command us to do evil, and so clearly, that can't be taken as a literal point from God, as it would be self-contradictory."
What is contradictory is your insistence that because you don't like a command of God that it indicates evil in the command. Just because you don't like a command of God's, doesn't make that command evil, even if the action is evil should WE do it of our own volition. We don't get to judge God's actions regardless of how we feel about them personally. God is not obliged to act in a manner that satisfies our personal opinions.
so you really have no actual, demonstrable, provable reason to attribute your paraphrase to “God”. For some reason you just can’t quite bring yourself to actually just say that.
If one assumes a good and loving God, then assuming that a quote like "I love immigrants. You should love immigrants..." is perfectly rational and believable.
But no, of course not, I can't prove that God said that, any more than you can prove a single thing about any of your human opinions about God. I've been pretty consistent and clear on this point.
Can you agree to that reality?
I don't think you can and that is perhaps why you're having such difficulty understanding anything I'm saying. Sorry I can't help you understand.
Good luck.
Same for you, Marshall. I think you'll find, one day, that you're way off on your human opinions. I'm sorry I can't help you understand that.
You hold the opinion that this is a rather ridiculous portrayal of how you think a perfectly holy and good God should act according to your standards for the behavior of a perfectly holy and good God.
Yes, I hold the subjective human opinion that this is a rather ridiculous portrayal of how I THINK a perfectly good God would act, GIVEN what we humans understand about basic goodness and decency. This is what I've been saying pretty consistently all along.
On the other hand, YOU hold the subjective human opinion that a perfectly good God MIGHT (and in fact, DID, in YOUR HUMAN OPINION) command people to kill children and to forcibly wed virgin girls.
Ask an average reasonable person which of these are reasonable human opinions to hold and which ones are grossly evil and who do you think will be left holding the grossly evil human opinion?
You clearly consider reasonable people those who agree with you. But you're not dealing in reason. You're dealing in subjective personal preferences for what characteristics and qualities make for a perfectly good and holy God. It's way hell above your pay grade to suppose you can impose YOUR criteria of goodness on your creator. Reasonableness doesn't include picking and choosing which aspects of God's nature, as it is presented in Scripture, are worthy in YOUR simple mind of regarding as true or likely while rejecting that which you personally dislike. That's called, "creating for yourself a false god". Scripture isn't the koran where Muhammed alters it according to that which benefits him and thus what is most recent trumps what came before.
It is you who holds the grossly evil position, therefore, as it is grossly evil to reject the God of Scripture for the god of your own making. It is grossly evil to label God's actons as grossly evil because they don't align with the Dan Trabue code of behavior all deities must follow. I'm sure God is terribly sorry you don't approve of His methods.
I do not believe it is grossly evil to stand opposed to slavery, infanticide or forced marriages. You are free to disagree, but people everywhere WILL consider you evil and demented if that's where you want to plant your flag.
Please provide quotes that demonstrate that I said Art supports those things.
On the other hand, I'm not sure one way or the other if you two always think that slavery and forced marriage are wrong... or if you think that God might sometimes command it and, in those circumstances, it's right to wipe out all the children of a city (along with everyone else), or to forcibly wed virgin girls, or slavery.
So, feel free to clarify and we'll all know where you stand.
“ You are free to disagree, but people everywhere WILL consider you evil and demented if that's where you want to plant your flag.”
Clearly this can’t be anything but an attempt to suggest that Art, isn’t against the listed things.
That said, I guess off topic is ok when it’s you.
I’ll propose a deal, you answer the follow up question you dodged in my slavery post, and I’ll respond to the statement above and answer my slavery question.
To wonder about what I might or might not oppose is a diversion, when the real issue is your reaction to God acting in a manner you find appalling. On one hand you insist we can't have perfect knowledge about God, yet you "know" without question but with perfect knowledge that He just couldn't possibly act as Scripture reports He has. And by golly if He truly DID act in such a manner, then you won't worship Him. Again, I've no doubt the thought of Dan Trabue's ultimatum has Him all ashudder.
when the real issue is your reaction to God acting in a manner you find appalling.
IN YOUR OPINION. I don't think God is acting in the way that YOU think God is. I think the suggestion YOU are making as a flawed sinful human that God sometimes commands what we generally recognize as atrocities is, itself, evil and atrocious.
By all means, Marshall, let's get an answer from you. Be clear and make your opinion known (otherwise, don't bother commenting here further):
Do you believe that a perfect, loving, all-gracious God would sometimes command the slaughter/murder/destruction of whole villages of people, including infants?
Are you saying this is your human opinion on the matter and that you COULD be mistaken? Or is it a demonstrable fact?
Do you recognize how evil that sounds?
Please answer or don't bother to post anything else and we'll let your silence say all it needs to say.
Art, excellent point. Dan's fundamental premise is that we can't "prove" anything about God. We can't prove He exists, can't prove that He's spoken through scripture, can't prove heaven or hell. Yet, he insists that God would NOT, ever under any conceivable circumstances engage in certain things while offering not even the pretense of proving that he's correct.
Dan, one of your problems is that you have an issue with past v. present. You are treating your pet issues as if it's being suggested that they're present rather than past.
If you want present examples of people engaging in slavery, or forced marriage for religious reasons, one need look no further than Islam. As for infanticide, the current proponents of that practice fall in the realm of scientific materialism (Darwinism, Scientism, Eugenics, etc) and virtually all supporters of infanticide fall on the left hand (your) side of the political spectrum.
So, you can't specifically denounce the Peter Singer's of the world, while perpetrating your pollyannaish view of Islam, but you're going to call us evil for acknowledging certain specific things that happened in certain specific contexts, thousands of years ago.
So, do I (and you) believe that God will command, decree, or allow horrible things to happen to people who are actively engaged in evil, or sin, or rebellion against Him. Sure. Do I believe that a Perfect, Holy, Just, Righteous God who "hates" or "detests" sin and evil; who is sovereign over everything He's created can do things that are beyond my ability to fully understand and comprehend? Sure.
Do I have the hubris to announce that I am able to pass judgement on either God's character or God's actions? No.
Is this as simplistic as you would like to make it? No. Is this particular line of questioning on your part from a genuine desire to know and accept the truth, no matter what it is? I doubt it. Is it most likely an attempt to gain ammunition to use in future character assassination? Most likely.
"Are you saying this is your human opinion on the matter and that you COULD be mistaken? Or is it a demonstrable fact?"
I'm saying that my best, most honest, most humble attempt to come to grips with what is recorded has led me to the conclusions I've drawn. Could I be wrong? Of course I could. But that's the difference between us. I freely admit that I could be wrong and just as frequently ask you to provide proof (biblical) of your hunches. If you would do so, I'd consider it (not simply dismiss it with Ad Homs). If you'd provide compelling, specific, biblical proof, I'd acknowledge it. So, please by all means, prove me wrong.
Do I have the hubris to announce that I am able to pass judgement on either God's character or God's actions? No.
you have made a judgment about God, that SOMETIMES, at least in the past, God might command people to kill babies and forcibly kidnap and wed virgin girls. THAT IS making a judgment about God. God is, ACCORDING TO YOU, the sort of God who might (for reasons you don't understand), command people to kill babies and forcibly wed virgin girls. That is your judgment of God, not mine. At least if I'm understanding you correctly.
Do you understand that reality?
Could I be wrong? Of course I could. But that's the difference between us. I freely admit that I could be wrong...
My whole premise and difference between me and fundamentalists has been that I am quite clear that some things are MY opinions and MY opinions CAN be wrong. I'm sorry if you haven't understood that, in spite of the many repeated times I've pointed that out.
and just as frequently ask you to provide proof (biblical) of your hunches.
Why limit it to biblical "proof" of our hunches? What's wrong with a reasoned proof?
Like this:
If there is a perfectly good God, that God would not command people to do evil things; killing babies is evil, by all reasonable standards accepted by humans; Therefore, a perfectly good God would not command such a thing.
That IS a "proof," a reasoned explanation for why your hunch and judgment of God (again, that sometimes God might command people to slaughter babies, along with whole villages) is less than rational, GIVEN a "Good God." Why is that explanation/proof not acceptable, but a line from the Bible is?
Are you suggesting that we have to find a line in the Bible to justify all moral opinions, or do you agree with me that we can reasonably make moral judgments apart from the Bible?
Indeed, do you recognize that the Bible itself makes no demand that we find a line in "the Bible" to form and hold a moral position?
Yet, he insists that God would NOT, ever under any conceivable circumstances engage in certain things while offering not even the pretense of proving that he's correct.
I'm sorry, have you not caught the countless times I've pointed out the "Good God" problem that fundamentalist "inerrantists" have with their judgments of God? Do you NOT understand that "a good God that commands evil actions" is a logical impossibility? Or at least a logical extreme unlikelihood? It's self defeating. If there is a god that commands evil, then that god is not, by definition, a good God.
Beyond that, I have frequently pointed to the Bible verse that addresses this: "God does not command evil..." BECAUSE I believe that verse is rationally sound and BECAUSE of the "Good God" premise that we hold about God, I do not find it rational or biblical to make the judgment of God that your god sometimes commands the slaughter of babies.
I've addressed the reasoning. Repeatedly over the years. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you.
"Do you believe that a perfect, loving, all-gracious God would sometimes command the slaughter/murder/destruction of whole villages of people, including infants?"
I believe that Scripture has reported that God exacted punishment on a sinful people by ordering His Chosen People to destroy the entire village. I do not question whether or not it detracts from His perfection, His love or His graciousness simply because I, or more specifically, people like you, find the action atrocious.
"Are you saying this is your human opinion on the matter and that you COULD be mistaken?"
I don't know that I'm mistaken on this matter at all. I'm saying that I have no legitimate logical reason to suspect these stories are wrong simply because the thought of entire peoples being punished in this way might offend my sensibilities. I doubt eternal separation from God would be less appalling. If I'm going to take any part of Scripture as true, accurate and/or factual, it can't be on such a basis as my own feelings. This is what you're doing...NOT bringing legitimate arguments to dispute what Scripture records.
"Do you recognize how evil that sounds?"
I know how evil it sounds to YOU. I know how evil you insist I must regard it in order to divert my reverence for Scripture toward your more worldly depiction of what God is and should be. But I don't judge God or His actions or the manifestations of His wrath simply because I find it frightening and contrary to the "loving God" you need Him to be in order to be worthy of your adoration.
I’m not making a judgment about what God might have done or commanded. I’m simply reading the text, applying the standard usages of the words, and the standard approach to historical accounts and agreeing with the text, history, and countless other intelligent people.
I’m not agreeing with you because you offer nothing substantial to as a counter, certainty not enough to come close to proving that your hunches are likely to be true.
As to why not Reason. Let’s start by being honest and clarifying that you mean your Readon. Then let’s go to the fact that Reason is a subjective, amorphous, undefinable standard that can mean anything that you twist it to mean.
Then let’s go with the fact that in your “Reason”, you choose to offer a less than complete view of the Nature of God, which then warps your Reason away from certain possibilities without even giving them consideration.
No, it’s not proof. It’s a simplistic, manipulated, bit of sophistry with nothing that even comes close to proof.
I’ll use your logic.
You haven’t proven God exists. You haven’t proven that He’s “perfect, loving, and all gracious”. You haven’t defined what those three terms mean. You haven’t proven that those three things are the exclusive sum total of God’s nature You haven’t proven that love and just punishment are mutually exclusive.
Again, that’s just a few problems with your Reason, using your standard (as close as I can get given how hard you try to hide your standard of proof).
I believe that Scripture has reported that God exacted punishment on a sinful people by ordering His Chosen People to destroy the entire village.
I didn't ask you that, Marshall (if the story existed in the bible...). I asked you if you believed that, as a point of fact in the real world, God literally commanded people to literally destroy an entire village, including the actually innocent children and even infants (who were certainly not full of sin)?
Please answer the question being asked of you.
I do not question whether or not it detracts from His perfection, His love or His graciousness simply because I, or more specifically, people like you, find the action atrocious.
Think this through, Marshall: If someone says "In the Bible, God commands Israel to kidnap virgin girls and make them their wives... Clearly, this is NOT immoral behavior, since God commanded it. I think I'm going to "save" a virgin teenager from their evil village and wed her (not really against her will, because what she thinks doesn't matter, only what GOD thinks!)..."
Do you find that action atrocious? Surely you do!
But why? That person is basing his reasoning on what God has already ordained as good and moral! It can't be wrong, since God commanded it! Who are you to say it detracts from God's perfection, his love or graciousness, simply because you disagree with this man raping a teenager?
Of course, we use our reasoning to cipher through when someone is claiming this or that action as something that God is doing or saying. Of course it offends our sensibilities when someone says God endorses rape or infanticide. It should!
Think this through, Dan: If someone says, "In the Bible, God commands Israel to kidnap virgin girls...." Right there there's a problem given that's not what the text says. Clearly, a serious study of the pasage has not takem place. And as if that might not be enough for you, there is plenty to demonstrate that God does not look kindly upon rape and the ill treatment of women. So how can the story suggest an endorsement of rape and kidnapping by God?
I insist what for you passes for "reasoning", isn't reasoning at all, except as it applies to a desire to reject that which is an inconvenience to your preferred god of your own invention.
They killed their parents, took the virgin orphaned daughters of those slaughtered parents and forcibly wed them. That is what the text literally describes.
Now, you can say that they dressed them in pink and took them to a tea party with candy and dumplings if you want, but what is being described is rape. Forced marriage of the orphans by their parents' and baby brothers' killers.
THAT is serious.
Treating it as a pretty dinner party is not serious.
there is plenty to demonstrate that God does not look kindly upon rape and the ill treatment of women. So how can the story suggest an endorsement of rape and kidnapping by God?
Given that God does not command or endorse rape AND given a story where God commands and endorses rape, what are our options?
We can ignore the literal words of the story and pretend that it says something other than what it says ("No doubt, those virgin daughters were GLAD to have their parents killed off along with their siblings and baby brothers! And what a RELIEF to finally get married! Those Israelites were SO SWEET to them!!") or we can take the story literally but recognize that it wasn't God's idea.
You're opting for the former and I'm the latter.
Seems to me the latter is taking the Bible most literally (one does not need to assume that God endorses everything that is credited to God... certainly not the evil things accredited to God... to take the text literally).
Same for "destroying" the whole town, including the infant babies. You prefer to ignore the literal "my god commanded them to kill innocent children..." and re-write the story that this god was ordering the destruction of vile, evil people, so those newborn infants must have been vile and evil, too... which is nonsense. Rather than assuming that the part of the story were "god commanded" may have been a misunderstanding of the author.
The Bible NO WHERE says that the human authors of these books and stories were infallible or that they recorded everything perfectly, but you're inserting that assumption in, ADDING TO the Bible, and ignoring the parts you don't like (sorta like you're accusing me of doing).
The point here is that neither of us are taking this type of story directly literally. The difference is that the part that you're making up/re-painting is pretty far afield of what the story actually says, whereas all one has to do for my interpretation is assume that the biblical authors did not have everything perfectly understood... and since the Bible never says that the authors wrote things down without any misunderstandings, then why wouldn't we assume that as the most likely explanation?
Cmon Art, all you have to do is base your entire interpretive framework on the assumption that the Biblical authors were mistaken and that God had no control over what got recorded...
Since you've a priori dismissed the possibility that either the bible or God can authoritatively communicate anything to us, you're simply appealing to something you deny authority to.
It's clear that there is no possible way that God could actually have had any control over the writing or compilation of scripture, or anything for that matter.
1. I haven't "dismissed" anything. I've just noted what I do and don't see. I don't see anything in the Bible that calls the Bible authoritative.
2. You'd have to explain what you mean by "authoritatively communicate..."? What does that even mean?
Does it mean there are passages in the Bible that CAN NOT be misunderstood? Since people disagree on everything, that can't be what you mean.
Does it mean that there are passages that literally perfectly reflect what God thinks, and if we just take it widely literal, well know what God thinks perfectly? If so, which passages?
What do you mean by that? I'd love for you to answer that.
Re, "you're simply appealing to something you deny authority to..."
What I'm doing is pointing out the rationally self-defeating argument you're making.
If the Bible is the sole Authority for understanding moral and spiritual matters and the Bible does not argue that God demanded perfect writings from the human authors, then on what basis would we make that demand?
It would be an extra biblical human demand and extra biblical human demands do not have authority over scripture according to Sola scriptura. It's self-defeating.
"Given thatGod does not command or endorse rape AND given a story where God commands and endorses rape, what are our options?"
1. That you're misunderstanding a story that does not depict God commanding or endorsing rape.
2. That you're imposing contemporary meaning on passages written thousands of years ago, where the meaning is different. (Think "original intent" with the US Constitution where progressives also distort to their own satisfaction.)
This is just for starters and I will go more in depth as time allows. But clearly, the only option is not just your complete dismissal of the story as the author's fiction simply because you have personal issues with what the story appears to say to YOU.
1. Rape is defined as forced sexual acts. These kidnapped women were literally forced into marriages, into sexual relationships. How is that not literally the definition of Rape? Who isn't understanding the story as described? Because it's not me.
2. Set aside those literal rapes. God commanded (if you take that part of the story literally) Israel to kill everyone in the offending nations, literally and specifically the infants. Killing infants is evil. Period.
There is absolutely no reference in the text of captured virgins being forced into marriages or their being raped. Nor, more to the point, that God ordered such be done. When one sees passages that, to that person, appears to suggest something that counters previous understandings promoted by other passages, it is far more reasonable for that person to consider there's more in depth study and research required...if one wishes to insist one is a serious and prayerful seeker of understanding.
When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured.
After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
~Deuteronomy 21
Note, they have her trim her nails. Any ideas why a captured woman who you're going to forcibly take as a wife might have her nails trimmed?
Any ideas why have her head shaved and clothes taken away?
If you were familiar with rape practices - especially rape-as-weapon-of-war practices - you'd know.
Did you see where she was asked if this was something she wanted? That's right, you didn't see it, because women didn't get to consent. Captured women, especially, did not get to consent.
What's that word for non-consensual sexual acts...?
Did you notice that the husband can just let her go "if he's not pleased with her..."? Did you notice that she is to be released wherever she wants to go? Do you see, between the lines clearly, that the assumption is that she WILL want to go?
There is no reference to being forced into marriage IF you're not looking for it. If you look at the text with open eyes, it's clearly there.
It an attempt to generate a term that encompasses how God communicates with us and what authority that communication carries.
For example, if POTUS dictates an executive order to a secretary, who writes it down accurately, that written executive order is equal in terms of authority to the spoken words of POTUS. If one was to read that executive order, it carries all of the legal and statutory authority accorded the office of POTUS.
In a similar manner, if the words in scripture that are attributed to God, were actually directly communicated by God to the writer (scribe/secretary), and were recorded accurately then it makes sense that those writings would carry the authority of God, in the same way any written law carries the authority of the law giving body.
Sorry, it was an attempt to pack a lot of content into s short term.
FYI, at this point I’m not necessarily arguing for any sort of authority other than in a theoretical sense.
I have to note that the passage you chose uses the term “may”. It doesn’t use the term “will”, “shall”, or “must”. In fact it uses no words that indicate command, rather it gives permission.
The reson for the shaving of the head etc, was to have the man demonstrate that this wasn’t an act of hot blooded, heat of battle, passion, but a considered act that wasn’t dependent solely on external beauty.
I’d think even you would be able to understand the difference between “You MUST do this!” and “If you are going to do this, here are some parameters”.
Sorry, let’s put this in the context of the times as well. Virtually zero marriages were anything but arranged, (no, arranged marriage isn’t rape, it’s a practice that many cultures engage in) so the captured women were being treated exactly like the Hebrew women were in the sense of their status.
But, let’s contrast the Hebrew treatment of captives with the rest of the people groups around them.
no, arranged marriage isn’t rape, it’s a practice that many cultures engage in
Women have long been treated as chattel whose opinions don't matter, who don't have the right to a voice. Just as is true for black folk and enslaved people throughout history. That's how the cultures were.
Doesn't mean that the forced sex wasn't rape, just because it was culturally accepted.
Do you agree with that basic reality of human rights and human decency?
Now, I am not saying that all arranged marriages were rapey. I'm sure that oftentimes, arranged marriage were done consensually. I'm talking about forced marriages, including arranged marriages where the woman didn't want the forced marriage or forced sex.
Now, I will also note that many women in times before societies recognized the basic human right that women have a legitimate voice to make their own decisions, that women in those cultures might not view it as rape, even, just because that culture was so engrained doesn't make it okay. I don't know where to draw that line and I'm not trying to draw it here. I'm just noting that forced marriages where women submitted to sex against their will ARE rape, by definition.
you've a priori dismissed the possibility that either the bible or God can authoritatively communicate anything to us...
Dan...
What's that mean, "God can authoritatively communicate to us..."?
Craig...
It an attempt to generate a term that encompasses how God communicates with us and what authority that communication carries...
...if the words in scripture that are attributed to God, were actually directly communicated by God to the writer (scribe/secretary), and were recorded accurately then it makes sense that those writings would carry the authority of God
Set aside for a minute the reality that the Bible does not say that God communicated the Bible to us in this manner...
So, GOD COMMUNICATED the Bible "directly" to the writer and the "scribe" (NOT NOT NOT how the Bible describes "scripture..." but set that aside, too) "recorded accurately" these words... it makes sense to you these words carry the "authority of God" (again, not anything that the Bible teaches)... Okay, but WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
There are all the words "communicated directly" to a variety of biblical authors on the topic of Scripture and these words have "the authority of God..." AND some people look at all those "words with authority" and reach one conclusion about inerrancy. Other people look at those "words with authority" and reach a different and contradicting conclusion about inerrancy.
What does "authority" mean in that case?
Or what about those "words with authority" that touch on topics of killing babies, about what God does and doesn't command and the texts related to God supposedly commanding the killing of babies and one group of people reach one conclusion about that topic (God does not/would not command people to kill babies) and other people reach the opposite conclusion (that God has, at least in the past, commanded people to kill babies).
What does "authority" mean in that case?
Do you understand how it seems like "authority" is meaningless in relation to the Bible, because it all relies upon interpretation and interpretation can be right or wrong.
Thus, it seems (thinking it through logically) that the text itself is NOT (NOT NOT NOT) an "authority," but WHAT GOD WANTS is the authority. The Bible is not "inerrant," God is. It's rather meaningless to call the Bible "an authority" or "inerrant," as long as we recognize the reality that some will and do interpret the text poorly or wrongly.
Okay, you probably can agree with that much, but you may argue, THE ONES WHO INTERPRET GOD'S WILL CORRECTLY ARE REACHING AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IS CORRECT AND, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN AUTHORITY...
Is that what you're thinking?
If so, then the question is: HOW do we know which group is interpreting correctly? DO we know with any provable authority?
I mean, I think that CLEARLY, I am understanding it aright in these areas where we disagree. Does that mean I'm right?
Or, supposedly, clearly YOU think you are understanding it aright. Does that mean you're right?
1. The part of the story in question, is what’s called an “if/then” clause. That means that the instruction part is conditional. It’s like the sign on a fire alarm. “IF there is a fire, THEN pull this.”.
2. When I wonder about what something in the Bible means, or want to confirm (or disprove) my first impression of a passage, I’ve discovered this wonderful tool, it’s called a commentary. It where people who have spent a great deal of time and effort, generally learning the original languages and the culture, into giving detailed explanations about the various scriptures. The thing that’s even more amazing, is that you can find them online for free, and you don’t even have to read an entire book. In this case, the few that I looked at (not a lot of time to research when I’m at work), seemed to not be supportive of your hunch about this.
I’m sure that these guys are simply hacks who have no idea what they’re talking about, but I thought I’d try to do the nice thing and point you toward some more neutral sources.
Funny, I didn’t see the word consent even once. I’d ask you to prove lack of consent, but you wouldn’t, so I won’t.
I’m sure that it only seems as if you’re imposing your 21st century, white, European, liberal, progressive, opinions on a culture from thousands of years ago. Oh, and if morality is “subjective” and if morality “is defined by the individual culture” then the behavior was (in context) and by definition moral.
I keep thinking I should ask you to prove.,, oh never mind.
For someone who claims to have once been some sort of conservative, your lack of knowledge of the concepts or both authority and inerrancy leave much to be desired.
Look, the point I was trying to make is that you are appealing to scripture as if it contains direct quotations from God, while denying the possibility that scripture could actually do what you claim.
As for scripture having authority, as I pointed out, whatever authority scripture might have is directly related to the ultimate source of scripture (God or man), and the ultimate authority of that source. Just like a written law draws it’s auth from the authority of the government, written scripture draws its authority from God.
If you want to argue that God isn’t sovereign, please do. If you want to argue that God was unable to shepherd the preservation of scripture as His means to communicate His Truth to us, please do so. If you want to argue that the writers of scripture were just making stuff up with no regard for what they were saying, or were trying to engage in some sort of scheme to portray God in a negative light, please do so. If you want to argue that parts of the Bible are true and correct and quote God, while the rest doesn’t, please do so. Just be sure to provide the list of which is which.
But if you do, bring proof, bring facts, bring Truth.
If you want to argue that God was unable to shepherd the preservation of scripture as His means to communicate His Truth to us, please do so.
God CAN do anything God wants. God COULD have given us a Scripture that spoke out loud and said, "NO! THAT'S NOT RIGHT!!" each time we reached a bad conclusion.
God didn't do that. As a point of fact. Anyone can look and see that hasn't happened.
And so, we were so close to making some meaningful advancement, but then, you veered away from the questions put to you.
Please answer these questions or move on:
...then the question is: HOW do we know which group is interpreting correctly? DO we know with any provable authority?
Please answer, directly, clearly, unequivocally.
I mean, I think that CLEARLY, I am understanding it aright in these areas where we disagree. Does that mean I'm right?
Or, supposedly, clearly YOU think you are understanding it aright. Does that mean you're right?
Please answer, directly, clearly, unequivocally.
Based on what?
Please answer, directly, clearly, unequivocally.
There are all the words "communicated directly" to a variety of biblical authors on the topic of Scripture and these words have "the authority of God..." AND some people look at all those "words with authority" and reach one conclusion about inerrancy. Other people look at those "words with authority" and reach a different and contradicting conclusion about inerrancy.
If you want to argue that God isn’t sovereign, please do.
I'm not arguing that. I never said that. I don't believe that.
If you want to argue that God was unable to shepherd the preservation of scripture as His means to communicate His Truth to us, please do so.
God COULD do anything. The question is, what DID God do. God inspires people to Truth through a variety of means, seems to me (and as the Bible teaches in various places). I don't know what you mean by "shepherd the preservation of Scripture as His means to communicate Truth..." so I don't know what else to tell you.
YOU have to answer the question put to you so I can know what you're even speaking of before I can address your human opinions.
I will say that I think God has MANY means to communicate Truth. The Bible says so. I think reason suggests it, too.
If you want to argue that the writers of scripture were just making stuff up with no regard for what they were saying, or were trying to engage in some sort of scheme to portray God in a negative light, please do so.
I don't think that.
If you want to argue that parts of the Bible are true and correct and quote God, while the rest doesn’t, please do so. Just be sure to provide the list of which is which.
Those things that are good and true and pure and loving and grace-full, THOSE things reflect God. Those things (like suggesting that sometimes God commands evil, or that God commands people to kill babies, which I consider evil) do not reflect God. There IS no perfect list, we have to use our reason.
Just as YOU have no perfect list of which interpretations of various passages and ideas are of God and which ideas/interpretations are not of God.
Do you agree with that reality - that you have no list of those parts of the Bible AND understandings of those parts are correct and quote God?
A quick scan of comments since my last suggests Craig addressed much of what I had intended. A notable exception is that this passage has been addressed before in great detail, and while I foolishly thought Dan was commenting on a different chapter (31 instead of 21, which he now quotes), I should have remembered Dan's penchant for putting forth arguments as if for the first time.
This is a case where God mitigates behavior that was universally practiced at the time in question. It demonstrates an acceptance of a woman's worth while not yet abolishing the practice altogether, as is the case with other behaviors at the time. It actually improves the lot of women over what was commonplace. Thus, there's no command to take women, but a tolerance of the practice and new considerations men were to have on the behalf of captive women.
1. We look at how closely their interpretation is to the clear meaning of the text. We can also look at numbers. If 90% of scholars agree that something means x, then it’s reasonable to conclude that some random guy online probably has a pretty high burden of proof to demonstrate that he’s right.
You clearly think you’re right no matter what the text says or what evidence your presented with, yet you clearly don’t understand the difference between permiision and command. You understanding something in a way contrary to others doesn’t mean your right. Just that you have a higher standard to meet.
If my understanding aligns with the majority of others, including experts in the field, and basic English language rules, it increases the chances exponentially.
Before you whine about appealing to numbers, let’s remember that one standard of legal proof is “preponderance of the evidence”, so if it’s goid enough for the legal system, it’s good enough for a blog.
Preponderance of the evidence, basic English language rules for two.
That “authority” doesn’t rest with peoples interpretation, it rests with the source.
But I’ve answered the last one 3 times now.
You keep claiming that God “could” do anything, yet you are adamant that He couldn’t or didnsuperintend the compilation and writing of scripture is such a way as to ensure that it accurately and Truthfully communicated exactly what He wanted it to.
Just one more area where you contradict yourself. You insist that there is no certainty about what God did do, but express complete certainty about what He didn’t do.
Again, I’d ask you to prove your contention, but I could write your generic list of excuses for you, so I won’t waste the time.
That “authority” doesn’t rest with peoples interpretation, it rests with the source.
And if you are saying the source is God, then you and I agree and are faced with the problem of, "But what human can say with authority what God thinks?"
The answer to that question is there is no human. Ain't no man.
IF, on the other hand, you're saying the source is the Bible, then that's where you've wandered into idolatry, on the one hand, and meaninglessness, on the other hand. It's meaningless unless we can answer, WHAT HUMAN has the authority to clarify meaning where there is a question?
The answer to that question is there is no human. Ain't no man.
Which gets back to the question that you think you've answered, but haven't.
IF you, as a human, think that the verses that touch on homosexuality, inerrancy and God commanding Israel to kill whole cities, including children teach us 1, 2 and 3...
And I, as a human, think that the reasoning on those same topics teach us X, Y and Z...
And, IF, as you say, the authority doesn't rest with your opinion/interpretation OR my opinion/interpretation, but "the source..." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
The text on those topics say A, B and C. YOU THINK, in your human opinion that A, B and C suggests we should conclude Apples, Bananas and Candy and I think, in my human opinion that they teach Air, Bicycles and Community...
who can say with authority that you are correct or that I am correct or that neither of us are correct?
What human/humans get to make that call?
If you're saying the majority of experts, and appeal to numbers, then the experts on Creation tell us that the earth was NOT created in six literal days, that there was no Adam/Eve in a literal sense, that there was no Great Flood in the literal sense, that Genesis stories were written in a mythic fashion.
Are you fine with that?
OR, are you going to say, "No, not THOSE experts, but the experts that I think are better experts..."?
Which would then cause us to say, what human gets to make THAT call?
Do you not see the logical problem you're running up against?
You clearly think you’re right no matter what the text says or what evidence your presented with
No, I think I'm right because reason and the text dictate it to me. I think, GIVEN the specific texts in question and GIVEN some basic reasoning (and, I'd say, GIVEN the leading of the Spirit of God, which I believe in), I think my conclusions are the most reasonable on these topics.
But NOT NOT NOT "no matter what the text says..." Perhaps, "No matter what people like Craig and many others have thought about the texts over the years..." but not "no matter what the text says."
God can say with authority. To some degree that’s the role of The Church.
Please show me the objective proof to back up these claims you’re making about the age of the earth and the existence of Adam and Eve.
Yet you continue to believe you’re right despite the evidence presented to you, you continue to disparage arguments based on your ad hom attacks on the character of people, rather than on the evidence people present.
I know this is probably confusing to you, but I’m not and have never advocated for a strict YEC position. Your problem is not to argue against a caracture of your version of YEC, it’s to provide proof of your claims.
At one point I provided you with numerous scientific sources regarding origins, I’m still waiting for your rebuttal of any one of the sources, let alone all of them.
I said “The Church”, maybe your unaware that the capitalized reference is speaking of the entirety of Christianity. If you took a cursory look, you’d find a great deal of agreement in most of the issues you choose to make contentious. It’s just that you choose not to recognize that your diversion comes with a burden of proof.
But I suspect you know this and are just trying to throw more diversions in the conversation.
One of the problems that’s unaddressed after 100+ comments is the very subject of this post, the first question asked.
The answer to your question is apparently Dan Trabue. Dan gets to speak for God. Dan chose to paraphrase the author of Deuteronomy and attributed that paraphrase directly to God.
So then, which PART of The Church gets to decide? On inerrancy, for instance? The majority of Evangelicals over the last few hundred years? But not Catholics?
The problem I'm seeing is the ambiguity in Dan's responses. He's consistent in mentioning multiple areas of contention that are no of the same kind and expecting a response that settles it all. For example, to speak of what is true and what can be known and proven, the issue might in one case be, "what does Scripture say", while in another case, "what is God's will?", while in yet another, "how can we prove God exist?" These are different levels or categories that cannot be lumped together to determine what can or cannot be proven.
For example, regarding this latest issue, we can easily demonstrate that God is not endorsing or commanding the kidnapping and rape of women because the text does not even say such a thing. Why that isn't proof enough is beyond me, as it is clearly apparent. There is no special "interpretation" involved when the very translation being used isn't worded in such a way as to suggest a command to kidnap or rape exists.
There's also a problem of when it is acceptable to apply contemporary definitions or understandings of word usage on translations of ancient texts. For example, in those rare instances when the expression "to know" is used today to suggest sexual relations, it is only done so because the expression comes from ancient use of the expression. Clearly anyone unaware of this usage would view the text differently when the expression is used to denote a sexual history of a given character. Thus, a female in the Old Testament "who has not known a man" does not mean a woman raised on an island of only women ala Wonder Woman. I bring this up as it applies to the concept of taking Scripture literally. In this example, to take that expression literally requires understanding how the expression was used at the time.
There's also too much focus on concepts taught by Scripture that aren't labeled by Scripture. The Trinity, for one, is taught by Scripture without the word ever being used. The Bible doesn't have to label itself in order for it to be a history book as well as a rule book. It's absurd. The same is true with concepts of inerrancy, of being the "Word of God", of being inspired by God, etc. These things are all mentioned to one degree or another and the fact that later scholars have labeled the concepts doesn't mean the concepts were invented by those later scholars, as opposed to observed and given a name. It's such a waste of time to even argue about such things.
This obsession with division is interesting to see. I’m not sure that repeating myself will be fruitful, if you are unaware of the concept of “The Church” (aka “holy catholic church ”, the “Church Universal” etc) I can’t help you.
So you why don’t you just keep up the spiritual salmon routine and just be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Or, you can prove that your hunches are true. Either way.
Art, you’re right. Part of the problem is that so much of these things have been settled theology for hundreds of years and while you expect these sorts of terminology problems from JW’s or Mormons, you are now seeing a vocal militant sect of folks who identify as christian while denying much of what defines Christianity.
Clearly these terms have an understood meaning, and these terms are really shorthand for more complex formulations. But we’re being demanded to defend caractures of these doctrines, not the actual doctrine.
It’s a lose/lose or tarbaby situation as evidenced by the above.
1. Christians haven't always been right, so being settled doesn't help if you're wrong.
2.The Catholic church was settled on opinions for centuries. Then, reformation, protestants and Anabaptist. By your suggested measure of "being settled," the reformers were wrong. Right?
Mere numbers of people who agree with you does not mean you're right.
As an aside, yes Craig, of course I understand the notion of the Church. You misunderstand the point I'm making.
The vast majority of Christians throughout history.
Not at all. The reformation was about bringing the Roman church back to its biblical roots. It was also originally an internal attempt at debate, which became external when the pope refused to engage in the existing process for addressing questions.
But, what I great way to avoid answering the first question asked in the thread. Detour into the reformation.
I understand the point your making, it’s the same point you usually make.
FYI, if you want to jump on the reformation train, that’d be awesome. I’ll give you the same challenge Luther gave the pope. “Use scripture to show me where I’m wrong, and I’ll gladly go with scripture.”.
1. Your human hunches about inerrancy is only a few hundred years old. Same for Sola Scriptura. Your human views about peace-making/warring have come and gone throughout the centuries. Much of the emphasis and understanding of modern evangelicalism/fundamentalism is, well, modern.
2. An appeal to numbers is hardly convincing.
3. I don't believe in Sola Scriptura. WHY then, would I rely only on Scripture to make a case against or in favor of whatever? You want me to argue on your terms, accepting your human opinions as a starting point to make my case. You'll have to try harder than that to make your case.
4. I HAVE offered Scriptures that contributed to why I hold the positions I hold. YOU disagree with my human interpretation of those scriptures and I disagree with your human interpretation on those Scriptures.
5. As always, on what rational or biblical basis do YOUR human hunches have a single bit of authority over my human hunches?
It seems clear that the appeal of fundamentalists is always coming down to "You should recognize the authority of our position because we base our opinion on our interpretations of the Bible and our interpretation of these matters is, therefore, 'right,' and those who also read and value the Bible who disagree with us are wrong because they're not interpreting it 'right,' and we know this because they disagree with OUR OPINIONS on these matters which we can not be mistaken because others like us agree with us..." It's circular reasoning with no consistent rational or biblical criteria for making the case that your hunches hold any more authority than other humans'.
IF the vast majority throughout history jump off a cliff, will you?
Something came up at Bible study this morning that may better explain where I’m coming from.
Historically Christian belief has been layed out in two primary ways. Creeds and catcheisms. With a significant amount of similarities and overlap between the various options. Given the commonality between the significant historic creeds and the significant cactchisms it seems like that would be a core of Christian thought that could be rallied around and a reasonable explication of the teachings of The Church.
But, that’s because I’m not looking to find things to dispute.
1. So, your arguing that the date when the terminology was agreed on is evidence that the concept describe by the terminology is false.
2. That’s your problem. Strangely enough, it’s an appeal you frequently offer when it suits you. Of course it’s fine if you want to argue that The Church has been wrong for thousands of years, you just have to actually prove that you’ve discovered something that’s eluded millions of people for thousands of years.
3. Your belief, or lack of, isn’t the deciding factor regarding the Truth or falsehood of Christian doctrine. Your more than welcome to offer proof that Sola Scriptura is wrong, and that you’ve got a better alternative. But one based on your elevation of Reason, (especially your fallen, imperfect, self centered Reason), won’t be convincing to anyone but you.
4. Really? What was the scripture that specifically says “God blesses “gay marriage”? Or the scripture that speaks of homosexual activities in a positive or neutral way?
5. Since I haven’t made that claim, why would I signify that straw man with an answer.
“Jump off a cliff” that’s the best you have. The straw men are falling like flies.
4. What is the scripture that specifically says God approves of gay people marrying?
What is the scripture that specifically says that inerrancy is what God thinks of scripture? What is the specific scripture that demands s Sola scriptura? There IS no specific scripture that literally says any of that.
Right? It is ALL extrapolated based upon the very human reasoning that you dismiss. Do you understand that reality?
However, there is scripture that says whatsoever is good, true, pure, love Etc, to think on these things... these ARE good things. And two people committing to one another in love is a good thing. We've been all over all this before.
The point is I have my reasons scriptural rational Etc and I think those reasons are extremely compelling. You have your reasons that you find compelling for your beliefs and I found them extremely shallow, not compelling.
So, we're back to what makes one set of human opinions on what God thinks authoritative over other human opinions?
Historically Christian belief has been layed out in two primary ways. Creeds and catcheisms. With a significant amount of similarities and overlap between the various options.
Perhaps this might help explain some differences in our human opinions... given my upbringing in/respect for/identification with the Baptist and Anabaptist traditions - traditions that reject creeds and catechisms and with a strong belief in the priesthood of the believer - I'm (we're) not inclined to be too obligated to what other humans thought. Which is not to say that we reject what other humans thought... just that we don't think that human tradition is anything close to a final decider for us. We are all obliged, the thinking goes, to seek God, truth, the Right for ourselves and if we don't agree with an opinion, then we are not obliged at all to give much credence to it. Perhaps that's why I'm sympathetic to skeptics, as well.
I'm sure you're familiar with this concept, but here's some info from the Baptists...
"For Baptists, being our own priests means that we are responsible only to God. We are not accountable to another person, to a creed or confession, to a council or convention, or to any text other than Scripture. Our only sovereign is God. No other authority comes between us and God. We are accountable for being guided by God’s Spirit."
1. So, your arguing that the date when the terminology was agreed on is evidence that the concept describe by the terminology is false.
No, I'm recognizing the reality that a lot of what is important to modern evangelicalism/fundamentalism is more modern and not a huge part of the historic church belief system. Thus, appeals to tradition are only so effective, if they only go back a few hundred years.
2. That’s your problem. Strangely enough, it’s an appeal you frequently offer when it suits you.
It depends upon the point being made. IF that vast number of experts in the age of the earth/universe agree that they're billions of years old, then those are experts on the age of the world and that's pretty important.
IF, however, we're talking about human opinions about what God thinks, then I don't know that we can consider ANYONE an expert, so that if 90% of modern evangelicals think that "clearly" the Bible teaches that God endorses Sola Scriptura, then those numbers are less compelling.
And no, I'm not talking about whether or not you believe in a Young Earth. I'm talking about principles of authority and knowledge vs opinion.
"However, there is scripture that says whatsoever is good, true, pure, love Etc, to think on these things... these ARE good things. And two people committing to one another in love is a good thing. We've been all over all this before."
Yes, we have been over all this before and what remains unresolved is "whose notion of what constitutes 'good, true, pure, love, etc'?" I continue to insist that those words must align with what Scripture indicates those words mean. To put it more specifically to the issue, they cannot in any way refer to sinful behaviors simply because YOU find the behavior a wonderful thing due to the feelings the sinners have for each other. Two men (or two women) engaging in sexual behavior with each other can never be described with any of those terms since the act is considered by God to be abomination. Thus, you pervert the spirit and teaching of Phil 4:8 to employ it in support of prohibited (that is, sinful) behavior. "Love" based on unnatural erotic desire God prohibits is not "pure, true, noble" and certainly not "commendable" to God. Nor were they to Paul, so to use that verse in your pro-LGBT agenda tactics demonstrates that you are not "true, pure, noble, etc".
"It depends upon the point being made. IF that vast number of experts in the age of the earth/universe agree that they're billions of years old, then those are experts on the age of the world and that's pretty important.
IF, however, we're talking about human opinions about what God thinks, then I don't know that we can consider ANYONE an expert, so that if 90% of modern evangelicals think that "clearly" the Bible teaches that God endorses Sola Scriptura, then those numbers are less compelling."
This is more than a little disingenuous. Those that believe in an old earth/universe are rendering opinions based on their interpretation of data. They are no more or less "experts" than are those who have studied Scripture. Indeed, the latter are more "expert" given that Scripture is fixed, the original languages, cultures and such are far easier to analyze than that which came before the first human existed. Your bias is clear in referring to the scientists as "experts", while condescendingly regarding Biblical scholars as merely people with opinions.
what remains unresolved is "whose notion of what constitutes 'good, true, pure, love, etc'?" I continue to insist that those words must align with what Scripture indicates those words mean.
And you are WELCOME to that human opinion, but it's not anything that The Bible tells us. It's a human opinion that you and people like you have traditionally guessed at.
I would say that those things that are good, true, pure, noble, loving, etc are NOT that difficult to grasp, in general. Is it EVER good to invade a nation and kill all the people there, including the babies? I say that 99% of humanity can consider that and confidently answer, "NO, that would never be a moral Good. It would not be pure or noble, either..." And that would be people regardless of their human opinions about the Bible. I think there is that within us (God' Word, writ upon our hearts, the Holy Spirit, basic human decency) that informs us in general about Good and Bad. Research has shown us these basic human drives to a common moral view, in general.
So, while you are free to think that it must align with the Bible, I'd suggest the more adept notion is that God created us as understanding morality and thus, any morality must/will align with God's notion of Good and Bad, but that can be believed in whether or not you accept God or the bible. And that "the Bible" is not the authority - IT IS ONLY TEXT and text must be interpreted and interpretations can be good or bad... for instance, the interpretation that sometimes God might command people to kill a whole society, including their babies is, to my thinking, a bad and irrational and unbiblical interpretation. So, the Bible is not the authority, but God is the authority and none of us can speak with authority for God.
Thus, you pervert the spirit and teaching of Phil 4:8 to employ it in support of prohibited (that is, sinful) behavior. "Love" based on unnatural erotic desire God prohibits is not "pure, true, noble" and certainly not "commendable" to God.
These are ALL your opinions. And you're welcome to them. But it is MY opinion that I think you have it wrong, and clearly wrong. CLEARLY, two people committing to one another in Love and respect to live a life together is clearly a moral good, regardless of how you interpret ancient rules and try to misapply them to a different setting.
And Marshall (Craig, anyone else), I let this stand, but this sort of language is exactly the sort of language I might delete as an attack upon innocent people who you do not know... a traditionally oppressed people, people that I believe God would have us side with and support. When you call something as beautiful as a committed loving relationship "unnatural erotic desire," you are attacking people you do not know and who, demonstrably, factually are doing NOTHING "unnatural..." Do not use such attacking, oppressive language here, it will be deleted.
You can get your point across without attacking people. Saying "Love that, in my mind, conflicts with some basic boundaries that I believe God would have us embrace... THAT love is not pure..." without using the stupidly false epithet of "unnatural." That is the sort of language that has been used by the oppressors, and that is why that sort of language will not be allowed here, any more than I'd allow the N word or other epithets.
Whether or not you understand, I will ask you to respect that boundary I'm demanding here. My goal is to protect people. I hope you can respect that. If not, perhaps it would be better not to comment here.
Really, all I have to say right now is, your answer to 4. Really is “there isn’t one” and the fact that you chose to dodge/ignore/hide from the second part of the question just drives home the point that you have to manipulate and twist unrelated scriptures to try to make your hunch appear biblical.
You claim that “Two people coming together in love is a good thing”. Ok
Prove the truth of that statement. Prove that all “gay marriages” are “two people coming together in live”.
Again, I’d ask for more proof, but proof is pretty elusive.
I have to admit that your desire to bring the topic around to gay sex as a way to avoid the whole Dan speaking for God thing is impressive.
The quote you have that starts “For Baptists...”, are you saying you agree with that quote?
Since I never suggested that creeds and cachtechisms are are anything but examples of statements of belief that are widely accepted by many branches of The Church as summaries of what the Bible teaches, I’m not sure what your point is.
If it’s to assert some inherent superiority of Anabaptists, ok we know about pride. But, clearly the concept of the priesthood of all believers in no way conflicts with any creedal or other statement of faith.
1. Can you prove that homosexual sexual activity is “good, pure, worthy, and all the rest of the adjectives on your list?
2. You’ve spend months arguing that values are subjective, yet now you offer an article claiming that there are “universal” moral values. I’ve provided numerous sources that claim that not only are moral values subjective, but dependent on individual societies. Could you please pick one side and stick with it.
3. You realize that by insisting that there are things that God would “never” be, you’re once again placing yourself in judgement over God’s character and speaking for Him.
4. As usual, I’m interested in what you mean when you use the term “created”?
5. When I see Assad using the chemical weapons the P-BO administration assured us were “100%” gone, or Liberals discriminating against two black women, or the weekly slaughter on the streets of Chicago, or the persecution of Christians and the defilement if women by Muslims, it seems obvious to me that there is clearly no sort of inborn moral code.
While God certainly created humans in His image and pronounced the result “very good”, clearly we’re a long way from that now.
"And you are WELCOME to that human opinion, but it's not anything that The Bible tells us. It's a human opinion that you and people like you have traditionally guessed at."
So now, with your "we are each priests" subjectivity, you insist that Paul had no specific intent we are able to discern and thus we can make it mean whatever works best for each of us. How incredibly convenient. So nice to see you're so willing to carry your cross. The reality is that this is another case of you applying contemporary understandings to ancient concepts in order to provide yourself liberty to believe what has most personal appeal. "Context" is really just a joke to you if you're going to be so loose with when and how you apply it. So here is but one of many commentaries I could have used to illustrate the point regarding those words as they were used by Paul:
This theme shows up over and over again, and never...not even once...is there anything that suggests Paul was giving us liberty to define those words to our own satisfaction. And despite your next thought alleging I'm engaging in hunches, looking at the original languages (and those experts who translate those languages) further supports the FACT that Paul had a specific intent in using those words that do NOT indicate misapplying them as you do in order to support homosexual behavior.
"I would say that those things that are good, true, pure, noble, loving, etc are NOT that difficult to grasp, in general."
Again, as those words are commonly used today, perhaps. But as they are translations of an ancient language, the understanding of how those words are used in context is what matters. NOT what you want them to mean now so that you can go on behaving in a manner that is totally contradictory to the lesson intended. Frankly, even the contemporary meanings do not comport with your positions, which applies them so loosely and so subjectively in order to make good that which is not.
"Is it EVER good to invade a nation and kill all the people there, including the babies? I say that 99% of humanity can consider that and confidently answer, "NO..."
I would say "99%" is wishful thinking given the fallen nature of mankind. But that aside, it still is a subjective position that assumes everyone all over the world thinks exactly like you do. Worse, you now make the appeal to numbers that you just rejected when Craig suggested it. ("Mere numbers of people who agree with you does not mean you're right.") You can't appeal to numbers when it agrees with your position after rejecting such appeals when it doesn't.
At the same time, you can't even argue that it is NEVER wrong to invade a nation and kill all the people there, including the babies. Not without presuming that there could never be anything worse that doing so could resolve. That, too, is a subjective assumption that you can't make as if a certainty. You need hard data for that, per your own demands.
"I think there is that within us (God' Word, writ upon our hearts, the Holy Spirit, basic human decency) that informs us in general about Good and Bad."
Think it all you like, but it's no more than another self-serving, self-satisfying opinion based on nothing more than what appeals to you personally. Whatever is "writ upon our hearts" cannot conflict with what is "writ" in Scripture. And if you insist on saying Scripture supports your position, you need a bit more than the incredibly loose and ambiguous connections to passages and verses that are not specific to that which you support...such as Phil 4:8. Especially when you disregard that which is absolute and specific to that which you wish wasn't true...such as Lev 18:22.
Well, it would depend on what Jesus meant by that, wouldn't it? Do you think he meant that literally or as hyperbole?
Clearly, people are Good, and have Good lives... at least some people. I would suspect, Craig, that you are a very good man, kind, hard-working, patient, considerate... good. Would I be wrong?
"So, while you are free to think that it must align with the Bible, I'd suggest the more adept notion is that God created us as understanding morality...."
This conflicts with Biblical teaching that teaches that "natural man" is fallen, craven and sinful. Thus, despite God's plan when creating Adam, what came after the Fall more than a little bit mitigates that with regard to how or if the typical human has an inherent understanding of morality.
What's more, to whatever extent that appears to you to be true, it relies on the fact that the understanding of morality is influenced by a culture based on thousands of years of Judeo-Christian thought. So that takes us right back to Scripture (God's Word and Will revealed to us) being the source of morality.
"...interpretations can be good or bad... for instance, the interpretation that sometimes God might command people to kill a whole society, including their babies is, to my thinking, a bad and irrational and unbiblical interpretation."
First of all, it's not an "interpretation". It's a clear and unambiguous teaching of an event that occurred at a specific time and place. Thus, it is totally Biblical given that the Bible clearly states that it occurred.
Second, it is totally disingenuous to purposely choose to say "sometimes God might command", when the fact is that more than once, God indeed DID command His Chosen People to do just that. Then to say you don't reject Scripture is even more disingenuous. Worse, you reduce the author to a complete liar...and one who lies about God--Who then allows the authors to lie about Him.
Here again, you reject what is clear (as you do with Lev 18:22) while clinging to that which is not so (your self-serving misapplication of Phil 4:8).
"So, the Bible is not the authority, but God is the authority and none of us can speak with authority for God."
What we know about God we learn from the Bible. To pretend that you could ever have the same "understanding" of God as you now have without the Bible informing you (or even any understanding for that matter) is nonsensical to an extreme degree. And there is much in Scripture that is crystal clear and thus it is untrue to insist that there is nothing about which we can speak authoritatively. You need that to be true in order to avoid providing a solid defense of your anti-Biblical beliefs.
"CLEARLY, two people committing to one another in Love and respect to live a life together is clearly a moral good."
Clearly commitment to love one another and live a life together is not a basis for determining if that commitment is a moral good. Otherwise, the same would be true for a parent and its adult child making the same commitment, or siblings doing the same. Or an adult male and a girl old enough to menstruate (common in human history up until very recently, though still practiced in the Middle East). And why only two people if committed love and respect and willingness to live a life together is at play?
No. You're only concerned with one specific breech of God's moral law and to all others, none of them could ever possibly be examples of what is good, pure, noble, etc. And of course, to some, killing an entire people, children and babies included, might be a moral good, so if you don't want to adhere to a clear and unambiguous understanding of morality, then it's anything goes if enough people agree, or if those insisting upon it have the power to defend against those who disagree (despots in power, for example).
"...this sort of language is exactly the sort of language I might delete as an attack upon innocent people who you do not know..."
This is an example of despotic attack on speech in order to reduce arguments that expose the many problems of your beliefs and positions. If you can deny an opponent's ability to express himself accurately, definitively and objectively, you eliminate the opponent's position itself leaving only your position as if there is no argument against it. It is deceitful, cowardly and and not at all a truthful representation of what the opponent is expressing.
The words I used are words directly from Scripture. Thus, if I'm "attacking" people I don't know, how much worse for Paul who used them as well and influenced generations spanning thousands of years? The words used are accurate and appropriate words for the issue and the position I hold with regard to it. Your suggestion that my intention is malicious or malevolent with regard to a population that needs to hear the truth is a graceless and unChristian attack on me, and another example of disingenuous behavior on your part. So once again, I state emphatically, that while I regard the embrace of sexually immoral desires and the behaviors that are manifestations of them to be blatant and Biblical proven rebellion against God, my continued opposition is a greater example of love for "people I don't know" than is your enabling of their clearly and unambiguously sinful behavior.
To attack my character in this way demands that you provide proof of malicious intent on my part. If you wish to suggest as much with regard my opinion of your defense of this behavior, so be it. You'd be in a better position to chastise me. But to pretend that my position is an attack on the LGBT community is rank bullshit, unless to point out the sin of any sinner....murderer, thief, liar, adulterer, idolator...is the same sort of attack on "people I don't know". You would have me discuss a sin without calling it sinful. That's unmitigated absurdity.
You're not protecting anyone but yourself as you fail to successfully defend your enabling of that which God clearly and unambiguously prohibits. Thus, I once again, and as always, understand you perfectly.
"Well, it would depend on what Jesus meant by that, wouldn't it? Do you think he meant that literally or as hyperbole?"
No doubt literally. It reflects the concept that our best is like dirty rags to God. But it doesn't mean that people don't do good works now and then, or even routinely. But good works do not make us good. This is pretty basic stuff...Christianity 101, in fact.
We're 144 comments into a post with the simple statement: God loves immigrants. I've patiently tried to explain my position. We disagree. So be it.
You are welcome, Marshall, Craig, to think that Jesus meant that literally. In spite of reality, you are welcome to think that.
The reality is that people ARE good. Or rather, there ARE good people. I know them. I suspect the two of you are mostly good, most of the time.
The word has a meaning in English ("that which is morally right; of a favorable character; virtuous, right, commendable")... and there ARE people who are of a favorable character, who are virtuous and commendable. There ARE good people.
You are free to pretend that there aren't, but that goes against reality.
Or, you can make up new definitions of Good, but then, we aren't talking about Good, as it is normally understood, we're talking about this other idea (for now, let's call it Fundygood, how 'bout?)
But really, I don't know what else to say. This always comes down to you REALLY thinking I'm mistaken and me thinking you're clearly mistaken. And neither of us can prove it.
I offer you my reasons, but you don't accept them. So be it. I disagree with your reasons, too. And neither of us can prove our opinions (well, sometimes, I can... like Good literally DOES have a definition and there are literally good people out there, so Jesus literally could not have meant that, as we normally understand good.
Any way, I don't care to go too much further. I've explained myself.
What we know about God we learn from the Bible. To pretend that you could ever have the same "understanding" of God as you now have without the Bible informing you (or even any understanding for that matter) is nonsensical to an extreme degree.
Quite frankly, the older I get, the more I wonder if we wouldn't be better off/have a better understanding of God without the Bible.
I can imagine Jesus hearing discussions about "virgin birth" and blood sacrifices to appease an angry God and inerrancy and sola scriptura and opposition to people marrying and opposition to trans folk using the bathroom that matches their identity and on and on... I can imagine Jesus hearing all that and saying, "WTF, people?! WHERE did you get all that?! WHERE did I say ANY of that!!??"
What we imagine/reason our way to about God, we do using our reason. We are informed by creation, by human nature, by God's Word written upon our hearts, by our innate conscience, by the Holy Spirit (I believe) and yes, by the Bible, as well as other words of God written by all manner of people. The Bible does not limit knowledge of God to the Bible. it just doesn't, so it's an internally failing idea. The Bible does not teach "the Bible" as a sole source for authority on matters of faith and morality. It just doesn't.
I love the Bible and the teachings therein. I respect it, I read it, I strive to learn of God through its words. But, in the real world, to the degree we know anything about God, we learn it through a variety of sources. Thanks be to God for God's revelation.
Craig, I'll spend a little time answering your questions, but really, I don't know what point there is in going much further.
1. Can you prove that homosexual sexual activity is “good, pure, worthy, and all the rest of the adjectives on your list?
Prove it authoritatively? No. Not unless you count obvious observation of the joy and fulfillment that a healthy sexual relationship brings.
But I can certainly come closer to "proving" that than you can prove that God wants us to believe in Sola Scriptura or inerrancy.
2. You’ve spend months arguing that values are subjective, yet now you offer an article claiming that there are “universal” moral values.
I've argued that they are not provable. Or at least, we can't prove that God approves of this behavior and disapproves of that one, not authoritatively, not as a fact. We just can't. You can't. That hasn't changed.
But moral behaviors are pretty universal. No culture, no group of people wants to see their children killed. They recognize that killing innocent people is wrong. No group wants to see their stuff taken. They recognize the theft of material is wrong. No one wants to see their children or loved ones raped or harmed. This is basic universal stuff, from culture to culture.
See the difference? My position hasn't changed, you've just misunderstood. Hope that helps.
3. You realize that by insisting that there are things that God would “never” be, you’re once again placing yourself in judgement over God’s character and speaking for Him.
Again, you misunderstand. I'm speaking of basic reasoning.
IF God is a good God, wholly opposed to evil; and IF raping a child is objectively bad/evil; THEN God would NEVER rape a child or command someone to rape a child.
It's a rational impossibility. Like God CAN do anything... except those things that God can't/wouldn't do by virtue of God's nature.
Just like you can't have a round square.
Beyond that, I have no idea what idea it is you're citing, since you just offered a vague charge.
The point of going on is, as I've always believed, because issues between us remain unresolved...not simply that disagreement remains, but that certain realities are not acknowledged and in a manner that suggest falsehoods are perpetrated, intended or not, about one side or the other. Take your first statements since my last comment:
"We're 144 comments into a post with the simple statement: God loves immigrants. I've patiently tried to explain my position. We disagree."
I don't know that you can point to anything Craig or I have said that indicates we do not believe God loves immigrants. In fact, we have both, without question, boldly proclaimed that we believe God loves everybody (as a general rule at least, if not an absolute fact). Then:
"The reality is that people ARE good. Or rather, there ARE good people."
But the point is what Jesus meant when He said that there is none who are good except God. The reality is that we are sinful by nature and that means we are not "good". We are sinful, which is by definition, "NOT 'good'". For a Christian to take this as an insult is to reject Christ's meaning and the teachings of God found in Scripture. Sure, I know plenty of people that I personally regard as "good", but that is from a human perspective and relative to way too many other people. But as we are all imperfect and sinful by nature, no one is "good" in the sense Christ meant it. And yes, we can indeed know what He meant by that because of solid scholarship.
There is no altering of definitions here. There is only the altering of Christ's meaning. If He balks as someone referring to Him as "good", then obviously He isn't using the word, or referring to it, in the common sense that is no more than a comparison between craven, sin-natured human beings. He's referring to true goodness, which is only found in God. One would think a serious and prayerful student of Scripture would not have any problem with this simple to understand and easy to see concept. Rather than the insulting "Fundygood", it's really a matter of "progressive" distortion of the opposing, and more accurate, understanding of Christ's words.
"I offer you my reasons, but you don't accept them."
This, too, is not accurate, as we don't simply refuse to accept your reasons. We go into great detail as to why your reasons are unreasonable and therefore faulty, flawed , and without merit. If only we received the same consideration in return. Thus, that quote is more true and accurate if said by Craig or myself, than by you.
I wish to address the remaining comments but am out of time. Please allow me the opportunity as you've simply opened up new issues.
The Greek word Jesus used for Good was Agathos, which according to a Bible dictionary is defined...
of good constitution or nature useful, salutary good, pleasant, agreeable, joyful, happy excellent, distinguished upright, honourable
i.e., it's defined as Good, as it is in the English. Jesus didn't use a "special" word with a "different" meaning. He used the normal word to make a point. In fact, when he said to the rich young ruler, "Why do you call me Good, there is no one Good but God..." Jesus was referring to himself, and of course, Jesus was good!
Was Jesus making the literal point that there literally is no one who has a good constitution or nature, who is upright and honorable but God... not even HIM?! That'd be silly, don't you think?
And again, surely you know people who are good according to the Greek meaning of the word Good used by Jesus? Again, I seriously suspect that YOU are a good man, Marshall (albeit a perhaps argumentative one! Ha!)
In the context of the story, it would appear that Jesus is pointing out that no one is PERFECT but God alone, not that no one is good. And in the context of the story, why did Jesus want to make that point?
Jesus said to the man, "you know the commandments, right?" to which the man responded...
"All these I have kept since I was a boy...”
Dang! Clearly, this guy was acting/thinking as if he were perfect. Jesus was making the point here that the man was not PERFECT, not that the man was not good.
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
And the man, indeed, was not perfect. No one is. And no one is arguing that reality. But THAT is a different idea than saying that no one is good.
Again, agree or don't. That's the point I'm making.
As to your earlier...
I don't know that you can point to anything Craig or I have said that indicates we do not believe God loves immigrants.
I'm sorry if I was less than clear. I was not (NOT NOT NOT) saying that you and Craig disagreed with that notion. I was saying I've been making my points, explaining my positions on ALL these wide ranging points we've been talking about and on ALL these, you are welcome to agree or disagree. I can't prove to you one way or the other (again, beyond the points where I'm just talking about reality, like the definition of Good...) and you certainly can't prove your opinions about unprovable things.
“You are welcome, Marshall, Craig, to think that Jesus meant that literally. In spite of reality, you are welcome to think that.”
If, as you claim, it is “reality” that Jesus was using hyperbole, it shouldn’t be difficult to prove this claim. You won’t, but it shouldn’t be hard to prove it. (FYI, pointing out that you believe that people are “good” doesn’t in any way address your specific claim that Jesus was using hyperbole)
Not only are you incredibly inconsistent in your treatment of “arguments from numbers” depending on your need to use such arguments, but now you’re ignoring the fact that “No one is good...”, is a common thread through the entirety of scripture.
You’re selective, subjective standards are showing.
1. Do you can’t prove your claim about “gay marriage”, but you can offer your opinion about your observations, about the appearance of a few people you’ve watched and extrapolate from there to a blanket statement about “gay marriage”. And still can’t provide one positive or neutral scripture reference to homosexual acts.
2. I’ll have to go back and find the quotes later, but if I find a quote where you flatly claim morals are “subjective”, I expect you to acknowledge your attempt to dodge your past position. I also note that you’ve ignored the fact that “science” is clear that morality is “subjective and culture driven”.
3.
3a. So now your arguing for objective standards of evil and morality?
3b. You started this post by speaking for God, and have continued to do so. I’m sorry you’ve chosen to ingone the times it’s been pointed out until now.
Any time some random blogger, uses google to act like they have any degree of facility with Koine Greek, I pretty much skip right over whatever they say.
I love the “Jesus didn’t mean what He said argument”. It’s impressive how well you know Jesus’ very thoughts and intentions, and are able to decide what He REALLY meant. It’s almost like your Reason is some sort of mystical force.
If, as you claim, it is “reality” that Jesus was using hyperbole, it shouldn’t be difficult to prove this claim. You won’t, but it shouldn’t be hard to prove it.
In reality, I can't get inside Jesus' head to know the intent, so I'm not sure how you'd like me to prove that.
But, in reality, I've shown that the word literally means, "Good," in the same sense as our normal usage of the word. And I've shown in the text that Jesus appears to be talking about perfect, making the point that the man is not PERFECT. But Perfect is a different idea than Good.
And the same "throughout scripture" to the degree "no one is good" shows up, it almost certainly can't mean that no one is good, because Jesus was good and YOU are, I'm confident, a good man, Craig.
Are you saying you are NOT a good man? Are you suggesting that, worse than that, you are an evil man?
I don't know what is subjective about noting word definitions and usage, but you are certainly welcome to think that I'm subjective. Indeed, a good number of my beliefs ARE subjective and not provable, as is true for you, so, that's hardly a problem.
You started this post by speaking for God, and have continued to do so.
I started this post with a quote from the Bible, adopted to change the voice, but literally and specifically NOT speaking for God.
What is the difference between saying "And I heard the Lord say that God loves immigrants and wants us to love immigrants..." and saying, "I love immigrants, YOU should love immigrants..."? The message is the same, I just changed the voice from second person to first person.
The point is, it's a quote from the Bible, one that I BELIEVE reflects the notion of a Good and Loving God... and a point with which you do not disagree, so I really don't see why you're harping on a non-issue.
Your obstinance and argumentativeness notwithstanding, Craig, I'm certain you are a good man trying (somehow in all this, although I may not see why) to do good.
Keep it up (striving for good) but no need to belabor any points here.
If, by the way, you are making the suggestion/confession that you are an evil man, then do you think it wise for me to continue to consult with an evil man?
By the way, I've not suggested/confessed nothing of the sort.
You made the claim, a very specific claim, a claim about "reality" (I'm assuming that "reality" is one thing you believe to be objective), I'm asking you to prove your claim. How you do so, isn't my problem. If you can't prove a claim you make, then perhaps you should think twice before you make the claim.
Yes, I can see that you're making the argument that Jesus used the word that means "good", but that He really didn't mean "good", He meant "perfect". Again, if you're going to make the claim that you know what Jesus meant something "different", then you should be able to demonstrate the accuracy of your claim.
Yet the concept does show up throughout scripture, and for you to use that argument as a way to bolster your paraphrase "from God" (which is really an argument from numbers), while dismissing it as being wrong when it comes to being "good", is simply one more instance of your inconsistent standards.
The difference between your paraphrase, and the actual quote, is that the actual quote gives specifics as to how that love is to be shown, while your paraphrase removes those. It's one of the rhetorical tricks you do, where you try to extrapolate from specifics (as in your above "proof" that "gay marriage" is good) into a broad vague general statement that you can pour any meaning your want into.
if you're going to make the claim that you know what Jesus meant something "different", then you should be able to demonstrate the accuracy of your claim.
Again, I did not claim to know what Jesus MEANT. I pointed out quite clearly, I have no ability to read Jesus' mind from 2000 years ago.
What I'm pointing out is the reality that what Jesus is speaking of in this story is perfection. Jesus took him at his word that he "did all these things" (i.e., followed those rules) since he was a child. And indeed, I suspect most of us do follow those basic rules to a large degree... Jesus was pointing out the man's pride and his lack of perfection, not that he was not good. In the story, that's what he's doing.
But again, if you think otherwise, that's fine. I disagree. You're welcome to disagree with me. I'm just pointing out what the story seems to be clearly saying and NOT saying, and clearly, to me, in the story, it is not saying literally that there is no one who is good at all.
Feel free to disagree.
As to the quote that started this out, you are welcome to disagree with my characterization of it. It's certainly not a direct literal quote. It's a quote that directly gets to the intent of the quote and if you disagree, well, you're welcome to do so.
Good luck.
So, by the way, are you saying you are or aren't a good man? You are or aren't an evil man?
If you want to answer anything else, please answer that. Otherwise, I think we're done.
Morality 1. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, 2. In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong. 3. Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals. 4. Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals. 5. Conformance to a recognized code, doctrine, or system of rules of what is right or wrong and to behave accordingly. No system of morality is accepted as universal, and the answers to the question "What is morality?" differ sharply from place to place, group to group, and time to time
“What I'm pointing out is the reality that what Jesus is speaking of in this story is perfection”
If your truly speaking of actual “reality, then it should be easy to prove that claim”
“Jesus took him at his word that he "did all these things" (i.e., followed those rules) since he was a child.”
Or Jesus (The second person of the trinity, you know, God), knew that he was full of crap because no one follows even the 10 commandments perfectly.
Here’s the answer to your idiotic question.
I am a fallen, sinful human saved through the grace of Jesus death and resurrection, and because of that I am positionally good, perfect, and blameless. While that is the case, on a practical level I still fall short of Gods desires for me and rebel against God regularly.
Do I externally appear to be “good”, probably. If I was to compare myself to others, would I say I’m “good”, sure. Does every single bit of “good” I do count toward my salvation.
I’m not going to pridefully tout my goodness just to play your little game.
No game. If you're self identifying as an evil man, that might make me less likely to accept anything you say, because, how would that be rational? So, it's a reasonable question.
So, indeed, you are a good man, as I said. Keep up the good, then.
It sounds like you continue to continue to misunderstand what I've said and done, so you misspeak in your claims about what I have done. But right here, I have NO idea of what you're speaking.
Regardless, good luck in life as you seek to understand others and, you know, words and stuff.
"Quite frankly, the older I get, the more I wonder if we wouldn't be better off/have a better understanding of God without the Bible."
No doubt you feel that way. No way would it be possible. Indeed, you would likely have no understanding that could possibly be close to what Scripture details. Even with Scripture as your guide you continue to prefer your own created god to the God of Scripture. Everything you say about Him...that is, about your being able to conceive of Him...you get from Scripture, without which it would be highly doubtful that you'd "hear" the heavens declare the glory of God. You might suppose there's a supreme being of some kind...perhaps a Zeus or Odin...but the God of Abraham? Not a chance.
"I can imagine Jesus hearing discussions about..."
Huh? "Jesus" who? The Mexican guy who mows your grass? How would you know there is a Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God without Scripture to inform you of it? Are you going to suggest that His existence would have been affirmed through the generations without also all that preceded Him just as Scripture now says it did? You're only imagining that which validates your current preferences as if it could actually shake down that way! It's wishful thinking at best, but total fantasy!
"What we imagine/reason our way to about God, we do using our reason. We are informed by creation, by human nature, by God's Word written upon our hearts, by our innate conscience, by the Holy Spirit (I believe) and yes, by the Bible, as well as other words of God written by all manner of people."
This is fiction...again, fantasy that is baseless except by your own desire that it be so. And look at how many people people are "informed by nature" that there is no god at all. What makes you think that without Scripture there wouldn't be a great many more atheists than there are now? What makes you think actual human nature would ever have been tamed to the extent it has without the Judeo-Christian tradition as taught by Scripture? It's an absurd suggestion.
"The Bible does not teach "the Bible" as a sole source for authority on matters of faith and morality. It just doesn't."
"But, in the real world, to the degree we know anything about God, we learn it through a variety of sources."
...doesn't hold water given that for all those sources, what you think you learn from them is only an indirect revelation from Scripture. That is, those sources would teach you nothing about God had they not themselves received it from Scripture.
The benefit of all that is presented in the above links demonstrates one more thing very soundly and distinctly...that there is far more evidence of Scripture teaching it's own authority than any imagined support for either homosexuality or SSM.
"Or at least, we can't prove that God approves of this behavior and disapproves of that one, not authoritatively, not as a fact."
You can't hold this position while at the same time saying, "I love the Bible and the teachings therein. I respect it..." because it is through what is written in the Bible that we can indeed prove what behaviors please and/or displease God. As to the latter, such is usually preceded by something like, "Thou shalt not..." Pretty clear and unambiguous.
"IF God is a good God, wholly opposed to evil; and IF raping a child is objectively bad/evil; THEN God would NEVER rape a child or command someone to rape a child."
Nobody here has ever suggested anything like this, except for you. I'm well aware why you do this...so that you can insist that other things that God has done can be said by you to have been invention by the authors, rather than accurate reporting by them...such as God destroying entire towns, women and children included, by human agency (His Chosen People). A command to rape a child is nothing at all like the command to totally annihilate an entire city because the people in it are wholly evil and have been trying God's patience for years. Thus, while the former would never happen, the latter DID happen without God's characteristics of love, justice, mercy, etc. suffering one iota...except in your own mind.
You say this a lot, but it is a meaningless statement...except for how condescending it is. I've provided solid data to support my "opinion", and you've got squat and fantasy to support yours. Pretty lame.
What makes you think it isn't solid data? It answers your objection to the notion that the Bible makes no claims about Sola Scriptura, yet while the term isn't used, the concept to which it refers is clearly expressed over and over again by a variety of Biblical figures, most notably, Jesus Christ. It also clearly shows that it isn't a modern concept (only a few hundred years old) as so many early church fathers clearly demonstrated Scripture as the primary source of Christian understanding on faith and morality. So both of your objections are clearly shown to be in error. So in what way am I serious mistaken in light of these clear and unequivocal set of proofs?
the concept to which it refers is clearly expressed over and over again by a variety of Biblical figures, most notably, Jesus Christ.
And you are welcome to believe that if you want. I don't see it. I USED to see it, back when I was conservative and was taught it was there, but the more I looked into it, the less I saw what I thought I saw.
Confirmation bias, I imagine.
Nonetheless, you are more than welcome to believe it's there if you want. I disagree and think CLEARLY, it isn't there. It's not even hinted at and there's nothing there to make one think it if they didn't want to see it. Indeed, I would say that the Bible clearly teaches AGAINST Sola Scriptura.
We learn best about God by using our flawed, imperfect, limited, human nature and Reason. Which leaves us with a “theology” that is subjective, individualistic, contradictory, with ourselves at the center. We’re the arbiters of what the “reality” of God is. Sounds like a great plan.
Ah, we must all bow before the mighty Reason of Dan.
Oh, you literally (in the literal sense of the word) paraphrased a snippet from a passage from a “myth”, and attributed your paraphrase to God. But that’s not speaking for God.
You literally (in the literal sense of the word) insist that you know the “reality” of Jesus meaning in the story of the rich ruler. You insist that despite Jesus using the word “good”, that He really meant “perfection” rather than “good”. But you insisting that you know the “reality”, isn’t speaking for Jesus.
You literally (in the literal sense of the word) decided that you were going to ignore my actual answer to your question, and replace it with the answer you liked better. Ergo, speaking for me.
Also, the more I think about it, the more your “Jesus was wrong” interpretation doesn’t fit the context of the story. Just like your paraphrase doesn’t fit the context of the myth of Deuteronomy 10, and your “God orderd rape” doesn’t fit the context of the rest of that passage either.
"And you are welcome to believe that if you want. I don't see it. I USED to see it, back when I was conservative and was taught it was there, but the more I looked into it, the less I saw what I thought I saw."
There are three possibilities here:
1. You need a new Bible because the ink has faded from the pages.
2. You need glasses.
3. You choose to ignore the obvious because it is inconvenient to do otherwise.
Let's see....where shall I place my wager?
Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, "It is written,ʺ which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. (http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf) This demonstrates that Jesus and the apostles regarded Scripture as the primary source, if not the sole source of teachings on faith and morality. All of my links, were you to actually read them, would provide you with the answer to your charge that the concept in not Scriptural. But simply because the Bible doesn't use the term "sola scriptura" or "trinity" or other such labels for concepts and teachings, doesn't mean Scripture doesn't teach it. With all I've provided, to dare suggest that it isn't even hinted is incredibly absurd, as clearly my links show more than mere hints, but enough for the concept labeled "Sola Scriptura" to be a perfectly logical conclusion. A fact, even.
And without proofs of your own, insisting the Bible "clearly teaches against" it is no more than another "Nyuh uh" argument, which has no value whatever.
4. I DID used to believe as you do, but as I became less entangled with a conservative world view and less obliged to it, I was able to see more clearly that what was literally NOT THERE was literally not there... and that it was just my conservative allegiance to tradition that had set blinders upon me...
...and that you can't see it because you still have blinders upon you, making you able to see what literally isn't there.
Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal.
Jesus and the apostles DID regularly appeal to SCRIPTURE (not "the Bible"), but never did they refer to it or treat it as if it were a "final court of appeal..." THAT PART is your addition, not in the text nor demanded by the text.
Look, I regularly appeal to Scripture... which is to say, I regularly quote it and value its teachings. But merely quoting Scripture is not one and the same as saying, "AND THIS is the final 'court of appeal...'"
Do you see the difference?
I have appealed to Scripture way MORE than 90 times in our interactions together. Doesn't mean I'm suggesting it's a "final court of appeal." The mere citation of Scripture does not insist upon the interpretation that you are assigning it.
Do you see?
Jesus said "Consider the lilies of the field..." and "When evening comes, you say it will be fair weather for the sky is red..." and "look at the sparrows..." and probably dozens of other references to nature as a lesson on Truth. Does that mean he was citing nature as the final court of appeal?
The mere citation of a source, in and of itself, is not the same as calling it a "final court of appeal."
Hope that helps.
And while you are welcome to YOUR OPINION that "the Bible" is a final court of appeal, the Bible itself literally never teaches that. AND, if you ARE citing the Bible as the final court of appeal AND the Bible never says that, THEN your argument is self-defeating.
What’s more interesting Art, is that when Jesus etc were referring to scripture, the we’re referring to the Hebrew Scriptures which were codified by then. Referring to them as authoritative.
It’s clear that Dan believes that Jesus’ reference to Isiah at the beginning of His earthly ministry was authoritative, he demands that it mean that Jesus came to eliminate earthly poverty (which He didn’t even attempt to do on a large scale).
He even tells the teachers of the Law that they have everything they need to know already written on the Law and the Prophets.
It’s also clear, from an historical reality standpoint, that much of the NT was being circulated and regarded on an equal footing with the OT during the first century.
So, if you put aside quite a bit of reality, it becomes much more clear.
Of course arguing that paraphrasing a line from a myth, then attributing that directly to God, while denying the authority of the... oh hell it doesn’t matter.
That literally did not happen. Calling them "authoritative" is what YOU are doing, not anything that Jesus did. You can't support this with anything beyond your opinion.
Understand that reality?
Beyond that, it's one level of credibility to refer to an idea or source as "authoritative." It's another level of credibility to say, "This source is THE SOLE and FINAL arbiter of matters of faith and morality/practice..."
Jesus no doubt considered the Scriptures AN authority. Jesus never, however, called them the SOLE authority or the Final Arbiter.
"4. I DID used to believe as you do, but as I became less entangled with a conservative world view and less obliged to it, I was able to see more clearly that what was literally NOT THERE was literally not there... and that it was just my conservative allegiance to tradition that had set blinders upon me..."
Bull. I am not "entangled" with a conservative world view. Once again, you have no idea of what it means to be a conservative, and thus you never were conservative simply because you opposed homosexuality at one time, or because you had some superficial similarity to what conservatives support or oppose.
And it literally IS there as my links clearly prove. Jesus is free to say what He wants and in doing so is God speaking to us. The same is clear of the apostles once the Holy Spirit endowed them with similar qualities. After they were gone, no new revelations from God have come down to us and all their words that have been recorded join OT Scripture in their being part of that "final court of appeal", that subsequent church fathers followed in the same manner.
When Christ and others make appeals to Scripture, they do not follow up with anything more than an explanation of what they cited, further clarifying it for the listener. But they don't appeal to anything else as you suggest they do. They simply don't.
"I have appealed to Scripture way MORE than 90 times in our interactions together. Doesn't mean I'm suggesting it's a "final court of appeal." The mere citation of Scripture does not insist upon the interpretation that you are assigning it.
Do you see?"
I see that once again you're placing yourself on equal footing with Christ and the apostles. That YOU don't regard it as the final court of appeals is meaningless to whether or not it should be by you or anyone else.
"And while you are welcome to YOUR OPINION that "the Bible" is a final court of appeal, the Bible itself literally never teaches that."
I've shown that the Bible literally does indeed literally teach that. You simply reject what you do not wish to believe, because you think you know better. It's really a very arrogant, prideful position for you to take to subordinate, or even equate, Scripture with anything for determining faith and morality.
No. I'm pointing out the reality that the text literally does not say what you think it says.
It does not say "final court of appeal." Literally nowhere.
It literally does not teach that. At all. Literally not there. No where.
If you think it does, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that it does.
But remember that just because you say, "Uh huh! It does TOO say it... it suggests it in a way that no one else can think anything else..." doesn't make it so.
It doesn’t have to say what you demand it must in order for it to teach what it does. That scholars apply a term or title to a concept is irrelevant to whether or not the concept is rightly and accurately recognized as existing in fact. Your objection to this is absurd and requires something more than that to have any real merit.
Your respinse to my "nyuh uh" comment is rank childishness because I've actually provided "hard data" and evidence to support my position and from which is provoked the sound and logical conclusion the Scripture clearly teaches the concept known now labeled "Sola Scriptura".
So...what hard data and evidence can you bring to bear that counters that which I've provided in support of SS? Anything at all, or just "nyuh uh"?
Marshall, I've not seen the first bit of hard data from you supporting your point. I'll give you one chance to do so. Give me your one best bit of hard data that insists upon AS.
I've given you 3 or more links filled with hard data in response to your erroneous position that the Bible does not teach SS. I'm now forced to assume you mistyped "AS", or have changed the subject.
What do you mean you saw "nothing"??? There are dozens of verses listed!! You're just being obstinate and petulant. What's more, you could instead have been providing data of your own that you believe makes your case or destroys mine. Instead, you falsely pretend amongst all I've brought to bear you see nothing. I don't believe you've even looked at any of the links or you wouldn't be asking me to provide again what I've already provided in spades.
Besides, you want "one bit" of data?? It's the totality of all I've provided that makes the case, and you think asking for one bit allows you a better opportunity to dismiss it BECAUSE it stands alone. Who do you think you're kidding?
Marshall, they said things like, "Jesus cited 'scripture' 100 times, therefore, he was demanding Sola Scriptura..." but citing Scripture is not the same as demanding Sola Scriptura. Like that, on and on, for each of their "supports" for SS.
That isn't hard data, it's wishful thinking. It's reading a line and saying, "THAT MUST MEAN, then,...." when the line does not insist what they're reading into it.
It's a reading into Scripture something you want to find, not something that is literally there.
It's like you mistakenly accuse me all the time of doing, like with reading "Whatever things are good, pure, noble, loving, etc, think on these things..." as an obvious support for supporting gay folk getting married. That verse, to me, suggests that conclusion. BUT, I fully recognize that it doesn't overtly say what I conclude. At all. It is an extrapolation.
BUT, I recognize it as such.
These people are extrapolating out meanings that are not insisted upon. That is not "hard data." It's wishful thinking.
So, provide ONE BIT of actual hard data (a passage that DOES insist that the author is teaching SS, even if it doesn't use those terms...) to support your claim or admit that you can't. Or just quit commenting.
Ball's in your court, but any responses that do not provide hard data support, a verse (or a few verses) that DEMANDS/insists upon SS will be deleted.
Of course, Jesus appealed to reason. Just to grab a few quick examples from the beginning of Jesus' ministry from Luke...
“Which is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?”
That is making a rational argument for explaining himself and his authority. It is an appeal to reason.
“They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick...”
That is making a rational argument, an appeal to plain ol' reason that, OF COURSE, Jesus is going to "the sinners," because it is the sick who need doctors.
It's an appeal to reason.
“Can you make the children of the bride chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?”
When Jesus' disciples were being criticized for "eating and drinking," he appealed to reason, "why wouldn't the wedding party be celebrating when the groom is with them!"
“Is it lawful to do good or evil on the Sabbath? To save life, or destroy it?”
When the Pharisees were questioning Jesus' healing someone, he appeals to reason? OF COURSE, he is saying, it's moral, lawful and even good to DO good on the Sabbath!
Just for a quick starter.
Of course, Jesus appealed to reason. Repeatedly. Demonstrably.
Why wouldn't he? Are you suggesting that God is opposed to our God-given reasoning?
Do you now understand the reality that Jesus literally did appeal to reason?
"Consider the lilies of the field..." "consider the birds of the air..." "The farmer cast his seeds out and some fell upon rocky soil, some upon good soil, etc..."
But the mere presence of appeals to this or that are not evidence, in and of themselves, that these are the Sole Authority, the Final Arbiter or the Only Source for making decisions about faith and practice.
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.
Here, we see that even when he appeals to Scripture, he also appeals to reason.
IF this, as found in Scripture, then reasonably, THIS TOO, makes sense...
...using our reason, to which he appealed.
He also appealed (interestingly) to the evidence of good works, as if those good works said something themselves about the ontological nature of Jesus.
Nice try, I’ll give you that. Even if I was to grant you that Jesus was (as you suppose) appealing to Reason. He certainly Isn’t appealing to a limited, flawed, human reason, but rather a second person of the trinity reason, no comparison.
Using examples from the nature He created is hardly “appealing”, to nature. But again, points for creativity.
I’m sorry that the fact that Jesus frequently, consistently, and readily appealed to scripture, seems so elusive to you. I’m especially sorry that you’re attachment to your Reason is so strong and that your focus is on yourself.
1. Re the “your sins are forgive.,,walk” passage. Let’s not forget what the context was, it was a response to those who accused Him of violating the Sabbath, the point wasn’t to “Reason”which of those two options was more effective, it was to point out that Jesus had authority over the Sabbath as well as the power to forgive sins. It was a claim of deity, not a debate question.
2. Yes, Jesus works (miracles) did indeed make a claim about His ontological nature, unfortunately His ontology is significantly different from ours.
But trying to compare Jesus miracles to what you do is impressive.
"Here we see that even when he appeals to Scripture, he also appeals to reason."
Here we see that He appeals to Scripture from which reason is drawn...if you insist on ignoring reality. There is no reason without first pointing to what Scripture says, after which He's really just expounding on the Scriptural passage to which He appealed. Any way you try to slice it, He's still indicating the authority and primacy of Scripture.
Indeed, you can't reason on mayters of faith and morality without first appealing to Scripture. Not as a Christian.
What question specifically, Dan? Please copy and paste it. But know this...there is one of the many questions you've put out that is not answerable in a manner that reflects reality, but instead forces the answer you demand for your own satisfaction, rather than a sincere desire to understand. I don't do that to you.
So, provide ONE BIT of actual hard data (a passage that DOES insist that the author is teaching SS, even if it doesn't use those terms...) to support your claim or admit that you can't. Or just quit commenting.
Ball's in your court, but any responses that do not provide hard data support, a verse (or a few verses) that DEMANDS/insists upon SS will be deleted.
OK. I'll pull up several for you that do exactly that when I'm at home (though it may take a day or two), and then you can go ahead and pretend they don't without any more explanation than you asserting they don't, as you've been doing this whole time.
207 comments:
1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»Looks like you're speaking for God, which I'm told is a big no-no. I note you did not supply the book, chapter or verse for this "quote" from God. Why is that?
I guess it’s ok for Dan to speak for God.
It’s interesting that scripture doesn’t speak for God, but this does.
It almost sounds like someone just pulled a random line from some sort of magic rule book or something.
I'm citing a quotation from the Bible.
Deuteronomy 10.
Dan
So you’re offering a line from a part of the Bible you characterize as “myth”, as if it’s actually some sort of authoritative example of “God’s word” or something.
You can’t even prove that God exists, let alone that He actually said that.
1. I like how you left some things out of your paraphrase.
2. Are you suggesting that all of Deuteronomy 10 should be taken equally seriously as an “Enough said” quote from God?
3. You do realize that of all the books in the Bible that Deuteronomy is literally the primary “rule book”?
1. I was squeezing a saying on to a drawing. I didn't change the meaning.
No. Because I don't think the Bible is a rulebook.
3. Deuteronomy contained rules embraced by a ancient people. They are not universally considered moral rules any more.
Dan
1. And in doing so, you left out part of the saying that alters the meaning from specific ways to aid aliens, to a general statement about immigrants.
2. So your suggesting that this one small portion of a larger section be taken differently from the context you’ve taken it out of. Or are you suggesting that this one out of context, altered, line is more authoritative than the rest of the context?
3. Thank you for agreeing that Deuteronomy is in fact a book of law, or rules as you’d call them.
Actually, they aren’t necessarily moral rules, but civil rules.
I quote this line because it is a concise elegant saying, an important message to our time.
I quote this line because, for those who DO treat the Bible as a rulebook, it is a great rule to embrace.
I quote this line because it is a pivotal notion, consistently found throughout the Bible, and a core part of the teaching of Jesus, my Lord.
Dan
Except you didn’t quote the line (as you just admitted), you paraphrased it and took it out of context.
Is that a saying from the God that you can’t prove exists.
I did not change the meaning.
Dan
As a point of fact, neither of us can definitively prove God exists.
Dan
That's odd. Deut 11 is all about obeying God. Obey what, exactly? My NIV says, "his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always." Why does that sound like "rules" to me? Equally odd is that Jesus...you know...your Lord...tells us to obey God's commandments as well. All these rules, but the Bible is not a rule book. The Bible IS a rule book. It is also a history book. It's a prophetic book, a poetic book and a book of letters. It is all these things, but it is indeed a rule book. That is, except to those for whom the rules are inconvenient.
Among these commands from God is to obey civil authorities for their authority comes from God. As such, there are civil rules which determine how to deal with immigration. So while we demonstrate love and welcoming toward the alien, the alien is to enter our borders by the laws of our land, and we're to welcome him in the same manner...not simply to let them walk in any old way they please regardless of what motivated them to come here. We also can't love the alien at the expense of our fellow citizens, which suggests that loving the alien is a command to individuals, not the nation as a whole. WE...each of us...is to love the alien who is among us, but that does not mean abetting his illegal entry. Obeying our nation's laws does not indicate an absence of love or concern for the alien.
“He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
1. I’ve seen no translation that uses the term immigrant, which in this current climate is a loaded term.
2. It specifically says give them clothes and food, as well as love. It says nothing about legal status, citizenship or rights. So by moving it from the specific to the general, you certainly altered the meaning.
3. You’re taking this myth pretty seriously.
Hey, here’s another message from God
““And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good.”
I’m guessing you probably don’t feel quite the same way about “God, on the law one obedience.” “Enough said.”
One has to wonder what parts of Deuteronomy are the “God on...” parts, and what parts are myth an revenge fantasies.
The name Deuteronomy even means “Second Law”, clearly a book containing the law wouldn’t actually have rules in it.
Of course, there are laws in the Bible. Never said otherwise.
There are laws about, for instance, when you sell your children how to do it right. Or about how much to pay off a father for raping his daughter. Of course there are laws in the Bible, including in Deuteronomy.
What I said is that THE BIBLE is not a rule book. And it's not. Treating it like one is anti-biblical and irrational and no one really does it... but some people do cherry pick SOME laws that they want to treat like rules.
1. re: Immigrant translation?
At least the Common English Bible translation uses the term.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Common-English-Bible-CEB.html
2. So? MY point is that if you believe in a loving God and take seriously (as opposed to literally) the MANY times that foreigners, immigrants, refugees, etc are listed as people under special protection by/concern of God, then it is reasonable to think that God DOES love immigrants... especially, as we're talking about in our modern context, those who are merely seeking safety and stability, away from oppression, hunger and persecution.
And if you take seriously the notion that God loves - and we SHOULD love - immigrants, then advocating for their protection is a reasonable thing to do.
If YOU want to argue against providing safe haven to those seeking refuge, you may do so, but I do not consider that a moral position to hold, nor a rational position to hold.
We are all, after all, immigrants and refugees.
3. I have not addressed anything about the literal status of this passage or this book. Please stay on topic.
It's amazing to me how much modern conservatives kick back against the notion of protecting those seeking refuge.
It's quite sad. Lord have mercy.
"What I said is that THE BIBLE is not a rule book. And it's not. Treating it like one is anti-biblical and irrational and no one really does it."
Of course it is. You can tell by all the rules that are in it...both Testaments. Thus, it can hardly be said to be "anti-biblical" since it is so full of rules, and even less so to regard as irrational anyone who says it IS a rule book. What's more, by YOUR standards, there is nothing anywhere in Scripture that says it isn't, nor should be considered, a rule book, so to say it is anti-biblical to say it's a rule book would be an extra/anti-biblical opinion...especially considering...you know...all those rules. And clearly, as long as I live, you certainly can't say that "no one really does it" with regard treating it like a rule book. I do. I also treat it as a history book. And a book of poetry and prophesy.
------------------------------------------------------
Since you have no understanding of conservatism, I'm not surprised that you misunderstand the conservative position on immigration, and specifically "those seeking refuge". Part of that position is our objection to people like you being so generous with money that isn't yours as you push for protections for refugees. Money's no object for people like you when it ain't your money being spent. And as Craig suggests, there's a huge difference between helping foreigners and giving them citizenship and all manner of welfare possibilities simply because they, and jokers like you, insist they're deserving. Somehow, those with the money aren't allowed to have any say in determining such things. Those with the money are greedy bastards who don't care. It's easy to care when it's other people's money.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Why the heck does that sound so much like a rule to me?
"We are all, after all, immigrants and refugees."
If by "we" you mean you and your head lice, that might be true. I'm second generation and thus, neither immigrant nor refugee. Or are you using those terms metaphorically now?
WE...each of us...is to love the alien who is among us, but that does not mean abetting his illegal entry. Obeying our nation's laws does not indicate an absence of love or concern for the alien.
If our nation's laws require us to criminalize people who are merely seeking safe haven, then yes, those laws are bad laws that indicate an absence of compassion and basic human decency. We have a moral obligation as human beings to aid one another in times of persecution and oppression, in times of hunger and threat.
Even if you don't believe in God and loving immigrants, just basic human decency would compel us to take actions. And if our laws criminalize those merely seeking safety, then it's time, as a matter of justice, to break laws.
Disagree if you must, but I do not find such "love" to be worth much.
If you might recall another ancient writer said,
"If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them,
“Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,”
but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
Or, yet another famous ancient teacher (and, for at least me, my savior and God) said,
"but he turned to those on his left and said 'Depart from me! you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
I was a stranger and you did not invite me in..."
So, in short, I would say that loving the immigrant (as God commands God's followers to do in the passage cited) does require us to take in those in need, to provide assistance to, shelter to, refuge and justice to. Failing that, such "love" is vomitous pablum meant to make the one assuring the other of their "love" to feel good about themselves, but of no practical use in the real world.
Why the heck does that sound so much like a rule to me?
Because you embrace a rules-based faith, not a grace-based one?
We are immigrants and the children of immigrants. My family came over in the 1700s, but I am STILL a child of immigrants.
We, like many today, were trying to escape death and persecution by religious zealots and thankfully, we didn't have to jump through the immoral and irrational hoops that we force people to do today.
Just because my family came in from a time before modern criminalization of immigration doesn't mean I have forgotten.
As God says over and over in the Bible, "Work for justice for immigrants, for foreigners, for refugees... BECAUSE YOU WERE ONCE IMMIGRANTS, too." God was not speaking of those people directly, but of their families.
In THAT sense, I was once an immigrant, too.
If you want to criticize God, you'll have to take that up with God.
~Dan
"Why the heck does that sound so much like a rule to me?
Because you embrace a rules-based faith, not a grace-based one?"
Wrong answer. The correct answer is, "because it is a rule." You certainly put it out there as if it is...as if it is something all Christians should do. Why do you have such problems with rules, particularly those of God's? Here's some reality for you, since you're all about reality: it is YOU who picks and chooses from among God's rules, not us. You've decided rules like "love the alien" are important to follow, but denying one's sexually immoral urges is not. Both come from God...the God described in the Scripture that you reject. The God you think you can know without Scripture having informed you.
"We are immigrants and the children of immigrants."
C'mon, Dan. This is absurd. My grandparents were immigrants. I am not. I was born here. I am of Polish ancestry, but I am not Polish. I'm an citizen of the United States of America by birth. If this is true of the babies of illegal immigrants when born here, it certainly is true of the both of us. Please don't redefine any more words.
"We, like many today, were trying to escape death and persecution by religious zealots and thankfully, we didn't have to jump through the immoral and irrational hoops that we force people to do today."
There were always "hoops" through which one had to jump in order to enter this nation. See stories of Ellis Island. Having policies and protocols to regulate immigration is a protection for the people who are already citizens, the only people with whom the government is required to concern itself. That some people might fail to meet the terms of the laws of this country doesn't make those laws immoral just because you want to posture yourself as someone who cares more than others.
"Just because my family came in from a time before modern criminalization of immigration doesn't mean I have forgotten."
Now you're just plain, flat out lying. We do not criminalize immigration, particularly so long as we have laws and policies that continue to allow people to enter this country. Some who seek to enter criminalize themselves by daring to enter without regard to policies put in place to regulate entry. The immoral are those who do so and those who enable them to do so...in other words, YOU!
"As God says over and over in the Bible, "Work for justice for immigrants, for foreigners, for refugees... BECAUSE YOU WERE ONCE IMMIGRANTS, too." God was not speaking of those people directly, but of their families."
Actually, God was speaking to those who were actually refugees when he enacted the civil laws of the nations of Israel concerning aliens. No where does He suggest that aliens could enter on THEIR terms, and not God's or the Israel's.
"If you want to criticize God, you'll have to take that up with God."
This from the guy who criticizes God for outlawing homosexual behavior. We aren't criticizing God, but your bastardization of His teachings and your lies about American immigration policy.
1. You’re the one with the “rule book” phobia not us.
2. You’ve clearly gone beyond the specific biblical command.
3. No one is kicking against those seeking refuge. We’re simply pointing out your double standard and willingness to edit scripture in order to make it fit your political views.
4. Our nation’s laws don’t “require us to criminalize those seeking refuge”, they simply provide a process that they need to follow in order to gain refuge.
What’s interesting is that once more you’ve shown a willingness to propose that the secular US government adopt a law taken from the theocracy of ancient Israel, it’s pretty damn amusing.
It’s almist as amusing as you insisting that this one, out of context, edited, Israelite law is not a “rule”, and is 100% God literally speaking.
1. just noting the reasonable opinion that treating the Bible as a rule book is not rational, moral or biblical.
2. I disagree. I think I'm getting directly TO the point, oft-repeated in the Bible, about accepting and supporting refugees, immigrants, those in need. I think this is a central biblical teaching, within the greater teaching of grace. There is certainly MUCH more support that Jesus/God wants us to welcome immigrants than there is ANY support for something as flighty and human as "inerrancy."
Feel free to disagree.
3. There are literally people lined up, seeking safety, which many conservatives are actively seeking to block and hinder. Shame on them. And shame on Democrats and liberals for not doing more on this front, too. We have GOT to fundamentally change our policies to more reasonable and just ones. And NOT because there is a line in the Bible telling us to (although, if that helps you want to follow God and do that, by all means, do it for that reason), but because it is the moral and reasonable thing to do.
Golden rule and all that.
4. Our nations laws have literally made it a misdemeanor to cross the border improperly. Our nations conservatives and anti-immigrants have turned to imprisoning and chasing out and demonizing and worse immigrants merely seeking safe haven. This needs to change, if we want to be a moral and just nation.
Feel free to disagree, but I don't think the conservative approach is moral or just. And certainly not biblical. If that matters.
The following is one of many commentaries I could have produced that speaks to the points I tried to make in my last comment. At the bottom of the piece there are a series of links to other commentaries, the first of which relates:
https://www.compellingtruth.org/illegal-immigration.html
Of course, Marshall, I agree with your discounting of support for immigrants to a mere "civil law" for Israel. The welcoming of immigrants is a constant moral imperative throughout the Bible and is core to Jesus' teaching summed up in his Golden Rule. It's not a mere, "well, if a nation is okay with immigrants, it's okay to let them in... or if a nation has a rule against it, it's okay to keep them out... it's whatever the civil law is."
Nations are repeatedly condemned for failure to welcome immigrants, for failing to provide justice for those needing it.
It's core to morality. It's core to Christianity. And, by Christianity, I mean, the teachings of Jesus, not the white-washed, milquetoast pablum that too often passes for much of "evangelical" Christianity (or too much of Catholic Christianity, as far as that goes...)_
Your author on your link starts off poorly, along this same line of discounting teachings about immigration as found in the Bible. He says...
The immigration laws given to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament were for Israel alone.
Of course, ALL the laws given to Israel were for Israel alone. Literally, according to the text.
But that doesn't change that the moral teachings and principles spoken of throughout the Bible, including and especially in Israel's case in the OT, were exactly about the great moral imperative to welcome the stranger, "For you were once aliens/foreigners/immigrants in Egypt..." is repeated over and over, driving home the principle that being welcoming - ESPECIALLY to the oppressed and needy - is core to following God, as found in the Bible.
So, perhaps you could find a more serious source.
Like this one, for instance...
https://religionnews.com/2017/03/23/the-bible-tells-us-so-concern-for-immigrants-is-at-the-heart-of-faith/
And lest anyone is confused about what I mean by principles, let me give an example. When the Bible says...
"The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you,
and you shall love him as yourself,
for you were aliens in the land of Egypt..."
it is offering a rule (aliens should be as a native, in regards to just treatment), but beyond that, it is offering a principle. The Golden Rule principle.
Because YOU RECALL that you were aliens, once, and mistreated, and didn't like that. Of course you didn't! Why would you?
FOR THIS REASON, we should love everyone, we should welcome everyone, we should look out for the needs of everyone... ESPECIALLY those like the widows, the orphans and IMMIGRANTS, who are more likely to be abused.
It's a principle about living a loving life of grace for the Ideal of "Doing unto others..."
That, as opposed to a rule, "Make the immigrant NOT WORK on the Saturdays..." or "When you sell your children, do it like this..."
If you don't see the difference, so be it. I've explained all I'm likely to explain. I think the point is reasonably made and will be understood by people who want to do right.
There is no denial or rejection of the Golden Rule simply because a nation has policies, protocols and laws regulating immigration, regardless of how badly you want us to believe that's the case. There is no active agenda by conservatives to deny immigrants and/or refugees as you falsely assert there is. The problem is that you want no borders whatsoever, and that you believe you're have some right to demand unlimited funding of your immigration/refugee positions when it's other people's money used for the purpose.
Said another way, "doing right" to you is insisting no consideration for your countrymen or how much of THEIR money is spent to satisfy your socialist sensibilities and the Biblical rules YOU'VE picked and chosen to follow.
Dan, to be clear. If you actually had the spine to fall out say that Dueteronomy was literally God speaking to Israel, and that you were treating the entire context in the same way, I wouldn’t have much disagreement with you. But the fact that you’ve taken this one line out of its context, edited it to mean something different, and applied extra biblical eisegesis to align with your political views is problematic.
1. Unless it’s convient for you to support your political views. You’re literally paraphrasing a “rule”, claiming that the secular government of the US should abide by/go beyond that “rule”, while denying your premise.
2. You’re right, it is mentioned that Israel/The Church/Believers should offer succor to those in need. It’s something I, my family, my church and my friends have traveled far and wide to do, (as well as locally) and what I’ve spent over a decade doing. So I/we are walking the walk. But, your extra biblical leap to trying to dictate government policy and advocate virtually zero control of how people immigrate is pure politics.
3. It’s not about “block and hinder”, it’s about reasonable, common sense, means to control the process. Personally, I think it would be reasonable to expect our immigration laws to mirror the immigration laws of the immigrants country of origin. What could be more fair than having an immigrant from Switzerland be treated exactly the same as an immigrant to Switzerland? Of course why would we want to ignore the recent experience of many European countries who’ve done exactly what you propose.
If you want to enshrine the “Golden rule” (I’ll ignore the irony for now) in civil law, just say so. But maybe you should live it first, then criticize your brothers and sisters who are ignoring it loudly and publicly.
4. Yes, it is a crime to cross the border “improperly”. It’s not a crime to cross the border. To suggest that anyone is suggesting otherwise is simply a lie. I and most conservatives advocate reasonable, common sense laws that regulate immigration in a sane and orderly way.
Given that you’ve already made your excuses for not continuing, I’ll pass on spending a lot of time asking you to prove your assertion that the “conservative approach” is not biblical. It would clearly take a lot of work, given that you’d have to minimally prove the following.
1. That there is a “conservative approach”, and what that specifically means.
2. That there is a specific biblical approach that is intended to be applied to a secular government.
3. That there is biblical authority.
4. That this one tiny, out of context line from Deuteronomy is actually the actual voice of God speaking a universal, objective, moral Truth.
5. That God exists and that He “speaks”.
6. That Deuteronomy isn’t “myth”.
I’m sure you won’t go to all that trouble, when you can just assert that “It’s only my opinion”.
the fact that you’ve taken this one line out of its context, edited it to mean something different
Again, it's LITERALLY not out of context. I'm LITERALLY directly speaking to the topic as found in the Bible.
Over and over. And over and over.
Feel free to disagree, but you are factually mistaken. I get that you probably don't understand that. Wish I could help you.
Same for all your other misunderstandings of what I've actually said.
Good luck, buddy.
Got it. So that one edited line is not from a book which contains numerous laws given by God and it’s not from a chapter that explicitly says (I quoted it earlier, which you must have missed) that the expectation is that those who follow God will obey the laws.
My bad, I guess reading the whole chapter for context was a mistake, I should have just uncritically accepted your edited version and uncritically accepted that you were speaking for God.
It’s all good.
Again, I'm sorry I can't help you understand my points. I've tried and I've tried and you keep devolving into misunderstandings of even the simplest points I make.
Good luck, buddy.
I will address this concern...
That there is a “conservative approach”, and what that specifically means.
The "conservative approach" I'm talking about here is that practiced by the current head conservative, the president. He has continually relied upon racist demonizing and dog whistles that inflame the fears and passions of racists and others who are so strongly opposed to immigrants, especially ones from "shithole" countries. Those who'd come in to rape and kill, that horde of invaders who are going to eat babies and ARRRGGGH!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!
THAT kind of conservative approach that is being embraced and peddled by the commander in chief of the conservatives.
It is deeply troubling, morally offensive and a blow against justice.
As opposed to THAT model, I'm suggesting the rather simple model of, "If you're oppressed or starving and can find no other options, then we welcome your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free..."
THAT is a model of justice and compassion, the sort of which is advocated throughout the Bible, but aside from the Bible, is just the moral, decent human thing to do... and to do for reasons of self-interest, because we all, at times, may find ourselves to be in a similar scenario and we'd want others to do unto us.
If you disagree with the model of welcoming those in need of safety and stability, then I disagree with you and think you're embracing a selfish, anti-Christian model of doing things, and an anti-human decency model.
If you agree, well, then we agree, and good for you.
As to this...
That there is a specific biblical approach that is intended to be applied to a secular government.
There is a consistent message in the Bible of being welcoming, as opposed to being a dick. That can look like many things, including at the federal level. Certainly, in the Bible, whole nations are condemned for their policies that did NOT look to the needs of the poor and oppressed, so I think a reasonable consideration of the various stories in the Bible would say that, yes, nations are accountable for how they handle immigrants and the poor.
Now, IF as a nation, the people take it upon themselves to generally look out for the poor (setting aside a portion of their fields for the poor to glean food, for instance) and the poor immigrants aren't blocked by the nation at the federal level from accessing that private assistance, it would not necessarily HAVE to be at the state level, but it is a state level decision to criminalize immigration and that is a problem, from a moral point of view, and I think a fair and reasonable reading of the Bible in toto would reach that conclusion.
If you hold a different human opinion, you are welcome to it, but I think you'd be clearly mistaken, in my human opinion.
that there is biblical authority.
This does not exist. The Bible is a book and as such, only as useful as what one reads into it and what actions it inspires (or fails to inspire). But the Bible is NOT a magic "sole authority" on all points of morality or reason or philosophy. I don't think anyone who would read that into the Bible is reading it aright. You are welcome to disagree with my human opinion, if you do, but I think you'd clearly be mistaken in your human opinion on that point.
Not that I expect you'll really understand any of that any more than you are understanding the words I've already written, but I thought it might be helpful to any others who may read.
Good luck, buddy.
As I stated on the other post, you lie about what the current administration believes and is saying about the immigration situation as it now stands. While you pretend he's inflaming racists, I don't believe it is incumbent upon him to frame his words in a manner that won't. Racists and other immoral people will hear what they wanna hear regardless of how it is worded by one who is known for his unpolished manner.
At the same time, what the president has actually said is not untrue. There are, as a result of a variety of failures, the worst of other countries entering freely and then being protected by lawbreaking citizens, and worse, lawbreaking government officials. To pretend otherwise is just another lie. No one is "criminalizing" immigration. Those who ignore our laws that govern immigration are acting criminally.
The problem, of course, is not that we are not a welcoming people, but that we aren't as welcoming as those like yourself, who won't be footing the bill, insist we must be, regardless of the impact on our own people. There is no Biblical backing for such a nonsensical and childish position. Indeed, your problem is that you do "read into" Scripture that which pleases you personally, rather than taking from Scripture what it intends to convey...as if that's so hard to figure out in the lion's share of cases.
As to the Bible as "sole authority", it is certainly the prime authority on morality and behavior and all that you like to cite as worthy of inferring understanding on those areas cannot be given more prominence over what Scripture teaches. Any "Christian" who doesn't see Scripture as the main source, the prime and supreme source, on matters of morality and behavior are worse than mistaken. This is true despite the fact that in the western world, where "progressive" worldly ideology hasn't totally corrupted one's soul, there is no other source that isn't directly or indirectly based on or influenced by Scripture.
So you can’t point to a specific “conservative approach” in any sort of official policy sense. I do think we’d want to regulate those who want to come to the US in order to commit crimes, but if that doesn’t bother you, cool.
Again so, you can’t point to a specific biblical approach that you can specifically apply to a secular government.
Hey, you’re the one who’s posted an edited paraphrase of a tiny bit of the Israelite theocratic legal code and credited it to “God” and acted as if it’s got some level of authority, not me.
But, I was right about you not being willing or able to demonstrate what’s necessary to give your paraphrase any real force or authority beyond your opinion that it’s s nice sentiment.
I do love the irony of you lecturing someone who’s soent the last 20 plus years of his life hiring the homeless, traveling across the ocean to help provide medical care, been an active part in feeding literally millions of children, and played a significant role in providing affordable home ownership to literacy hundreds of immigrants, about your caracture of my alleged “conservative” position.
I'm pointing to the specific actions of the man a bunch of conservatives voted into office. He has been creating policy, albeit whimsically and on the fly, with no serious data-based consideration given, by all appearances. As that appears to be how he does everything.
I'm sorry if the very specific actions of the titular leader to modern conservatism on immigration is not clear enough to you.
I'm also sorry that this idiot (and his supporters) don't HAVE official policy, but that's on them.
I AM speaking of specific actions that are wrong. I hope you can understand that much.
As to the rest of your words, they still indicate an inability to understand anything I've actually said. I'm sorry I don't know how to help you understand.
For instance, I haven't said anything about your specific "conservative" position, have I? But you appear to have found that in my words, even though it's not there.
Sorry I can't help you understand.
Good luck, sir.
Fellas, the point of THIS post is that God loves immigrants and that we should, too.
Do you have anything to say on topic?
For instance, do you agree or disagree that we should love immigrants and that God loves immigrants?
I would think this should be a simple matter of saying, "Amen," to those who follow Jesus.
We're to love all people. Who here is disputing this in any way? It's really kind of a silly thing to say as a stand alone point. As in, so what, we're to love everyone. But there's no way that's all you meant or you would have said that after the first comment and left it at that. You didn't though. You went on to chastise a president of whom you choose to believe the worst, as if you know the details of his proposals on anything, which you've never demonstrated that you do. You prefer to point to distorted versions of things he's said in his unpolished manner. And as to "specific actions", I've no doubt you could accurately list any that aren't also a distorted version of reality.
Indeed, who would dispute that? All I know is I made a rather obvious comment quoting God saying that he loved immigrants and that we should love immigrants. And then I got all this push back from you two. So perhaps you should be asking yourself and Craig who is disputing it?
Dan
Again, you say you’re speaking of specifics, but can’t identify them. One way I can tell is your use of the “dog whistle” term, which means you have to impose racism or whatever where it isn’t explicit.
1. There’s so much on topic that you’ve ignored that it’s not funny
2. My actions speak for themselves
3. God loves everyone
God, on rules.
“And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good.”
Enough said.
The point of this post is not rules. Let me repeat:
THE POINT of the post is NOT RULES.
The point of the post is the moral, rational, biblical and just support for loving immigrants.
I'm sorry I have not been able to communicate this to you in a way that you can understand.
Good luck, sir.
Once again, since you missed it, I’ll let my actions speak for themselves when it comes to how I treat immigrants.
I’m not the one who took it upon himself to announce what God’s final word was, that was you. If you can’t treat the context around your paraphrased snippet with the same definitiveness, then I guess that sends a message.
?
No idea what you're talking about, but it appears to literally have nothing to do with anything that I've said.
I'm sorry I can't explain my point in words that you can understand. I would have thought, "God loves immigrants. We should love immigrants." would be about as simple to understand as I could make it.
Good luck, sir.
Of course, your right. You announcing that your paraphrase of a small section of myth as God’s “enough said” on immigrants was clearly not an attempt to speak for God. Just as clearly you’ve ignored or missed what I’ve said repeatedly above about loving immigrants.
Let’s not let things like facts and reality get in the way.
"All I know is I made a rather obvious comment quoting God saying that he loved immigrants and that we should love immigrants. And then I got all this push back from you two"
But again, what would be the point except to be provocative by specifically citing one group of people, since we're to love all people?
"The point of the post is the moral, rational, biblical and just support for loving immigrants."
And of course, we (Craig and myself, for example) and indeed the United States, love immigrants. We even love those who do NOT obey our laws regarding the legal entry into our nation, just as we love all lawbreakers and sinners. Dealing with lawbreakers according to the laws of the land does not imply a lack of love. Enabling lawbreaking does. You enable lawbreaking.
Craig, I'll politely ask you to keep your comments on topic. Further off topic nonsense will be deleted.
I'm sorry if this is difficult for you and I get that you don't understand my points, but I don't know how to help you. The point of THIS post is that God loves immigrants and that we should love, support, work for and with immigrants.
An extension of that is that we ought NOT criminalize those who are seeking refuge, that such behavior is not of love, but of fear and selfishness.
I am sorry if you don't agree or don't understand, but that's the point of the post. Please keep comments on topic. Your last comment was nonsense, having nothing to do with reality or anything that I've said.
what would be the point except to be provocative by specifically citing one group of people, since we're to love all people?
sigh.
The Bible REPEATEDLY makes the point over and over and over and over and over and over time and again that we should love everyone AND ESPECIALLY, we should love, watch out for, support, welcome, embrace and care for "the least of these..." the poor, the widow, the orphan and the foreigner/immigrant.
WHY do biblical authors repeatedly make this point? We aren't told their motivation, but for many reasonable people, the reason is clear: Those who are already marginalized are at even greater risk of harm, oppression, rape, murder, theft, etc.
WHAT is the point? The point is to defend the least of these, those seeking and needing refuge.
WHY is that the point? Because it's what it takes to be a decent human being. Because WE ARE ALL IMMIGRANTS, at some point in our lives. We are, or our families, or our loved ones and because we should do unto others as we'd have them do unto us.
Because, in the words of God quoted in the Bible, "For YOU were refugees once."
I don't think "Take care of those in need of refuge" is a provocative point at all. You are free to disagree, but do it somewhere else, you've made your point here.
I am sorry if you don't understand how wrong it is to oppose giving refuge to those needing it, but it is wrong. One day, I'm sure you'll recognize that. I just pray, for your sake, you don't learn it when YOU are in need of refuge and YOU are turned away.
I’m sorry that you consider referring to the wording of the paraphrase in your original post off topic. I’m also sorry if demonsting examples of the defined and concrete ways I’ve showed love for immigrants and others in need is off topic.
I’ll once again point out that you didn’t “quote” God, you paraphrased Him.
The fact that you can’t understand that there is ample opportunity for legitimate refugees to gain succor which don’t involve breaking the law, as well as a process for those who choose to break the law to demonstrate that it was necessary.
But none of that matters, nor does the topicality of the comments, you’ve chosen to retreat to your safe space behind the delete key.
Please post the quote where either of us says we “oppose giving refuge to those in need”.
The point of THIS post is that we should give refuge to those in need. If someone is fleeing another nation to escape oppression or starvation, it is moral to give them refuge and it is immoral to refuse it.
Do you agree with that idea?
If so, say so clearly. If so, then we agree and you can move on, because that is the sole point of this post.
If not, then just move on.
I’ve both agreed with that premise multiple times as well as mentioned how my actions live it out.
But please provide the quote that substantiates your claim above.
What "claim above..."? Given your deleted comments, you're almost certainly talking about a "claim" that was never made, but I'll give you a chance.
My guess would be that you're talking about this kind of comment from me...
"I am sorry if you don't understand how wrong it is to oppose giving refuge to those needing it, but it is wrong."
Thinking that it is a "claim" that you disagree with giving refuge.
It is not. It is a question, a conditional comment. "IF YOU DISAGREE" being the pertinent language. If you don't disagree, then it's not addressed to you, is it?
And okay, so you agree with the premise. Then you and I are in agreement on the point of this post. Move on, as there's nothing more to say.
But perhaps you can understand when the ONLY point I've been making is that we should support those who seek refuge and need safety and you two have been going non-stop on senseless attacks about this phrasing or that phrasing or whatever the hell it is you're objecting to, that it raises the question: WHAT are they disagreeing with?
Myself, if I agree with someone's post, I may comment, "Yes! I agree!" but there's not much more to say. You two, instead, have been picking and picking over nonsense.
Let it go. Move on.
So, instead of demonstrating that we’ve actually opposed giving refuge to those in need, you’ve played more semantic games.
But, by all means continue to mispepresent what we’ve said and to delete on topic comments so you can lie about them.
The fact that even after multiple repetions of me agreeing both in word and deed, the fact you you lack the wit or grace to recognize that says all I need to hear.
"WHY do biblical authors repeatedly make this point?"
I dunno. But I'm gonna guess that because there are people like you who don't abide teachings that aren't repeated ad nauseum. Of course, OBEY is repeated quite a bit as well, but that doesn't seem to matter to you. Clearly, it isn't the number of times a rule is repeated, it's whether or not you like the rule that matters.
As to objections and with what we disagree, it's the charge that our nation is not doing enough to please YOU with regard to refugees. It's the charge that some are turned away without just case...not that there is no error, but that turning away anyone is just a willy-nilly decision of some kind. It's the suggestion that because our system isn't perfect and doesn't perfectly account for massive numbers of people and the variety of cases among them that they system and laws governing them are immoral.
I’m confused, are the “biblical authors” making this point or is God. Clearly the title of the post suggests it’s a direct word from God, yet then it switches to “biblical authors”. I guess consistently doesn’t mean much.
Either that or it’s not God or the biblical authors at all. It’s just Dan and his flawed, imperfect, sinful, human opinion which means that there’s no reason to take them seriously at all.
Or maybe Dan’s just not smart enough to understand the difference between phrasing, quotation, and paraphrasing.
I’m confused, are the “biblical authors” making this point or is God.
We don't know, specifically, authoritatively, demonstrably, do we?
CLEARLY, the human authors are the literal ones making the points. That much is the only fact we know.
We hold the OPINION that God inspired these people to make the points, but that's not a provable opinion, just one that who believe so, hold.
Some hold the OPINION that God inspired these stories AND TO THESE PEOPLE, they THINK in THEIR OPINION that this means (in their human theories) that God meant for it to be taken word for word as a literal teaching. So that, IN THE OPINION of these people, when the human author wrote, "And God told the Israelis to kill off ALL the people in the land - men, women and children... - but spare the virgin girls to take home to forcibly wed them..." that it means that GOD actually commanded those things literally... that sometimes God wants us to kill children and forcibly wed captured virgins.
I hold the opinion that this is a rather ridiculous portrayal of how a perfectly holy and good God would act. That, as the bible teaches elsewhere, God does not command us to do evil, and so clearly, that can't be taken as a literal point from God, as it would be self-contradictory.
Craig, I happen to think that ALL good things come from God. And thus, GOOD principles and ideals come from God. And thus, "Love immigrants" comes from God.
That is consistent. I hope you can understand that.
Again, just trying to clarify. Because your original paraphrase of the biblical author’s words is attributed (by you) directly to God. So, when you then change your tune and attribute things to the biblical authors, you can understand why there might be some confusion.
It is a literal quote - paraphrased slightly but in no way to change the meaning - from God found in the Bible. I'm not judging whether God ACTUALLY said it or not.
When I quote the Apostle James...
"Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial..."
~James
and I change "man" to "one" (Blessed is the one), I am not changing the meaning. It's still a recognizable quote from James with a slight adaptation to make it flow better and be more appropriate/understandable (the point was NOT that only men who persevere are blessed... it was to all people...). Same with this quote. God is quoted speaking of God in the third person. I changed it to first person to make it more clear. The quote is still literally correct in meaning.
Hope that helps you understand.
Thank you for admitting that you’ve paraphrased. It’s too bad that you don’t think that substitution of a vague, general term in place of very specific terms to not be changing the meaning of the text.
So, your attribution of your paraphrase (you’ve admitted it’s not a quote, so why keeep pretending it is), to “God” was a mistake? Was your choice to refer to “God” as opposed to your much more common “god” an attempt to give your paraphrase more gravitas?
Ultimately, I’m not sure (other than stubbornness and ego), why you won’t just admit that it’s a paraphrase and that attributing it directly to “God” was an affectation designed to give gravitas that you wouldn’t get by attributing it to the author of the myth.
But I do think I understand.
My referring to God is because the quote is from God, in the text. That's all.
Hope that helps.
Dan
1. It’s a paraphrase, not a quote.
2. So you’re saying that God (who you can’t prove exists) specifically spoke the original words (in the original language) to the author and the author wrote them down (passed them down) in a manner that is so literally historically accurate that you feel like you can make a (semi) objective claim that the original quote was directly from God. Despite this being in the context of literature you’ve consistently described as being “myth” and not literal history. Does this mean that you would confidently assert that the passage that I quoted (not paraphrased) earlier is also a direct word from “God”?
2. So, I'm saying that the author quotes God saying, "I love immigrants. You should too." If you disagree, that's fine, disagree.
I don't care if the quote is directly from God or not. I see no data to suggests that God inspires us in a way that we can say, "I was inspired to write these specific words from God, literally from God's lips to my pen to these words," so I rather doubt it was inspired in that way. You are free to hold that opinion if you want, but I don't think that's a required or even reasonable biblical opinion.
Hope that helps you understand.
Got it, so you really have no actual, demonstrable, provable reason to attribute your paraphrase to “God”. For some reason you just can’t quite bring yourself to actually just say that.
And yes, it confirms what I’ve understood for quite some time. Thanks.
"I hold the opinion that this is a rather ridiculous portrayal of how a perfectly holy and good God would act."
You hold the opinion that this is a rather ridiculous portrayal of how you think a perfectly holy and good God should act according to your standards for the behavior of a perfectly holy and good God. The rest of us don't suppose that our discomfort with certain reported actions of God means we can reject those actions as less than perfect and holy.
"That, as the bible teaches elsewhere, God does not command us to do evil, and so clearly, that can't be taken as a literal point from God, as it would be self-contradictory."
What is contradictory is your insistence that because you don't like a command of God that it indicates evil in the command. Just because you don't like a command of God's, doesn't make that command evil, even if the action is evil should WE do it of our own volition. We don't get to judge God's actions regardless of how we feel about them personally. God is not obliged to act in a manner that satisfies our personal opinions.
so you really have no actual, demonstrable, provable reason to attribute your paraphrase to “God”. For some reason you just can’t quite bring yourself to actually just say that.
If one assumes a good and loving God, then assuming that a quote like "I love immigrants. You should love immigrants..." is perfectly rational and believable.
But no, of course not, I can't prove that God said that, any more than you can prove a single thing about any of your human opinions about God. I've been pretty consistent and clear on this point.
Can you agree to that reality?
I don't think you can and that is perhaps why you're having such difficulty understanding anything I'm saying. Sorry I can't help you understand.
Good luck.
Same for you, Marshall. I think you'll find, one day, that you're way off on your human opinions. I'm sorry I can't help you understand that.
Good luck.
~Dan
You hold the opinion that this is a rather ridiculous portrayal of how you think a perfectly holy and good God should act according to your standards for the behavior of a perfectly holy and good God.
Yes, I hold the subjective human opinion that this is a rather ridiculous portrayal of how I THINK a perfectly good God would act, GIVEN what we humans understand about basic goodness and decency. This is what I've been saying pretty consistently all along.
On the other hand, YOU hold the subjective human opinion that a perfectly good God MIGHT (and in fact, DID, in YOUR HUMAN OPINION) command people to kill children and to forcibly wed virgin girls.
Ask an average reasonable person which of these are reasonable human opinions to hold and which ones are grossly evil and who do you think will be left holding the grossly evil human opinion?
~Dan
You admit that you can’t prove your paraphrase is from God, but I doubt you’ll make the changes necessary to indicate the reality of the situation.
Or, to put it another way, you feel perfectly comfortable putting your words in God’s mouth.
Dan,
You clearly consider reasonable people those who agree with you. But you're not dealing in reason. You're dealing in subjective personal preferences for what characteristics and qualities make for a perfectly good and holy God. It's way hell above your pay grade to suppose you can impose YOUR criteria of goodness on your creator. Reasonableness doesn't include picking and choosing which aspects of God's nature, as it is presented in Scripture, are worthy in YOUR simple mind of regarding as true or likely while rejecting that which you personally dislike. That's called, "creating for yourself a false god". Scripture isn't the koran where Muhammed alters it according to that which benefits him and thus what is most recent trumps what came before.
It is you who holds the grossly evil position, therefore, as it is grossly evil to reject the God of Scripture for the god of your own making. It is grossly evil to label God's actons as grossly evil because they don't align with the Dan Trabue code of behavior all deities must follow. I'm sure God is terribly sorry you don't approve of His methods.
I do not believe it is grossly evil to stand opposed to slavery, infanticide or forced marriages. You are free to disagree, but people everywhere WILL consider you evil and demented if that's where you want to plant your flag.
I hope you can understand that.
~Dan
Please provide the quotes that demonstrate that Art supports or doesn’t oppose “slavery, infanticide, or forced marriages”.
Quotes, not paraphrases. With links.
I have not said that he does.
Please provide quotes that demonstrate that I said Art supports those things.
On the other hand, I'm not sure one way or the other if you two always think that slavery and forced marriage are wrong... or if you think that God might sometimes command it and, in those circumstances, it's right to wipe out all the children of a city (along with everyone else), or to forcibly wed virgin girls, or slavery.
So, feel free to clarify and we'll all know where you stand.
~Dan
“ You are free to disagree, but people everywhere WILL consider you evil and demented if that's where you want to plant your flag.”
Clearly this can’t be anything but an attempt to suggest that Art, isn’t against the listed things.
That said, I guess off topic is ok when it’s you.
I’ll propose a deal, you answer the follow up question you dodged in my slavery post, and I’ll respond to the statement above and answer my slavery question.
No, clearly I don't know if you or Marshall are against those things, hence the conditional, IF. Maybe you are, maybe you're not. I DON'T KNOW.
Feel free to clarify. Otherwise, move on.
Dan
To wonder about what I might or might not oppose is a diversion, when the real issue is your reaction to God acting in a manner you find appalling. On one hand you insist we can't have perfect knowledge about God, yet you "know" without question but with perfect knowledge that He just couldn't possibly act as Scripture reports He has. And by golly if He truly DID act in such a manner, then you won't worship Him. Again, I've no doubt the thought of Dan Trabue's ultimatum has Him all ashudder.
when the real issue is your reaction to God acting in a manner you find appalling.
IN YOUR OPINION. I don't think God is acting in the way that YOU think God is. I think the suggestion YOU are making as a flawed sinful human that God sometimes commands what we generally recognize as atrocities is, itself, evil and atrocious.
By all means, Marshall, let's get an answer from you. Be clear and make your opinion known (otherwise, don't bother commenting here further):
Do you believe that a perfect, loving, all-gracious God would sometimes command the slaughter/murder/destruction of whole villages of people, including infants?
Are you saying this is your human opinion on the matter and that you COULD be mistaken? Or is it a demonstrable fact?
Do you recognize how evil that sounds?
Please answer or don't bother to post anything else and we'll let your silence say all it needs to say.
Good luck, sir.
Art, excellent point. Dan's fundamental premise is that we can't "prove" anything about God. We can't prove He exists, can't prove that He's spoken through scripture, can't prove heaven or hell. Yet, he insists that God would NOT, ever under any conceivable circumstances engage in certain things while offering not even the pretense of proving that he's correct.
Dan, one of your problems is that you have an issue with past v. present. You are treating your pet issues as if it's being suggested that they're present rather than past.
If you want present examples of people engaging in slavery, or forced marriage for religious reasons, one need look no further than Islam. As for infanticide, the current proponents of that practice fall in the realm of scientific materialism (Darwinism, Scientism, Eugenics, etc) and virtually all supporters of infanticide fall on the left hand (your) side of the political spectrum.
So, you can't specifically denounce the Peter Singer's of the world, while perpetrating your pollyannaish view of Islam, but you're going to call us evil for acknowledging certain specific things that happened in certain specific contexts, thousands of years ago.
So, do I (and you) believe that God will command, decree, or allow horrible things to happen to people who are actively engaged in evil, or sin, or rebellion against Him. Sure. Do I believe that a Perfect, Holy, Just, Righteous God who "hates" or "detests" sin and evil; who is sovereign over everything He's created can do things that are beyond my ability to fully understand and comprehend? Sure.
Do I have the hubris to announce that I am able to pass judgement on either God's character or God's actions? No.
Is this as simplistic as you would like to make it? No. Is this particular line of questioning on your part from a genuine desire to know and accept the truth, no matter what it is? I doubt it. Is it most likely an attempt to gain ammunition to use in future character assassination? Most likely.
"Are you saying this is your human opinion on the matter and that you COULD be mistaken? Or is it a demonstrable fact?"
I'm saying that my best, most honest, most humble attempt to come to grips with what is recorded has led me to the conclusions I've drawn. Could I be wrong? Of course I could. But that's the difference between us. I freely admit that I could be wrong and just as frequently ask you to provide proof (biblical) of your hunches. If you would do so, I'd consider it (not simply dismiss it with Ad Homs). If you'd provide compelling, specific, biblical proof, I'd acknowledge it. So, please by all means, prove me wrong.
Do I have the hubris to announce that I am able to pass judgement on either God's character or God's actions? No.
you have made a judgment about God, that SOMETIMES, at least in the past, God might command people to kill babies and forcibly kidnap and wed virgin girls. THAT IS making a judgment about God. God is, ACCORDING TO YOU, the sort of God who might (for reasons you don't understand), command people to kill babies and forcibly wed virgin girls. That is your judgment of God, not mine. At least if I'm understanding you correctly.
Do you understand that reality?
Could I be wrong? Of course I could. But that's the difference between us. I freely admit that I could be wrong...
My whole premise and difference between me and fundamentalists has been that I am quite clear that some things are MY opinions and MY opinions CAN be wrong. I'm sorry if you haven't understood that, in spite of the many repeated times I've pointed that out.
and just as frequently ask you to provide proof (biblical) of your hunches.
Why limit it to biblical "proof" of our hunches? What's wrong with a reasoned proof?
Like this:
If there is a perfectly good God, that God would not command people to do evil things;
killing babies is evil, by all reasonable standards accepted by humans;
Therefore, a perfectly good God would not command such a thing.
That IS a "proof," a reasoned explanation for why your hunch and judgment of God (again, that sometimes God might command people to slaughter babies, along with whole villages) is less than rational, GIVEN a "Good God." Why is that explanation/proof not acceptable, but a line from the Bible is?
Are you suggesting that we have to find a line in the Bible to justify all moral opinions, or do you agree with me that we can reasonably make moral judgments apart from the Bible?
Indeed, do you recognize that the Bible itself makes no demand that we find a line in "the Bible" to form and hold a moral position?
Yet, he insists that God would NOT, ever under any conceivable circumstances engage in certain things while offering not even the pretense of proving that he's correct.
I'm sorry, have you not caught the countless times I've pointed out the "Good God" problem that fundamentalist "inerrantists" have with their judgments of God? Do you NOT understand that "a good God that commands evil actions" is a logical impossibility? Or at least a logical extreme unlikelihood? It's self defeating. If there is a god that commands evil, then that god is not, by definition, a good God.
Beyond that, I have frequently pointed to the Bible verse that addresses this: "God does not command evil..." BECAUSE I believe that verse is rationally sound and BECAUSE of the "Good God" premise that we hold about God, I do not find it rational or biblical to make the judgment of God that your god sometimes commands the slaughter of babies.
I've addressed the reasoning. Repeatedly over the years. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you.
Good luck.
"Do you believe that a perfect, loving, all-gracious God would sometimes command the slaughter/murder/destruction of whole villages of people, including infants?"
I believe that Scripture has reported that God exacted punishment on a sinful people by ordering His Chosen People to destroy the entire village. I do not question whether or not it detracts from His perfection, His love or His graciousness simply because I, or more specifically, people like you, find the action atrocious.
"Are you saying this is your human opinion on the matter and that you COULD be mistaken?"
I don't know that I'm mistaken on this matter at all. I'm saying that I have no legitimate logical reason to suspect these stories are wrong simply because the thought of entire peoples being punished in this way might offend my sensibilities. I doubt eternal separation from God would be less appalling. If I'm going to take any part of Scripture as true, accurate and/or factual, it can't be on such a basis as my own feelings. This is what you're doing...NOT bringing legitimate arguments to dispute what Scripture records.
"Do you recognize how evil that sounds?"
I know how evil it sounds to YOU. I know how evil you insist I must regard it in order to divert my reverence for Scripture toward your more worldly depiction of what God is and should be. But I don't judge God or His actions or the manifestations of His wrath simply because I find it frightening and contrary to the "loving God" you need Him to be in order to be worthy of your adoration.
If you don’t know, you’re an idiot, willfully obtuse, lying, or not paying attention.
I’m not making a judgment about what God might have done or commanded. I’m simply reading the text, applying the standard usages of the words, and the standard approach to historical accounts and agreeing with the text, history, and countless other intelligent people.
I’m not agreeing with you because you offer nothing substantial to as a counter, certainty not enough to come close to proving that your hunches are likely to be true.
As to why not Reason. Let’s start by being honest and clarifying that you mean your Readon. Then let’s go to the fact that Reason is a subjective, amorphous, undefinable standard that can mean anything that you twist it to mean.
Then let’s go with the fact that in your “Reason”, you choose to offer a less than complete view of the Nature of God, which then warps your Reason away from certain possibilities without even giving them consideration.
Just a couple of reasons.
No, it’s not proof. It’s a simplistic, manipulated, bit of sophistry with nothing that even comes close to proof.
I’ll use your logic.
You haven’t proven God exists.
You haven’t proven that He’s “perfect, loving, and all gracious”.
You haven’t defined what those three terms mean.
You haven’t proven that those three things are the exclusive sum total of God’s nature
You haven’t proven that love and just punishment are mutually exclusive.
Again, that’s just a few problems with your Reason, using your standard (as close as I can get given how hard you try to hide your standard of proof).
I believe that Scripture has reported that God exacted punishment on a sinful people by ordering His Chosen People to destroy the entire village.
I didn't ask you that, Marshall (if the story existed in the bible...). I asked you if you believed that, as a point of fact in the real world, God literally commanded people to literally destroy an entire village, including the actually innocent children and even infants (who were certainly not full of sin)?
Please answer the question being asked of you.
I do not question whether or not it detracts from His perfection, His love or His graciousness simply because I, or more specifically, people like you, find the action atrocious.
Think this through, Marshall: If someone says "In the Bible, God commands Israel to kidnap virgin girls and make them their wives... Clearly, this is NOT immoral behavior, since God commanded it. I think I'm going to "save" a virgin teenager from their evil village and wed her (not really against her will, because what she thinks doesn't matter, only what GOD thinks!)..."
Do you find that action atrocious? Surely you do!
But why? That person is basing his reasoning on what God has already ordained as good and moral! It can't be wrong, since God commanded it! Who are you to say it detracts from God's perfection, his love or graciousness, simply because you disagree with this man raping a teenager?
Of course, we use our reasoning to cipher through when someone is claiming this or that action as something that God is doing or saying. Of course it offends our sensibilities when someone says God endorses rape or infanticide. It should!
Think about it... do you really disagree?
Think this through, Dan: If someone says, "In the Bible, God commands Israel to kidnap virgin girls...." Right there there's a problem given that's not what the text says. Clearly, a serious study of the pasage has not takem place. And as if that might not be enough for you, there is plenty to demonstrate that God does not look kindly upon rape and the ill treatment of women. So how can the story suggest an endorsement of rape and kidnapping by God?
I insist what for you passes for "reasoning", isn't reasoning at all, except as it applies to a desire to reject that which is an inconvenience to your preferred god of your own invention.
They killed their parents, took the virgin orphaned daughters of those slaughtered parents and forcibly wed them. That is what the text literally describes.
Now, you can say that they dressed them in pink and took them to a tea party with candy and dumplings if you want, but what is being described is rape. Forced marriage of the orphans by their parents' and baby brothers' killers.
THAT is serious.
Treating it as a pretty dinner party is not serious.
I hope you can understand that.
Good luck.
~Dan
there is plenty to demonstrate that God does not look kindly upon rape and the ill treatment of women. So how can the story suggest an endorsement of rape and kidnapping by God?
YES! Exactly!
THAT is what I'm saying? HOW can it be?
Answer: It can't.
~Dan
Given that God does not command or endorse rape AND given a story where God commands and endorses rape, what are our options?
We can ignore the literal words of the story and pretend that it says something other than what it says ("No doubt, those virgin daughters were GLAD to have their parents killed off along with their siblings and baby brothers! And what a RELIEF to finally get married! Those Israelites were SO SWEET to them!!") or we can take the story literally but recognize that it wasn't God's idea.
You're opting for the former and I'm the latter.
Seems to me the latter is taking the Bible most literally (one does not need to assume that God endorses everything that is credited to God... certainly not the evil things accredited to God... to take the text literally).
Same for "destroying" the whole town, including the infant babies. You prefer to ignore the literal "my god commanded them to kill innocent children..." and re-write the story that this god was ordering the destruction of vile, evil people, so those newborn infants must have been vile and evil, too... which is nonsense. Rather than assuming that the part of the story were "god commanded" may have been a misunderstanding of the author.
The Bible NO WHERE says that the human authors of these books and stories were infallible or that they recorded everything perfectly, but you're inserting that assumption in, ADDING TO the Bible, and ignoring the parts you don't like (sorta like you're accusing me of doing).
The point here is that neither of us are taking this type of story directly literally. The difference is that the part that you're making up/re-painting is pretty far afield of what the story actually says, whereas all one has to do for my interpretation is assume that the biblical authors did not have everything perfectly understood... and since the Bible never says that the authors wrote things down without any misunderstandings, then why wouldn't we assume that as the most likely explanation?
Cmon Art, all you have to do is base your entire interpretive framework on the assumption that the Biblical authors were mistaken and that God had no control over what got recorded...
And since the Bible and God never once said that God was controlling the authors, that should be easy to do.
Dan
Since you've a priori dismissed the possibility that either the bible or God can authoritatively communicate anything to us, you're simply appealing to something you deny authority to.
It's clear that there is no possible way that God could actually have had any control over the writing or compilation of scripture, or anything for that matter.
1. I haven't "dismissed" anything. I've just noted what I do and don't see. I don't see anything in the Bible that calls the Bible authoritative.
2. You'd have to explain what you mean by "authoritatively communicate..."? What does that even mean?
Does it mean there are passages in the Bible that CAN NOT be misunderstood? Since people disagree on everything, that can't be what you mean.
Does it mean that there are passages that literally perfectly reflect what God thinks, and if we just take it widely literal, well know what God thinks perfectly? If so, which passages?
What do you mean by that? I'd love for you to answer that.
Dan
Re, "you're simply appealing to something you deny authority to..."
What I'm doing is pointing out the rationally self-defeating argument you're making.
If the Bible is the sole Authority for understanding moral and spiritual matters and the Bible does not argue that God demanded perfect writings from the human authors, then on what basis would we make that demand?
It would be an extra biblical human demand and extra biblical human demands do not have authority over scripture according to Sola scriptura. It's self-defeating.
Dan
"Given thatGod does not command or endorse rape AND given a story where God commands and endorses rape, what are our options?"
1. That you're misunderstanding a story that does not depict God commanding or endorsing rape.
2. That you're imposing contemporary meaning on passages written thousands of years ago, where the meaning is different. (Think "original intent" with the US Constitution where progressives also distort to their own satisfaction.)
This is just for starters and I will go more in depth as time allows. But clearly, the only option is not just your complete dismissal of the story as the author's fiction simply because you have personal issues with what the story appears to say to YOU.
1. Rape is defined as forced sexual acts. These kidnapped women were literally forced into marriages, into sexual relationships. How is that not literally the definition of Rape? Who isn't understanding the story as described? Because it's not me.
2. Set aside those literal rapes. God commanded (if you take that part of the story literally) Israel to kill everyone in the offending nations, literally and specifically the infants. Killing infants is evil. Period.
Do you disagree?
Dan
There is absolutely no reference in the text of captured virgins being forced into marriages or their being raped. Nor, more to the point, that God ordered such be done. When one sees passages that, to that person, appears to suggest something that counters previous understandings promoted by other passages, it is far more reasonable for that person to consider there's more in depth study and research required...if one wishes to insist one is a serious and prayerful seeker of understanding.
When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Bring her into your home and have her
shave her head,
trim her nails
and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured.
After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month,
then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes.
You must not sell her or treat her as a slave,
since you have dishonored her.
~Deuteronomy 21
Note, they have her trim her nails. Any ideas why a captured woman who you're going to forcibly take as a wife might have her nails trimmed?
Any ideas why have her head shaved and clothes taken away?
If you were familiar with rape practices - especially rape-as-weapon-of-war practices - you'd know.
Did you see where she was asked if this was something she wanted? That's right, you didn't see it, because women didn't get to consent. Captured women, especially, did not get to consent.
What's that word for non-consensual sexual acts...?
Did you notice that the husband can just let her go "if he's not pleased with her..."? Did you notice that she is to be released wherever she wants to go? Do you see, between the lines clearly, that the assumption is that she WILL want to go?
There is no reference to being forced into marriage IF you're not looking for it. If you look at the text with open eyes, it's clearly there.
It an attempt to generate a term that encompasses how God communicates with us and what authority that communication carries.
For example, if POTUS dictates an executive order to a secretary, who writes it down accurately, that written executive order is equal in terms of authority to the spoken words of POTUS. If one was to read that executive order, it carries all of the legal and statutory authority accorded the office of POTUS.
In a similar manner, if the words in scripture that are attributed to God, were actually directly communicated by God to the writer (scribe/secretary), and were recorded accurately then it makes sense that those writings would carry the authority of God, in the same way any written law carries the authority of the law giving body.
Sorry, it was an attempt to pack a lot of content into s short term.
FYI, at this point I’m not necessarily arguing for any sort of authority other than in a theoretical sense.
I have to note that the passage you chose uses the term “may”. It doesn’t use the term “will”, “shall”, or “must”. In fact it uses no words that indicate command, rather it gives permission.
The reson for the shaving of the head etc, was to have the man demonstrate that this wasn’t an act of hot blooded, heat of battle, passion, but a considered act that wasn’t dependent solely on external beauty.
I’d think even you would be able to understand the difference between “You MUST do this!” and “If you are going to do this, here are some parameters”.
You’ll also note the “She will be your wife” ( not concubine or sex slave) and “let her go where she wishes” not exactly the way slaves were treated.
Sorry, let’s put this in the context of the times as well. Virtually zero marriages were anything but arranged, (no, arranged marriage isn’t rape, it’s a practice that many cultures engage in) so the captured women were being treated exactly like the Hebrew women were in the sense of their status.
But, let’s contrast the Hebrew treatment of captives with the rest of the people groups around them.
Seriously, this is a reach even for you.
Any marriage where there is no consent that involves sex where there is no consent, IS rape. Rape is nonconsensual sex.
Hope that helps you understand the reality of what rape is.
no, arranged marriage isn’t rape, it’s a practice that many cultures engage in
Women have long been treated as chattel whose opinions don't matter, who don't have the right to a voice. Just as is true for black folk and enslaved people throughout history. That's how the cultures were.
Doesn't mean that the forced sex wasn't rape, just because it was culturally accepted.
Do you agree with that basic reality of human rights and human decency?
Now, I am not saying that all arranged marriages were rapey. I'm sure that oftentimes, arranged marriage were done consensually. I'm talking about forced marriages, including arranged marriages where the woman didn't want the forced marriage or forced sex.
Now, I will also note that many women in times before societies recognized the basic human right that women have a legitimate voice to make their own decisions, that women in those cultures might not view it as rape, even, just because that culture was so engrained doesn't make it okay. I don't know where to draw that line and I'm not trying to draw it here. I'm just noting that forced marriages where women submitted to sex against their will ARE rape, by definition.
Craig...
you've a priori dismissed the possibility that either the bible or God can authoritatively communicate anything to us...
Dan...
What's that mean, "God can authoritatively communicate to us..."?
Craig...
It an attempt to generate a term that encompasses how God communicates with us and what authority that communication carries...
...if the words in scripture that are attributed to God, were actually directly communicated by God to the writer (scribe/secretary), and were recorded accurately then it makes sense that those writings would carry the authority of God
Set aside for a minute the reality that the Bible does not say that God communicated the Bible to us in this manner...
So, GOD COMMUNICATED the Bible "directly" to the writer and the "scribe" (NOT NOT NOT how the Bible describes "scripture..." but set that aside, too) "recorded accurately" these words... it makes sense to you these words carry the "authority of God" (again, not anything that the Bible teaches)... Okay, but WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
There are all the words "communicated directly" to a variety of biblical authors on the topic of Scripture and these words have "the authority of God..." AND some people look at all those "words with authority" and reach one conclusion about inerrancy. Other people look at those "words with authority" and reach a different and contradicting conclusion about inerrancy.
What does "authority" mean in that case?
Or what about those "words with authority" that touch on topics of killing babies, about what God does and doesn't command and the texts related to God supposedly commanding the killing of babies and one group of people reach one conclusion about that topic (God does not/would not command people to kill babies) and other people reach the opposite conclusion (that God has, at least in the past, commanded people to kill babies).
What does "authority" mean in that case?
Do you understand how it seems like "authority" is meaningless in relation to the Bible, because it all relies upon interpretation and interpretation can be right or wrong.
Thus, it seems (thinking it through logically) that the text itself is NOT (NOT NOT NOT) an "authority," but WHAT GOD WANTS is the authority. The Bible is not "inerrant," God is. It's rather meaningless to call the Bible "an authority" or "inerrant," as long as we recognize the reality that some will and do interpret the text poorly or wrongly.
Okay, you probably can agree with that much, but you may argue, THE ONES WHO INTERPRET GOD'S WILL CORRECTLY ARE REACHING AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IS CORRECT AND, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN AUTHORITY...
Is that what you're thinking?
If so, then the question is: HOW do we know which group is interpreting correctly? DO we know with any provable authority?
I mean, I think that CLEARLY, I am understanding it aright in these areas where we disagree. Does that mean I'm right?
Or, supposedly, clearly YOU think you are understanding it aright. Does that mean you're right?
Based on what?
Two more things.
1. The part of the story in question, is what’s called an “if/then” clause. That means that the instruction part is conditional. It’s like the sign on a fire alarm. “IF there is a fire, THEN pull this.”.
2. When I wonder about what something in the Bible means, or want to confirm (or disprove) my first impression of a passage, I’ve discovered this wonderful tool, it’s called a commentary. It where people who have spent a great deal of time and effort, generally learning the original languages and the culture, into giving detailed explanations about the various scriptures. The thing that’s even more amazing, is that you can find them online for free, and you don’t even have to read an entire book. In this case, the few that I looked at (not a lot of time to research when I’m at work), seemed to not be supportive of your hunch about this.
I’m sure that these guys are simply hacks who have no idea what they’re talking about, but I thought I’d try to do the nice thing and point you toward some more neutral sources.
Funny, I didn’t see the word consent even once. I’d ask you to prove lack of consent, but you wouldn’t, so I won’t.
I’m sure that it only seems as if you’re imposing your 21st century, white, European, liberal, progressive, opinions on a culture from thousands of years ago. Oh, and if morality is “subjective” and if morality “is defined by the individual culture” then the behavior was (in context) and by definition moral.
I keep thinking I should ask you to prove.,, oh never mind.
For someone who claims to have once been some sort of conservative, your lack of knowledge of the concepts or both authority and inerrancy leave much to be desired.
Look, the point I was trying to make is that you are appealing to scripture as if it contains direct quotations from God, while denying the possibility that scripture could actually do what you claim.
As for scripture having authority, as I pointed out, whatever authority scripture might have is directly related to the ultimate source of scripture (God or man), and the ultimate authority of that source. Just like a written law draws it’s auth from the authority of the government, written scripture draws its authority from God.
If you want to argue that God isn’t sovereign, please do.
If you want to argue that God was unable to shepherd the preservation of scripture as His means to communicate His Truth to us, please do so.
If you want to argue that the writers of scripture were just making stuff up with no regard for what they were saying, or were trying to engage in some sort of scheme to portray God in a negative light, please do so.
If you want to argue that parts of the Bible are true and correct and quote God, while the rest doesn’t, please do so. Just be sure to provide the list of which is which.
But if you do, bring proof, bring facts, bring Truth.
If you want to argue that God was unable to shepherd the preservation of scripture as His means to communicate His Truth to us, please do so.
God CAN do anything God wants. God COULD have given us a Scripture that spoke out loud and said, "NO! THAT'S NOT RIGHT!!" each time we reached a bad conclusion.
God didn't do that. As a point of fact. Anyone can look and see that hasn't happened.
And so, we were so close to making some meaningful advancement, but then, you veered away from the questions put to you.
Please answer these questions or move on:
...then the question is: HOW do we know which group is interpreting correctly? DO we know with any provable authority?
Please answer, directly, clearly, unequivocally.
I mean, I think that CLEARLY, I am understanding it aright in these areas where we disagree. Does that mean I'm right?
Or, supposedly, clearly YOU think you are understanding it aright. Does that mean you're right?
Please answer, directly, clearly, unequivocally.
Based on what?
Please answer, directly, clearly, unequivocally.
There are all the words "communicated directly" to a variety of biblical authors on the topic of Scripture and these words have "the authority of God..." AND some people look at all those "words with authority" and reach one conclusion about inerrancy. Other people look at those "words with authority" and reach a different and contradicting conclusion about inerrancy.
What does "authority" mean in that case?
To address each of these...
If you want to argue that God isn’t sovereign, please do.
I'm not arguing that. I never said that. I don't believe that.
If you want to argue that God was unable to shepherd the preservation of scripture as His means to communicate His Truth to us, please do so.
God COULD do anything. The question is, what DID God do. God inspires people to Truth through a variety of means, seems to me (and as the Bible teaches in various places). I don't know what you mean by "shepherd the preservation of Scripture as His means to communicate Truth..." so I don't know what else to tell you.
YOU have to answer the question put to you so I can know what you're even speaking of before I can address your human opinions.
I will say that I think God has MANY means to communicate Truth. The Bible says so. I think reason suggests it, too.
If you want to argue that the writers of scripture were just making stuff up with no regard for what they were saying, or were trying to engage in some sort of scheme to portray God in a negative light, please do so.
I don't think that.
If you want to argue that parts of the Bible are true and correct and quote God, while the rest doesn’t, please do so. Just be sure to provide the list of which is which.
Those things that are good and true and pure and loving and grace-full, THOSE things reflect God. Those things (like suggesting that sometimes God commands evil, or that God commands people to kill babies, which I consider evil) do not reflect God. There IS no perfect list, we have to use our reason.
Just as YOU have no perfect list of which interpretations of various passages and ideas are of God and which ideas/interpretations are not of God.
Do you agree with that reality - that you have no list of those parts of the Bible AND understandings of those parts are correct and quote God?
A quick scan of comments since my last suggests Craig addressed much of what I had intended. A notable exception is that this passage has been addressed before in great detail, and while I foolishly thought Dan was commenting on a different chapter (31 instead of 21, which he now quotes), I should have remembered Dan's penchant for putting forth arguments as if for the first time.
This is a case where God mitigates behavior that was universally practiced at the time in question. It demonstrates an acceptance of a woman's worth while not yet abolishing the practice altogether, as is the case with other behaviors at the time. It actually improves the lot of women over what was commonplace. Thus, there's no command to take women, but a tolerance of the practice and new considerations men were to have on the behalf of captive women.
1. We look at how closely their interpretation is to the clear meaning of the text. We can also look at numbers. If 90% of scholars agree that something means x, then it’s reasonable to conclude that some random guy online probably has a pretty high burden of proof to demonstrate that he’s right.
You clearly think you’re right no matter what the text says or what evidence your presented with, yet you clearly don’t understand the difference between permiision and command. You understanding something in a way contrary to others doesn’t mean your right. Just that you have a higher standard to meet.
If my understanding aligns with the majority of others, including experts in the field, and basic English language rules, it increases the chances exponentially.
Before you whine about appealing to numbers, let’s remember that one standard of legal proof is “preponderance of the evidence”, so if it’s goid enough for the legal system, it’s good enough for a blog.
Preponderance of the evidence, basic English language rules for two.
That “authority” doesn’t rest with peoples interpretation, it rests with the source.
But I’ve answered the last one 3 times now.
You keep claiming that God “could” do anything, yet you are adamant that He couldn’t or didnsuperintend the compilation and writing of scripture is such a way as to ensure that it accurately and Truthfully communicated exactly what He wanted it to.
Just one more area where you contradict yourself. You insist that there is no certainty about what God did do, but express complete certainty about what He didn’t do.
Again, I’d ask you to prove your contention, but I could write your generic list of excuses for you, so I won’t waste the time.
That “authority” doesn’t rest with peoples interpretation, it rests with the source.
And if you are saying the source is God, then you and I agree and are faced with the problem of, "But what human can say with authority what God thinks?"
The answer to that question is there is no human. Ain't no man.
IF, on the other hand, you're saying the source is the Bible, then that's where you've wandered into idolatry, on the one hand, and meaninglessness, on the other hand. It's meaningless unless we can answer, WHAT HUMAN has the authority to clarify meaning where there is a question?
The answer to that question is there is no human. Ain't no man.
Which gets back to the question that you think you've answered, but haven't.
IF you, as a human, think that the verses that touch on homosexuality, inerrancy and God commanding Israel to kill whole cities, including children teach us 1, 2 and 3...
And I, as a human, think that the reasoning on those same topics teach us X, Y and Z...
And, IF, as you say, the authority doesn't rest with your opinion/interpretation OR my opinion/interpretation, but "the source..." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
The text on those topics say A, B and C. YOU THINK, in your human opinion that A, B and C suggests we should conclude Apples, Bananas and Candy and I think, in my human opinion that they teach Air, Bicycles and Community...
who can say with authority that you are correct or that I am correct or that neither of us are correct?
What human/humans get to make that call?
If you're saying the majority of experts, and appeal to numbers, then the experts on Creation tell us that the earth was NOT created in six literal days, that there was no Adam/Eve in a literal sense, that there was no Great Flood in the literal sense, that Genesis stories were written in a mythic fashion.
Are you fine with that?
OR, are you going to say, "No, not THOSE experts, but the experts that I think are better experts..."?
Which would then cause us to say, what human gets to make THAT call?
Do you not see the logical problem you're running up against?
You clearly think you’re right no matter what the text says or what evidence your presented with
No, I think I'm right because reason and the text dictate it to me. I think, GIVEN the specific texts in question and GIVEN some basic reasoning (and, I'd say, GIVEN the leading of the Spirit of God, which I believe in), I think my conclusions are the most reasonable on these topics.
But NOT NOT NOT "no matter what the text says..." Perhaps, "No matter what people like Craig and many others have thought about the texts over the years..." but not "no matter what the text says."
~Dan
God can say with authority. To some degree that’s the role of The Church.
Please show me the objective proof to back up these claims you’re making about the age of the earth and the existence of Adam and Eve.
Yet you continue to believe you’re right despite the evidence presented to you, you continue to disparage arguments based on your ad hom attacks on the character of people, rather than on the evidence people present.
I know this is probably confusing to you, but I’m not and have never advocated for a strict YEC position. Your problem is not to argue against a caracture of your version of YEC, it’s to provide proof of your claims.
At one point I provided you with numerous scientific sources regarding origins, I’m still waiting for your rebuttal of any one of the sources, let alone all of them.
Yes, you and I agree that God can say so with authority. But who, what human beings, get to speak with authority on God's point of view?
You say, the church, but which church?
My church... does my church get to speak with authority and let everyone else know what God wants? Your church?
THIS is the question that always remain unaddressed by your "side."
Dan
I said “The Church”, maybe your unaware that the capitalized reference is speaking of the entirety of Christianity. If you took a cursory look, you’d find a great deal of agreement in most of the issues you choose to make contentious. It’s just that you choose not to recognize that your diversion comes with a burden of proof.
But I suspect you know this and are just trying to throw more diversions in the conversation.
One of the problems that’s unaddressed after 100+ comments is the very subject of this post, the first question asked.
The answer to your question is apparently Dan Trabue. Dan gets to speak for God. Dan chose to paraphrase the author of Deuteronomy and attributed that paraphrase directly to God.
So, now we know who gets to speak for God.
So then, which PART of The Church gets to decide? On inerrancy, for instance? The majority of Evangelicals over the last few hundred years? But not Catholics?
Which part?
Dan
The problem I'm seeing is the ambiguity in Dan's responses. He's consistent in mentioning multiple areas of contention that are no of the same kind and expecting a response that settles it all. For example, to speak of what is true and what can be known and proven, the issue might in one case be, "what does Scripture say", while in another case, "what is God's will?", while in yet another, "how can we prove God exist?" These are different levels or categories that cannot be lumped together to determine what can or cannot be proven.
For example, regarding this latest issue, we can easily demonstrate that God is not endorsing or commanding the kidnapping and rape of women because the text does not even say such a thing. Why that isn't proof enough is beyond me, as it is clearly apparent. There is no special "interpretation" involved when the very translation being used isn't worded in such a way as to suggest a command to kidnap or rape exists.
There's also a problem of when it is acceptable to apply contemporary definitions or understandings of word usage on translations of ancient texts. For example, in those rare instances when the expression "to know" is used today to suggest sexual relations, it is only done so because the expression comes from ancient use of the expression. Clearly anyone unaware of this usage would view the text differently when the expression is used to denote a sexual history of a given character. Thus, a female in the Old Testament "who has not known a man" does not mean a woman raised on an island of only women ala Wonder Woman. I bring this up as it applies to the concept of taking Scripture literally. In this example, to take that expression literally requires understanding how the expression was used at the time.
There's also too much focus on concepts taught by Scripture that aren't labeled by Scripture. The Trinity, for one, is taught by Scripture without the word ever being used. The Bible doesn't have to label itself in order for it to be a history book as well as a rule book. It's absurd. The same is true with concepts of inerrancy, of being the "Word of God", of being inspired by God, etc. These things are all mentioned to one degree or another and the fact that later scholars have labeled the concepts doesn't mean the concepts were invented by those later scholars, as opposed to observed and given a name. It's such a waste of time to even argue about such things.
Out of time.
This obsession with division is interesting to see. I’m not sure that repeating myself will be fruitful, if you are unaware of the concept of “The Church” (aka “holy catholic church ”, the “Church Universal” etc) I can’t help you.
So you why don’t you just keep up the spiritual salmon routine and just be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Or, you can prove that your hunches are true. Either way.
Art, you’re right. Part of the problem is that so much of these things have been settled theology for hundreds of years and while you expect these sorts of terminology problems from JW’s or Mormons, you are now seeing a vocal militant sect of folks who identify as christian while denying much of what defines Christianity.
Clearly these terms have an understood meaning, and these terms are really shorthand for more complex formulations. But we’re being demanded to defend caractures of these doctrines, not the actual doctrine.
It’s a lose/lose or tarbaby situation as evidenced by the above.
"Settled theology..." to WHO?
1. Christians haven't always been right, so being settled doesn't help if you're wrong.
2.The Catholic church was settled on opinions for centuries. Then, reformation, protestants and Anabaptist. By your suggested measure of "being settled," the reformers were wrong. Right?
Mere numbers of people who agree with you does not mean you're right.
As an aside, yes Craig, of course I understand the notion of the Church. You misunderstand the point I'm making.
Dan
The vast majority of Christians throughout history.
Not at all. The reformation was about bringing the Roman church back to its biblical roots. It was also originally an internal attempt at debate, which became external when the pope refused to engage in the existing process for addressing questions.
But, what I great way to avoid answering the first question asked in the thread. Detour into the reformation.
I understand the point your making, it’s the same point you usually make.
FYI, if you want to jump on the reformation train, that’d be awesome. I’ll give you the same challenge Luther gave the pope. “Use scripture to show me where I’m wrong, and I’ll gladly go with scripture.”.
Please do.
1. Your human hunches about inerrancy is only a few hundred years old. Same for Sola Scriptura. Your human views about peace-making/warring have come and gone throughout the centuries. Much of the emphasis and understanding of modern evangelicalism/fundamentalism is, well, modern.
2. An appeal to numbers is hardly convincing.
3. I don't believe in Sola Scriptura. WHY then, would I rely only on Scripture to make a case against or in favor of whatever? You want me to argue on your terms, accepting your human opinions as a starting point to make my case. You'll have to try harder than that to make your case.
4. I HAVE offered Scriptures that contributed to why I hold the positions I hold. YOU disagree with my human interpretation of those scriptures and I disagree with your human interpretation on those Scriptures.
5. As always, on what rational or biblical basis do YOUR human hunches have a single bit of authority over my human hunches?
It seems clear that the appeal of fundamentalists is always coming down to "You should recognize the authority of our position because we base our opinion on our interpretations of the Bible and our interpretation of these matters is, therefore, 'right,' and those who also read and value the Bible who disagree with us are wrong because they're not interpreting it 'right,' and we know this because they disagree with OUR OPINIONS on these matters which we can not be mistaken because others like us agree with us..." It's circular reasoning with no consistent rational or biblical criteria for making the case that your hunches hold any more authority than other humans'.
IF the vast majority throughout history jump off a cliff, will you?
..."if the vast majority of Christians throughout history jump off a cliff..."
Something came up at Bible study this morning that may better explain where I’m coming from.
Historically Christian belief has been layed out in two primary ways. Creeds and catcheisms. With a significant amount of similarities and overlap between the various options. Given the commonality between the significant historic creeds and the significant cactchisms it seems like that would be a core of Christian thought that could be rallied around and a reasonable explication of the teachings of The Church.
But, that’s because I’m not looking to find things to dispute.
1. So, your arguing that the date when the terminology was agreed on is evidence that the concept describe by the terminology is false.
2. That’s your problem. Strangely enough, it’s an appeal you frequently offer when it suits you. Of course it’s fine if you want to argue that The Church has been wrong for thousands of years, you just have to actually prove that you’ve discovered something that’s eluded millions of people for thousands of years.
3. Your belief, or lack of, isn’t the deciding factor regarding the Truth or falsehood of Christian doctrine. Your more than welcome to offer proof that Sola Scriptura is wrong, and that you’ve got a better alternative. But one based on your elevation of Reason, (especially your fallen, imperfect, self centered Reason), won’t be convincing to anyone but you.
4. Really? What was the scripture that specifically says “God blesses “gay marriage”? Or the scripture that speaks of homosexual activities in a positive or neutral way?
5. Since I haven’t made that claim, why would I signify that straw man with an answer.
“Jump off a cliff” that’s the best you have. The straw men are falling like flies.
4. What is the scripture that specifically says God approves of gay people marrying?
What is the scripture that specifically says that inerrancy is what God thinks of scripture? What is the specific scripture that demands s Sola scriptura? There IS no specific scripture that literally says any of that.
Right? It is ALL extrapolated based upon the very human reasoning that you dismiss. Do you understand that reality?
However, there is scripture that says whatsoever is good, true, pure, love Etc, to think on these things... these ARE good things. And two people committing to one another in love is a good thing. We've been all over all this before.
The point is I have my reasons scriptural rational Etc and I think those reasons are extremely compelling. You have your reasons that you find compelling for your beliefs and I found them extremely shallow, not compelling.
So, we're back to what makes one set of human opinions on what God thinks authoritative over other human opinions?
Dan
Historically Christian belief has been layed out in two primary ways. Creeds and catcheisms. With a significant amount of similarities and overlap between the various options.
Perhaps this might help explain some differences in our human opinions... given my upbringing in/respect for/identification with the Baptist and Anabaptist traditions - traditions that reject creeds and catechisms and with a strong belief in the priesthood of the believer - I'm (we're) not inclined to be too obligated to what other humans thought. Which is not to say that we reject what other humans thought... just that we don't think that human tradition is anything close to a final decider for us. We are all obliged, the thinking goes, to seek God, truth, the Right for ourselves and if we don't agree with an opinion, then we are not obliged at all to give much credence to it. Perhaps that's why I'm sympathetic to skeptics, as well.
I'm sure you're familiar with this concept, but here's some info from the Baptists...
"For Baptists, being our own priests means that we are responsible only to God. We are not accountable to another person, to a creed or confession, to a council or convention, or to any text other than Scripture. Our only sovereign is God. No other authority comes between us and God. We are accountable for being guided by God’s Spirit."
http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistorigins/priesthood.html
Just for what it's worth.
1. So, your arguing that the date when the terminology was agreed on is evidence that the concept describe by the terminology is false.
No, I'm recognizing the reality that a lot of what is important to modern evangelicalism/fundamentalism is more modern and not a huge part of the historic church belief system. Thus, appeals to tradition are only so effective, if they only go back a few hundred years.
2. That’s your problem. Strangely enough, it’s an appeal you frequently offer when it suits you.
It depends upon the point being made. IF that vast number of experts in the age of the earth/universe agree that they're billions of years old, then those are experts on the age of the world and that's pretty important.
IF, however, we're talking about human opinions about what God thinks, then I don't know that we can consider ANYONE an expert, so that if 90% of modern evangelicals think that "clearly" the Bible teaches that God endorses Sola Scriptura, then those numbers are less compelling.
And no, I'm not talking about whether or not you believe in a Young Earth. I'm talking about principles of authority and knowledge vs opinion.
Hope that helps clarify things.
"However, there is scripture that says whatsoever is good, true, pure, love Etc, to think on these things... these ARE good things. And two people committing to one another in love is a good thing. We've been all over all this before."
Yes, we have been over all this before and what remains unresolved is "whose notion of what constitutes 'good, true, pure, love, etc'?" I continue to insist that those words must align with what Scripture indicates those words mean. To put it more specifically to the issue, they cannot in any way refer to sinful behaviors simply because YOU find the behavior a wonderful thing due to the feelings the sinners have for each other. Two men (or two women) engaging in sexual behavior with each other can never be described with any of those terms since the act is considered by God to be abomination. Thus, you pervert the spirit and teaching of Phil 4:8 to employ it in support of prohibited (that is, sinful) behavior. "Love" based on unnatural erotic desire God prohibits is not "pure, true, noble" and certainly not "commendable" to God. Nor were they to Paul, so to use that verse in your pro-LGBT agenda tactics demonstrates that you are not "true, pure, noble, etc".
"It depends upon the point being made. IF that vast number of experts in the age of the earth/universe agree that they're billions of years old, then those are experts on the age of the world and that's pretty important.
IF, however, we're talking about human opinions about what God thinks, then I don't know that we can consider ANYONE an expert, so that if 90% of modern evangelicals think that "clearly" the Bible teaches that God endorses Sola Scriptura, then those numbers are less compelling."
This is more than a little disingenuous. Those that believe in an old earth/universe are rendering opinions based on their interpretation of data. They are no more or less "experts" than are those who have studied Scripture. Indeed, the latter are more "expert" given that Scripture is fixed, the original languages, cultures and such are far easier to analyze than that which came before the first human existed. Your bias is clear in referring to the scientists as "experts", while condescendingly regarding Biblical scholars as merely people with opinions.
what remains unresolved is "whose notion of what constitutes 'good, true, pure, love, etc'?" I continue to insist that those words must align with what Scripture indicates those words mean.
And you are WELCOME to that human opinion, but it's not anything that The Bible tells us. It's a human opinion that you and people like you have traditionally guessed at.
I would say that those things that are good, true, pure, noble, loving, etc are NOT that difficult to grasp, in general. Is it EVER good to invade a nation and kill all the people there, including the babies? I say that 99% of humanity can consider that and confidently answer, "NO, that would never be a moral Good. It would not be pure or noble, either..." And that would be people regardless of their human opinions about the Bible. I think there is that within us (God' Word, writ upon our hearts, the Holy Spirit, basic human decency) that informs us in general about Good and Bad. Research has shown us these basic human drives to a common moral view, in general.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_there_any_universal_moral_values
So, while you are free to think that it must align with the Bible, I'd suggest the more adept notion is that God created us as understanding morality and thus, any morality must/will align with God's notion of Good and Bad, but that can be believed in whether or not you accept God or the bible. And that "the Bible" is not the authority - IT IS ONLY TEXT and text must be interpreted and interpretations can be good or bad... for instance, the interpretation that sometimes God might command people to kill a whole society, including their babies is, to my thinking, a bad and irrational and unbiblical interpretation. So, the Bible is not the authority, but God is the authority and none of us can speak with authority for God.
Thus, you pervert the spirit and teaching of Phil 4:8 to employ it in support of prohibited (that is, sinful) behavior. "Love" based on unnatural erotic desire God prohibits is not "pure, true, noble" and certainly not "commendable" to God.
These are ALL your opinions. And you're welcome to them. But it is MY opinion that I think you have it wrong, and clearly wrong. CLEARLY, two people committing to one another in Love and respect to live a life together is clearly a moral good, regardless of how you interpret ancient rules and try to misapply them to a different setting.
And Marshall (Craig, anyone else), I let this stand, but this sort of language is exactly the sort of language I might delete as an attack upon innocent people who you do not know... a traditionally oppressed people, people that I believe God would have us side with and support. When you call something as beautiful as a committed loving relationship "unnatural erotic desire," you are attacking people you do not know and who, demonstrably, factually are doing NOTHING "unnatural..." Do not use such attacking, oppressive language here, it will be deleted.
You can get your point across without attacking people. Saying "Love that, in my mind, conflicts with some basic boundaries that I believe God would have us embrace... THAT love is not pure..." without using the stupidly false epithet of "unnatural." That is the sort of language that has been used by the oppressors, and that is why that sort of language will not be allowed here, any more than I'd allow the N word or other epithets.
Whether or not you understand, I will ask you to respect that boundary I'm demanding here. My goal is to protect people. I hope you can respect that. If not, perhaps it would be better not to comment here.
Really, all I have to say right now is, your answer to 4. Really is “there isn’t one” and the fact that you chose to dodge/ignore/hide from the second part of the question just drives home the point that you have to manipulate and twist unrelated scriptures to try to make your hunch appear biblical.
You claim that “Two people coming together in love is a good thing”. Ok
Prove the truth of that statement.
Prove that all “gay marriages” are “two people coming together in live”.
Again, I’d ask for more proof, but proof is pretty elusive.
I have to admit that your desire to bring the topic around to gay sex as a way to avoid the whole Dan speaking for God thing is impressive.
The quote you have that starts “For Baptists...”, are you saying you agree with that quote?
Since I never suggested that creeds and cachtechisms are are anything but examples of statements of belief that are widely accepted by many branches of The Church as summaries of what the Bible teaches, I’m not sure what your point is.
If it’s to assert some inherent superiority of Anabaptists, ok we know about pride. But, clearly the concept of the priesthood of all believers in no way conflicts with any creedal or other statement of faith.
Got it, appeals to numbers work when you think they should be accepted, but are ridiculed when you decide otherwise.
Just because there is a historical consensus by Biblical experts, means nothing if Dan doesn’t agree.
BTW, what’s the exact age of the earth?
So much to ask.
1. Can you prove that homosexual sexual activity is “good, pure, worthy, and all the rest of the adjectives on your list?
2. You’ve spend months arguing that values are subjective, yet now you offer an article claiming that there are “universal” moral values. I’ve provided numerous sources that claim that not only are moral values subjective, but dependent on individual societies. Could you please pick one side and stick with it.
3. You realize that by insisting that there are things that God would “never” be, you’re once again placing yourself in judgement over God’s character and speaking for Him.
4. As usual, I’m interested in what you mean when you use the term “created”?
5. When I see Assad using the chemical weapons the P-BO administration assured us were “100%” gone, or Liberals discriminating against two black women, or the weekly slaughter on the streets of Chicago, or the persecution of Christians and the defilement if women by Muslims, it seems obvious to me that there is clearly no sort of inborn moral code.
While God certainly created humans in His image and pronounced the result “very good”, clearly we’re a long way from that now.
“No one is good, except God alone”
Jesus
I guess if speaking for God and contradicting Jesus is what it takes to defend homosexual sexual activity, then that’s what it takes.
"And you are WELCOME to that human opinion, but it's not anything that The Bible tells us. It's a human opinion that you and people like you have traditionally guessed at."
So now, with your "we are each priests" subjectivity, you insist that Paul had no specific intent we are able to discern and thus we can make it mean whatever works best for each of us. How incredibly convenient. So nice to see you're so willing to carry your cross. The reality is that this is another case of you applying contemporary understandings to ancient concepts in order to provide yourself liberty to believe what has most personal appeal. "Context" is really just a joke to you if you're going to be so loose with when and how you apply it. So here is but one of many commentaries I could have used to illustrate the point regarding those words as they were used by Paul:
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-25-christian-s-thought-life-philippians-48
This theme shows up over and over again, and never...not even once...is there anything that suggests Paul was giving us liberty to define those words to our own satisfaction. And despite your next thought alleging I'm engaging in hunches, looking at the original languages (and those experts who translate those languages) further supports the FACT that Paul had a specific intent in using those words that do NOT indicate misapplying them as you do in order to support homosexual behavior.
"I would say that those things that are good, true, pure, noble, loving, etc are NOT that difficult to grasp, in general."
Again, as those words are commonly used today, perhaps. But as they are translations of an ancient language, the understanding of how those words are used in context is what matters. NOT what you want them to mean now so that you can go on behaving in a manner that is totally contradictory to the lesson intended. Frankly, even the contemporary meanings do not comport with your positions, which applies them so loosely and so subjectively in order to make good that which is not.
"Is it EVER good to invade a nation and kill all the people there, including the babies? I say that 99% of humanity can consider that and confidently answer, "NO..."
I would say "99%" is wishful thinking given the fallen nature of mankind. But that aside, it still is a subjective position that assumes everyone all over the world thinks exactly like you do. Worse, you now make the appeal to numbers that you just rejected when Craig suggested it. ("Mere numbers of people who agree with you does not mean you're right.") You can't appeal to numbers when it agrees with your position after rejecting such appeals when it doesn't.
At the same time, you can't even argue that it is NEVER wrong to invade a nation and kill all the people there, including the babies. Not without presuming that there could never be anything worse that doing so could resolve. That, too, is a subjective assumption that you can't make as if a certainty. You need hard data for that, per your own demands.
"I think there is that within us (God' Word, writ upon our hearts, the Holy Spirit, basic human decency) that informs us in general about Good and Bad."
Think it all you like, but it's no more than another self-serving, self-satisfying opinion based on nothing more than what appeals to you personally. Whatever is "writ upon our hearts" cannot conflict with what is "writ" in Scripture. And if you insist on saying Scripture supports your position, you need a bit more than the incredibly loose and ambiguous connections to passages and verses that are not specific to that which you support...such as Phil 4:8. Especially when you disregard that which is absolute and specific to that which you wish wasn't true...such as Lev 18:22.
Well, it would depend on what Jesus meant by that, wouldn't it? Do you think he meant that literally or as hyperbole?
Clearly, people are Good, and have Good lives... at least some people. I would suspect, Craig, that you are a very good man, kind, hard-working, patient, considerate... good. Would I be wrong?
Dan
"So, while you are free to think that it must align with the Bible, I'd suggest the more adept notion is that God created us as understanding morality...."
This conflicts with Biblical teaching that teaches that "natural man" is fallen, craven and sinful. Thus, despite God's plan when creating Adam, what came after the Fall more than a little bit mitigates that with regard to how or if the typical human has an inherent understanding of morality.
What's more, to whatever extent that appears to you to be true, it relies on the fact that the understanding of morality is influenced by a culture based on thousands of years of Judeo-Christian thought. So that takes us right back to Scripture (God's Word and Will revealed to us) being the source of morality.
"...interpretations can be good or bad... for instance, the interpretation that sometimes God might command people to kill a whole society, including their babies is, to my thinking, a bad and irrational and unbiblical interpretation."
First of all, it's not an "interpretation". It's a clear and unambiguous teaching of an event that occurred at a specific time and place. Thus, it is totally Biblical given that the Bible clearly states that it occurred.
Second, it is totally disingenuous to purposely choose to say "sometimes God might command", when the fact is that more than once, God indeed DID command His Chosen People to do just that. Then to say you don't reject Scripture is even more disingenuous. Worse, you reduce the author to a complete liar...and one who lies about God--Who then allows the authors to lie about Him.
Here again, you reject what is clear (as you do with Lev 18:22) while clinging to that which is not so (your self-serving misapplication of Phil 4:8).
"So, the Bible is not the authority, but God is the authority and none of us can speak with authority for God."
What we know about God we learn from the Bible. To pretend that you could ever have the same "understanding" of God as you now have without the Bible informing you (or even any understanding for that matter) is nonsensical to an extreme degree. And there is much in Scripture that is crystal clear and thus it is untrue to insist that there is nothing about which we can speak authoritatively. You need that to be true in order to avoid providing a solid defense of your anti-Biblical beliefs.
"CLEARLY, two people committing to one another in Love and respect to live a life together is clearly a moral good."
Clearly commitment to love one another and live a life together is not a basis for determining if that commitment is a moral good. Otherwise, the same would be true for a parent and its adult child making the same commitment, or siblings doing the same. Or an adult male and a girl old enough to menstruate (common in human history up until very recently, though still practiced in the Middle East). And why only two people if committed love and respect and willingness to live a life together is at play?
No. You're only concerned with one specific breech of God's moral law and to all others, none of them could ever possibly be examples of what is good, pure, noble, etc. And of course, to some, killing an entire people, children and babies included, might be a moral good, so if you don't want to adhere to a clear and unambiguous understanding of morality, then it's anything goes if enough people agree, or if those insisting upon it have the power to defend against those who disagree (despots in power, for example).
"...this sort of language is exactly the sort of language I might delete as an attack upon innocent people who you do not know..."
This is an example of despotic attack on speech in order to reduce arguments that expose the many problems of your beliefs and positions. If you can deny an opponent's ability to express himself accurately, definitively and objectively, you eliminate the opponent's position itself leaving only your position as if there is no argument against it. It is deceitful, cowardly and and not at all a truthful representation of what the opponent is expressing.
The words I used are words directly from Scripture. Thus, if I'm "attacking" people I don't know, how much worse for Paul who used them as well and influenced generations spanning thousands of years? The words used are accurate and appropriate words for the issue and the position I hold with regard to it. Your suggestion that my intention is malicious or malevolent with regard to a population that needs to hear the truth is a graceless and unChristian attack on me, and another example of disingenuous behavior on your part. So once again, I state emphatically, that while I regard the embrace of sexually immoral desires and the behaviors that are manifestations of them to be blatant and Biblical proven rebellion against God, my continued opposition is a greater example of love for "people I don't know" than is your enabling of their clearly and unambiguously sinful behavior.
To attack my character in this way demands that you provide proof of malicious intent on my part. If you wish to suggest as much with regard my opinion of your defense of this behavior, so be it. You'd be in a better position to chastise me. But to pretend that my position is an attack on the LGBT community is rank bullshit, unless to point out the sin of any sinner....murderer, thief, liar, adulterer, idolator...is the same sort of attack on "people I don't know". You would have me discuss a sin without calling it sinful. That's unmitigated absurdity.
You're not protecting anyone but yourself as you fail to successfully defend your enabling of that which God clearly and unambiguously prohibits. Thus, I once again, and as always, understand you perfectly.
"Well, it would depend on what Jesus meant by that, wouldn't it? Do you think he meant that literally or as hyperbole?"
No doubt literally. It reflects the concept that our best is like dirty rags to God. But it doesn't mean that people don't do good works now and then, or even routinely. But good works do not make us good. This is pretty basic stuff...Christianity 101, in fact.
We're 144 comments into a post with the simple statement: God loves immigrants. I've patiently tried to explain my position. We disagree. So be it.
You are welcome, Marshall, Craig, to think that Jesus meant that literally. In spite of reality, you are welcome to think that.
The reality is that people ARE good. Or rather, there ARE good people. I know them. I suspect the two of you are mostly good, most of the time.
The word has a meaning in English ("that which is morally right; of a favorable character; virtuous, right, commendable")... and there ARE people who are of a favorable character, who are virtuous and commendable. There ARE good people.
You are free to pretend that there aren't, but that goes against reality.
Or, you can make up new definitions of Good, but then, we aren't talking about Good, as it is normally understood, we're talking about this other idea (for now, let's call it Fundygood, how 'bout?)
But really, I don't know what else to say. This always comes down to you REALLY thinking I'm mistaken and me thinking you're clearly mistaken. And neither of us can prove it.
I offer you my reasons, but you don't accept them. So be it. I disagree with your reasons, too. And neither of us can prove our opinions (well, sometimes, I can... like Good literally DOES have a definition and there are literally good people out there, so Jesus literally could not have meant that, as we normally understand good.
Any way, I don't care to go too much further. I've explained myself.
What we know about God we learn from the Bible. To pretend that you could ever have the same "understanding" of God as you now have without the Bible informing you (or even any understanding for that matter) is nonsensical to an extreme degree.
Quite frankly, the older I get, the more I wonder if we wouldn't be better off/have a better understanding of God without the Bible.
I can imagine Jesus hearing discussions about "virgin birth" and blood sacrifices to appease an angry God and inerrancy and sola scriptura and opposition to people marrying and opposition to trans folk using the bathroom that matches their identity and on and on... I can imagine Jesus hearing all that and saying, "WTF, people?! WHERE did you get all that?! WHERE did I say ANY of that!!??"
What we imagine/reason our way to about God, we do using our reason. We are informed by creation, by human nature, by God's Word written upon our hearts, by our innate conscience, by the Holy Spirit (I believe) and yes, by the Bible, as well as other words of God written by all manner of people. The Bible does not limit knowledge of God to the Bible. it just doesn't, so it's an internally failing idea. The Bible does not teach "the Bible" as a sole source for authority on matters of faith and morality. It just doesn't.
I love the Bible and the teachings therein. I respect it, I read it, I strive to learn of God through its words. But, in the real world, to the degree we know anything about God, we learn it through a variety of sources. Thanks be to God for God's revelation.
Craig, I'll spend a little time answering your questions, but really, I don't know what point there is in going much further.
1. Can you prove that homosexual sexual activity is “good, pure, worthy, and all the rest of the adjectives on your list?
Prove it authoritatively? No. Not unless you count obvious observation of the joy and fulfillment that a healthy sexual relationship brings.
But I can certainly come closer to "proving" that than you can prove that God wants us to believe in Sola Scriptura or inerrancy.
2. You’ve spend months arguing that values are subjective, yet now you offer an article claiming that there are “universal” moral values.
I've argued that they are not provable. Or at least, we can't prove that God approves of this behavior and disapproves of that one, not authoritatively, not as a fact. We just can't. You can't. That hasn't changed.
But moral behaviors are pretty universal. No culture, no group of people wants to see their children killed. They recognize that killing innocent people is wrong. No group wants to see their stuff taken. They recognize the theft of material is wrong. No one wants to see their children or loved ones raped or harmed. This is basic universal stuff, from culture to culture.
See the difference? My position hasn't changed, you've just misunderstood. Hope that helps.
3. You realize that by insisting that there are things that God would “never” be, you’re once again placing yourself in judgement over God’s character and speaking for Him.
Again, you misunderstand. I'm speaking of basic reasoning.
IF God is a good God, wholly opposed to evil; and
IF raping a child is objectively bad/evil;
THEN God would NEVER rape a child or command someone to rape a child.
It's a rational impossibility. Like God CAN do anything... except those things that God can't/wouldn't do by virtue of God's nature.
Just like you can't have a round square.
Beyond that, I have no idea what idea it is you're citing, since you just offered a vague charge.
Hope that helps.
The point of going on is, as I've always believed, because issues between us remain unresolved...not simply that disagreement remains, but that certain realities are not acknowledged and in a manner that suggest falsehoods are perpetrated, intended or not, about one side or the other. Take your first statements since my last comment:
"We're 144 comments into a post with the simple statement: God loves immigrants. I've patiently tried to explain my position. We disagree."
I don't know that you can point to anything Craig or I have said that indicates we do not believe God loves immigrants. In fact, we have both, without question, boldly proclaimed that we believe God loves everybody (as a general rule at least, if not an absolute fact). Then:
"The reality is that people ARE good. Or rather, there ARE good people."
But the point is what Jesus meant when He said that there is none who are good except God. The reality is that we are sinful by nature and that means we are not "good". We are sinful, which is by definition, "NOT 'good'". For a Christian to take this as an insult is to reject Christ's meaning and the teachings of God found in Scripture. Sure, I know plenty of people that I personally regard as "good", but that is from a human perspective and relative to way too many other people. But as we are all imperfect and sinful by nature, no one is "good" in the sense Christ meant it. And yes, we can indeed know what He meant by that because of solid scholarship.
There is no altering of definitions here. There is only the altering of Christ's meaning. If He balks as someone referring to Him as "good", then obviously He isn't using the word, or referring to it, in the common sense that is no more than a comparison between craven, sin-natured human beings. He's referring to true goodness, which is only found in God. One would think a serious and prayerful student of Scripture would not have any problem with this simple to understand and easy to see concept. Rather than the insulting "Fundygood", it's really a matter of "progressive" distortion of the opposing, and more accurate, understanding of Christ's words.
"I offer you my reasons, but you don't accept them."
This, too, is not accurate, as we don't simply refuse to accept your reasons. We go into great detail as to why your reasons are unreasonable and therefore faulty, flawed , and without merit. If only we received the same consideration in return. Thus, that quote is more true and accurate if said by Craig or myself, than by you.
I wish to address the remaining comments but am out of time. Please allow me the opportunity as you've simply opened up new issues.
So, now your qualified to speak for God, and to dismiss or ignore Jesus by you deciding what He meant.
FYI, that 99% of people clearly doesn’t include Muslims.
140+ comments in and you still haven’t explained why you think you are qualified to paraphrase scripture and claim that paraphrase speaks for God.
But you have worked homosexual sex into the discussion, so that’s a win.
The Greek word Jesus used for Good was Agathos, which according to a Bible dictionary is defined...
of good constitution or nature
useful, salutary
good, pleasant, agreeable, joyful, happy
excellent, distinguished
upright, honourable
i.e., it's defined as Good, as it is in the English. Jesus didn't use a "special" word with a "different" meaning. He used the normal word to make a point. In fact, when he said to the rich young ruler, "Why do you call me Good, there is no one Good but God..." Jesus was referring to himself, and of course, Jesus was good!
Was Jesus making the literal point that there literally is no one who has a good constitution or nature, who is upright and honorable but God... not even HIM?! That'd be silly, don't you think?
And again, surely you know people who are good according to the Greek meaning of the word Good used by Jesus? Again, I seriously suspect that YOU are a good man, Marshall (albeit a perhaps argumentative one! Ha!)
In the context of the story, it would appear that Jesus is pointing out that no one is PERFECT but God alone, not that no one is good. And in the context of the story, why did Jesus want to make that point?
Jesus said to the man, "you know the commandments, right?" to which the man responded...
"All these I have kept since I was a boy...”
Dang! Clearly, this guy was acting/thinking as if he were perfect. Jesus was making the point here that the man was not PERFECT, not that the man was not good.
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
And the man, indeed, was not perfect. No one is. And no one is arguing that reality. But THAT is a different idea than saying that no one is good.
Again, agree or don't. That's the point I'm making.
As to your earlier...
I don't know that you can point to anything Craig or I have said that indicates we do not believe God loves immigrants.
I'm sorry if I was less than clear. I was not (NOT NOT NOT) saying that you and Craig disagreed with that notion. I was saying I've been making my points, explaining my positions on ALL these wide ranging points we've been talking about and on ALL these, you are welcome to agree or disagree. I can't prove to you one way or the other (again, beyond the points where I'm just talking about reality, like the definition of Good...) and you certainly can't prove your opinions about unprovable things.
Peace, Good Man Marshall.
“You are welcome, Marshall, Craig, to think that Jesus meant that literally. In spite of reality, you are welcome to think that.”
If, as you claim, it is “reality” that Jesus was using hyperbole, it shouldn’t be difficult to prove this claim. You won’t, but it shouldn’t be hard to prove it. (FYI, pointing out that you believe that people are “good” doesn’t in any way address your specific claim that Jesus was using hyperbole)
Not only are you incredibly inconsistent in your treatment of “arguments from numbers” depending on your need to use such arguments, but now you’re ignoring the fact that “No one is good...”, is a common thread through the entirety of scripture.
You’re selective, subjective standards are showing.
1. Do you can’t prove your claim about “gay marriage”, but you can offer your opinion about your observations, about the appearance of a few people you’ve watched and extrapolate from there to a blanket statement about “gay marriage”. And still can’t provide one positive or neutral scripture reference to homosexual acts.
2. I’ll have to go back and find the quotes later, but if I find a quote where you flatly claim morals are “subjective”, I expect you to acknowledge your attempt to dodge your past position. I also note that you’ve ignored the fact that “science” is clear that morality is “subjective and culture driven”.
3.
3a. So now your arguing for objective standards of evil and morality?
3b. You started this post by speaking for God, and have continued to do so. I’m sorry you’ve chosen to ingone the times it’s been pointed out until now.
Any time some random blogger, uses google to act like they have any degree of facility with Koine Greek, I pretty much skip right over whatever they say.
I love the “Jesus didn’t mean what He said argument”. It’s impressive how well you know Jesus’ very thoughts and intentions, and are able to decide what He REALLY meant. It’s almost like your Reason is some sort of mystical force.
May The Reason be with you.
If, as you claim, it is “reality” that Jesus was using hyperbole, it shouldn’t be difficult to prove this claim. You won’t, but it shouldn’t be hard to prove it.
In reality, I can't get inside Jesus' head to know the intent, so I'm not sure how you'd like me to prove that.
But, in reality, I've shown that the word literally means, "Good," in the same sense as our normal usage of the word. And I've shown in the text that Jesus appears to be talking about perfect, making the point that the man is not PERFECT. But Perfect is a different idea than Good.
And the same "throughout scripture" to the degree "no one is good" shows up, it almost certainly can't mean that no one is good, because Jesus was good and YOU are, I'm confident, a good man, Craig.
Are you saying you are NOT a good man? Are you suggesting that, worse than that, you are an evil man?
I don't know what is subjective about noting word definitions and usage, but you are certainly welcome to think that I'm subjective. Indeed, a good number of my beliefs ARE subjective and not provable, as is true for you, so, that's hardly a problem.
You started this post by speaking for God, and have continued to do so.
I started this post with a quote from the Bible, adopted to change the voice, but literally and specifically NOT speaking for God.
What is the difference between saying "And I heard the Lord say that God loves immigrants and wants us to love immigrants..." and saying, "I love immigrants, YOU should love immigrants..."? The message is the same, I just changed the voice from second person to first person.
The point is, it's a quote from the Bible, one that I BELIEVE reflects the notion of a Good and Loving God... and a point with which you do not disagree, so I really don't see why you're harping on a non-issue.
Your obstinance and argumentativeness notwithstanding, Craig, I'm certain you are a good man trying (somehow in all this, although I may not see why) to do good.
Keep it up (striving for good) but no need to belabor any points here.
Peace.
If, by the way, you are making the suggestion/confession that you are an evil man, then do you think it wise for me to continue to consult with an evil man?
By the way, I've not suggested/confessed nothing of the sort.
You made the claim, a very specific claim, a claim about "reality" (I'm assuming that "reality" is one thing you believe to be objective), I'm asking you to prove your claim. How you do so, isn't my problem. If you can't prove a claim you make, then perhaps you should think twice before you make the claim.
Yes, I can see that you're making the argument that Jesus used the word that means "good", but that He really didn't mean "good", He meant "perfect". Again, if you're going to make the claim that you know what Jesus meant something "different", then you should be able to demonstrate the accuracy of your claim.
Yet the concept does show up throughout scripture, and for you to use that argument as a way to bolster your paraphrase "from God" (which is really an argument from numbers), while dismissing it as being wrong when it comes to being "good", is simply one more instance of your inconsistent standards.
The difference between your paraphrase, and the actual quote, is that the actual quote gives specifics as to how that love is to be shown, while your paraphrase removes those. It's one of the rhetorical tricks you do, where you try to extrapolate from specifics (as in your above "proof" that "gay marriage" is good) into a broad vague general statement that you can pour any meaning your want into.
if you're going to make the claim that you know what Jesus meant something "different", then you should be able to demonstrate the accuracy of your claim.
Again, I did not claim to know what Jesus MEANT. I pointed out quite clearly, I have no ability to read Jesus' mind from 2000 years ago.
What I'm pointing out is the reality that what Jesus is speaking of in this story is perfection. Jesus took him at his word that he "did all these things" (i.e., followed those rules) since he was a child. And indeed, I suspect most of us do follow those basic rules to a large degree... Jesus was pointing out the man's pride and his lack of perfection, not that he was not good. In the story, that's what he's doing.
But again, if you think otherwise, that's fine. I disagree. You're welcome to disagree with me. I'm just pointing out what the story seems to be clearly saying and NOT saying, and clearly, to me, in the story, it is not saying literally that there is no one who is good at all.
Feel free to disagree.
As to the quote that started this out, you are welcome to disagree with my characterization of it. It's certainly not a direct literal quote. It's a quote that directly gets to the intent of the quote and if you disagree, well, you're welcome to do so.
Good luck.
So, by the way, are you saying you are or aren't a good man? You are or aren't an evil man?
If you want to answer anything else, please answer that. Otherwise, I think we're done.
Peace to you, Goodman Craig.
So, by the way, are you saying you are or aren't a good man? You are or aren't an evil man?
If you want to answer anything else, please answer that. Otherwise, I think we're done.
Peace to you, Goodman Craig.
Morality
1. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture,
2. In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong.
3. Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals.
4. Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals.
5. Conformance to a recognized code, doctrine, or system of rules of what is right or wrong and to behave accordingly. No system of morality is accepted as universal, and the answers to the question "What is morality?" differ sharply from place to place, group to group, and time to time
“What I'm pointing out is the reality that what Jesus is speaking of in this story is perfection”
If your truly speaking of actual “reality, then it should be easy to prove that claim”
“Jesus took him at his word that he "did all these things" (i.e., followed those rules) since he was a child.”
Or Jesus (The second person of the trinity, you know, God), knew that he was full of crap because no one follows even the 10 commandments perfectly.
Here’s the answer to your idiotic question.
I am a fallen, sinful human saved through the grace of Jesus death and resurrection, and because of that I am positionally good, perfect, and blameless. While that is the case, on a practical level I still fall short of Gods desires for me and rebel against God regularly.
Do I externally appear to be “good”, probably. If I was to compare myself to others, would I say I’m “good”, sure. Does every single bit of “good” I do count toward my salvation.
I’m not going to pridefully tout my goodness just to play your little game.
No game. If you're self identifying as an evil man, that might make me less likely to accept anything you say, because, how would that be rational? So, it's a reasonable question.
So, indeed, you are a good man, as I said. Keep up the good, then.
Peace.
Dan
Not only speaking for two of the three persons of the trinity, but speaking for me too. Impressive.
sigh. What are you speaking about, Craig?
It sounds like you continue to continue to misunderstand what I've said and done, so you misspeak in your claims about what I have done. But right here, I have NO idea of what you're speaking.
Regardless, good luck in life as you seek to understand others and, you know, words and stuff.
So anyway, picking up where I left off:
"Quite frankly, the older I get, the more I wonder if we wouldn't be better off/have a better understanding of God without the Bible."
No doubt you feel that way. No way would it be possible. Indeed, you would likely have no understanding that could possibly be close to what Scripture details. Even with Scripture as your guide you continue to prefer your own created god to the God of Scripture. Everything you say about Him...that is, about your being able to conceive of Him...you get from Scripture, without which it would be highly doubtful that you'd "hear" the heavens declare the glory of God. You might suppose there's a supreme being of some kind...perhaps a Zeus or Odin...but the God of Abraham? Not a chance.
"I can imagine Jesus hearing discussions about..."
Huh? "Jesus" who? The Mexican guy who mows your grass? How would you know there is a Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God without Scripture to inform you of it? Are you going to suggest that His existence would have been affirmed through the generations without also all that preceded Him just as Scripture now says it did? You're only imagining that which validates your current preferences as if it could actually shake down that way! It's wishful thinking at best, but total fantasy!
"What we imagine/reason our way to about God, we do using our reason. We are informed by creation, by human nature, by God's Word written upon our hearts, by our innate conscience, by the Holy Spirit (I believe) and yes, by the Bible, as well as other words of God written by all manner of people."
This is fiction...again, fantasy that is baseless except by your own desire that it be so. And look at how many people people are "informed by nature" that there is no god at all. What makes you think that without Scripture there wouldn't be a great many more atheists than there are now? What makes you think actual human nature would ever have been tamed to the extent it has without the Judeo-Christian tradition as taught by Scripture? It's an absurd suggestion.
"The Bible does not teach "the Bible" as a sole source for authority on matters of faith and morality. It just doesn't."
Uh...yes it does. Furthermore, the early church fathers absolutely believed in the concept of Sola Scriptura and thus went back to it when there was any issue to resolve regarding faith and morality. Thus, this comment:
"But, in the real world, to the degree we know anything about God, we learn it through a variety of sources."
...doesn't hold water given that for all those sources, what you think you learn from them is only an indirect revelation from Scripture. That is, those sources would teach you nothing about God had they not themselves received it from Scripture.
The benefit of all that is presented in the above links demonstrates one more thing very soundly and distinctly...that there is far more evidence of Scripture teaching it's own authority than any imagined support for either homosexuality or SSM.
"Or at least, we can't prove that God approves of this behavior and disapproves of that one, not authoritatively, not as a fact."
You can't hold this position while at the same time saying, "I love the Bible and the teachings therein. I respect it..." because it is through what is written in the Bible that we can indeed prove what behaviors please and/or displease God. As to the latter, such is usually preceded by something like, "Thou shalt not..." Pretty clear and unambiguous.
"But moral behaviors are pretty universal."
Not all of them.
"IF God is a good God, wholly opposed to evil; and
IF raping a child is objectively bad/evil;
THEN God would NEVER rape a child or command someone to rape a child."
Nobody here has ever suggested anything like this, except for you. I'm well aware why you do this...so that you can insist that other things that God has done can be said by you to have been invention by the authors, rather than accurate reporting by them...such as God destroying entire towns, women and children included, by human agency (His Chosen People). A command to rape a child is nothing at all like the command to totally annihilate an entire city because the people in it are wholly evil and have been trying God's patience for years. Thus, while the former would never happen, the latter DID happen without God's characteristics of love, justice, mercy, etc. suffering one iota...except in your own mind.
You are welcome to your opinions, Marshall.
Peace.
~Dan
You say this a lot, but it is a meaningless statement...except for how condescending it is. I've provided solid data to support my "opinion", and you've got squat and fantasy to support yours. Pretty lame.
You are welcome to think that you've provided solid data, Marshall. I think you are mistaken. Seriously mistaken.
What makes you think it isn't solid data? It answers your objection to the notion that the Bible makes no claims about Sola Scriptura, yet while the term isn't used, the concept to which it refers is clearly expressed over and over again by a variety of Biblical figures, most notably, Jesus Christ. It also clearly shows that it isn't a modern concept (only a few hundred years old) as so many early church fathers clearly demonstrated Scripture as the primary source of Christian understanding on faith and morality. So both of your objections are clearly shown to be in error. So in what way am I serious mistaken in light of these clear and unequivocal set of proofs?
the concept to which it refers is clearly expressed over and over again by a variety of Biblical figures, most notably, Jesus Christ.
And you are welcome to believe that if you want. I don't see it. I USED to see it, back when I was conservative and was taught it was there, but the more I looked into it, the less I saw what I thought I saw.
Confirmation bias, I imagine.
Nonetheless, you are more than welcome to believe it's there if you want. I disagree and think CLEARLY, it isn't there. It's not even hinted at and there's nothing there to make one think it if they didn't want to see it. Indeed, I would say that the Bible clearly teaches AGAINST Sola Scriptura.
But you disagree with that, and there we go.
Peace, Good (but mistaken) man Marshall.
~Dan
You’ve spoken for God the Father and God the Son, that’s the two thirds of the trinity, and you’ve tried to speak for me.
Usually, when you attribute your words to someone else, your speaking for them.
I’m sorry that term confused you.
I get that you THINK that is what has happened, but you are objectively, demonstrably wrong. It's a misinterpretation.
But you are welcome to think that is what has happened if you want.
Peace.
We learn best about God by using our flawed, imperfect, limited, human nature and Reason. Which leaves us with a “theology” that is subjective, individualistic, contradictory, with ourselves at the center. We’re the arbiters of what the “reality” of God is. Sounds like a great plan.
Ah, we must all bow before the mighty Reason of Dan.
Oh, you literally (in the literal sense of the word) paraphrased a snippet from a passage from a “myth”, and attributed your paraphrase to God. But that’s not speaking for God.
You literally (in the literal sense of the word) insist that you know the “reality” of Jesus meaning in the story of the rich ruler. You insist that despite Jesus using the word “good”, that He really meant “perfection” rather than “good”. But you insisting that you know the “reality”, isn’t speaking for Jesus.
You literally (in the literal sense of the word) decided that you were going to ignore my actual answer to your question, and replace it with the answer you liked better. Ergo, speaking for me.
Also, the more I think about it, the more your “Jesus was wrong” interpretation doesn’t fit the context of the story. Just like your paraphrase doesn’t fit the context of the myth of Deuteronomy 10, and your “God orderd rape” doesn’t fit the context of the rest of that passage either.
I’ll have to explore.
"And you are welcome to believe that if you want. I don't see it. I USED to see it, back when I was conservative and was taught it was there, but the more I looked into it, the less I saw what I thought I saw."
There are three possibilities here:
1. You need a new Bible because the ink has faded from the pages.
2. You need glasses.
3. You choose to ignore the obvious because it is inconvenient to do otherwise.
Let's see....where shall I place my wager?
Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, "It is written,ʺ which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. (http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf) This demonstrates that Jesus and the apostles regarded Scripture as the primary source, if not the sole source of teachings on faith and morality. All of my links, were you to actually read them, would provide you with the answer to your charge that the concept in not Scriptural. But simply because the Bible doesn't use the term "sola scriptura" or "trinity" or other such labels for concepts and teachings, doesn't mean Scripture doesn't teach it. With all I've provided, to dare suggest that it isn't even hinted is incredibly absurd, as clearly my links show more than mere hints, but enough for the concept labeled "Sola Scriptura" to be a perfectly logical conclusion. A fact, even.
And without proofs of your own, insisting the Bible "clearly teaches against" it is no more than another "Nyuh uh" argument, which has no value whatever.
Yet another option...
4. I DID used to believe as you do, but as I became less entangled with a conservative world view and less obliged to it, I was able to see more clearly that what was literally NOT THERE was literally not there... and that it was just my conservative allegiance to tradition that had set blinders upon me...
...and that you can't see it because you still have blinders upon you, making you able to see what literally isn't there.
Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal.
Jesus and the apostles DID regularly appeal to SCRIPTURE (not "the Bible"), but never did they refer to it or treat it as if it were a "final court of appeal..." THAT PART is your addition, not in the text nor demanded by the text.
Look, I regularly appeal to Scripture... which is to say, I regularly quote it and value its teachings. But merely quoting Scripture is not one and the same as saying, "AND THIS is the final 'court of appeal...'"
Do you see the difference?
I have appealed to Scripture way MORE than 90 times in our interactions together. Doesn't mean I'm suggesting it's a "final court of appeal." The mere citation of Scripture does not insist upon the interpretation that you are assigning it.
Do you see?
Jesus said "Consider the lilies of the field..." and "When evening comes, you say it will be fair weather for the sky is red..." and "look at the sparrows..." and probably dozens of other references to nature as a lesson on Truth. Does that mean he was citing nature as the final court of appeal?
The mere citation of a source, in and of itself, is not the same as calling it a "final court of appeal."
Hope that helps.
And while you are welcome to YOUR OPINION that "the Bible" is a final court of appeal, the Bible itself literally never teaches that. AND, if you ARE citing the Bible as the final court of appeal AND the Bible never says that, THEN your argument is self-defeating.
Hope that helps.
What’s more interesting Art, is that when Jesus etc were referring to scripture, the we’re referring to the Hebrew Scriptures which were codified by then. Referring to them as authoritative.
It’s clear that Dan believes that Jesus’ reference to Isiah at the beginning of His earthly ministry was authoritative, he demands that it mean that Jesus came to eliminate earthly poverty (which He didn’t even attempt to do on a large scale).
He even tells the teachers of the Law that they have everything they need to know already written on the Law and the Prophets.
It’s also clear, from an historical reality standpoint, that much of the NT was being circulated and regarded on an equal footing with the OT during the first century.
So, if you put aside quite a bit of reality, it becomes much more clear.
Of course arguing that paraphrasing a line from a myth, then attributing that directly to God, while denying the authority of the... oh hell it doesn’t matter.
Referring to them as authoritative.
That literally did not happen. Calling them "authoritative" is what YOU are doing, not anything that Jesus did. You can't support this with anything beyond your opinion.
Understand that reality?
Beyond that, it's one level of credibility to refer to an idea or source as "authoritative." It's another level of credibility to say, "This source is THE SOLE and FINAL arbiter of matters of faith and morality/practice..."
Jesus no doubt considered the Scriptures AN authority. Jesus never, however, called them the SOLE authority or the Final Arbiter.
Didn't happen.
Understand that reality?
"4. I DID used to believe as you do, but as I became less entangled with a conservative world view and less obliged to it, I was able to see more clearly that what was literally NOT THERE was literally not there... and that it was just my conservative allegiance to tradition that had set blinders upon me..."
Bull. I am not "entangled" with a conservative world view. Once again, you have no idea of what it means to be a conservative, and thus you never were conservative simply because you opposed homosexuality at one time, or because you had some superficial similarity to what conservatives support or oppose.
And it literally IS there as my links clearly prove. Jesus is free to say what He wants and in doing so is God speaking to us. The same is clear of the apostles once the Holy Spirit endowed them with similar qualities. After they were gone, no new revelations from God have come down to us and all their words that have been recorded join OT Scripture in their being part of that "final court of appeal", that subsequent church fathers followed in the same manner.
When Christ and others make appeals to Scripture, they do not follow up with anything more than an explanation of what they cited, further clarifying it for the listener. But they don't appeal to anything else as you suggest they do. They simply don't.
"I have appealed to Scripture way MORE than 90 times in our interactions together. Doesn't mean I'm suggesting it's a "final court of appeal." The mere citation of Scripture does not insist upon the interpretation that you are assigning it.
Do you see?"
I see that once again you're placing yourself on equal footing with Christ and the apostles. That YOU don't regard it as the final court of appeals is meaningless to whether or not it should be by you or anyone else.
"And while you are welcome to YOUR OPINION that "the Bible" is a final court of appeal, the Bible itself literally never teaches that."
I've shown that the Bible literally does indeed literally teach that. You simply reject what you do not wish to believe, because you think you know better. It's really a very arrogant, prideful position for you to take to subordinate, or even equate, Scripture with anything for determining faith and morality.
No, Marshall. You haven't.
You are welcome to think that the Bible says what you just said it "literally does..." but it literally doesn't.
We're done.
So you're returning to the "nyuh uh" argument, I see.
No. I'm pointing out the reality that the text literally does not say what you think it says.
It does not say "final court of appeal." Literally nowhere.
It literally does not teach that. At all. Literally not there. No where.
If you think it does, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that it does.
But remember that just because you say, "Uh huh! It does TOO say it... it suggests it in a way that no one else can think anything else..." doesn't make it so.
~Dan
It doesn’t have to say what you demand it must in order for it to teach what it does. That scholars apply a term or title to a concept is irrelevant to whether or not the concept is rightly and accurately recognized as existing in fact. Your objection to this is absurd and requires something more than that to have any real merit.
Your respinse to my "nyuh uh" comment is rank childishness because I've actually provided "hard data" and evidence to support my position and from which is provoked the sound and logical conclusion the Scripture clearly teaches the concept known now labeled "Sola Scriptura".
So...what hard data and evidence can you bring to bear that counters that which I've provided in support of SS? Anything at all, or just "nyuh uh"?
Marshall, I've not seen the first bit of hard data from you supporting your point. I'll give you one chance to do so. Give me your one best bit of hard data that insists upon AS.
You can't do it.
Dan
I've given you 3 or more links filled with hard data in response to your erroneous position that the Bible does not teach SS. I'm now forced to assume you mistyped "AS", or have changed the subject.
I looked. I saw nothing. So, if you want to make your case, provide one bit what YOU think is hard data. Or resign the discussion.
Dan
What do you mean you saw "nothing"??? There are dozens of verses listed!! You're just being obstinate and petulant. What's more, you could instead have been providing data of your own that you believe makes your case or destroys mine. Instead, you falsely pretend amongst all I've brought to bear you see nothing. I don't believe you've even looked at any of the links or you wouldn't be asking me to provide again what I've already provided in spades.
Besides, you want "one bit" of data?? It's the totality of all I've provided that makes the case, and you think asking for one bit allows you a better opportunity to dismiss it BECAUSE it stands alone. Who do you think you're kidding?
Marshall, they said things like, "Jesus cited 'scripture' 100 times, therefore, he was demanding Sola Scriptura..." but citing Scripture is not the same as demanding Sola Scriptura. Like that, on and on, for each of their "supports" for SS.
That isn't hard data, it's wishful thinking. It's reading a line and saying, "THAT MUST MEAN, then,...." when the line does not insist what they're reading into it.
It's a reading into Scripture something you want to find, not something that is literally there.
It's like you mistakenly accuse me all the time of doing, like with reading "Whatever things are good, pure, noble, loving, etc, think on these things..." as an obvious support for supporting gay folk getting married. That verse, to me, suggests that conclusion. BUT, I fully recognize that it doesn't overtly say what I conclude. At all. It is an extrapolation.
BUT, I recognize it as such.
These people are extrapolating out meanings that are not insisted upon. That is not "hard data." It's wishful thinking.
So, provide ONE BIT of actual hard data (a passage that DOES insist that the author is teaching SS, even if it doesn't use those terms...) to support your claim or admit that you can't. Or just quit commenting.
Ball's in your court, but any responses that do not provide hard data support, a verse (or a few verses) that DEMANDS/insists upon SS will be deleted.
Do you understand the reality that Jesus never appealed to Reason? Yet he appealed to scripture multiple times.
Holy shit! Jesus never appealed to reason?
Do you really think so?
Dayum. That might explain a lot!
Of course, Jesus appealed to reason. Just to grab a few quick examples from the beginning of Jesus' ministry from Luke...
“Which is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?”
That is making a rational argument for explaining himself and his authority. It is an appeal to reason.
“They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick...”
That is making a rational argument, an appeal to plain ol' reason that, OF COURSE, Jesus is going to "the sinners," because it is the sick who need doctors.
It's an appeal to reason.
“Can you make the children of the bride chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?”
When Jesus' disciples were being criticized for "eating and drinking," he appealed to reason, "why wouldn't the wedding party be celebrating when the groom is with them!"
“Is it lawful to do good or evil on the Sabbath? To save life, or destroy it?”
When the Pharisees were questioning Jesus' healing someone, he appeals to reason? OF COURSE, he is saying, it's moral, lawful and even good to DO good on the Sabbath!
Just for a quick starter.
Of course, Jesus appealed to reason. Repeatedly. Demonstrably.
Why wouldn't he? Are you suggesting that God is opposed to our God-given reasoning?
Do you now understand the reality that Jesus literally did appeal to reason?
Jesus also appealed to nature. Repeatedly.
"Consider the lilies of the field..." "consider the birds of the air..." "The farmer cast his seeds out and some fell upon rocky soil, some upon good soil, etc..."
But the mere presence of appeals to this or that are not evidence, in and of themselves, that these are the Sole Authority, the Final Arbiter or the Only Source for making decisions about faith and practice.
Understand? Agree with that reality?
From John 10...
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—
what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?
Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.
Here, we see that even when he appeals to Scripture, he also appeals to reason.
IF this, as found in Scripture,
then reasonably, THIS TOO, makes sense...
...using our reason, to which he appealed.
He also appealed (interestingly) to the evidence of good works, as if those good works said something themselves about the ontological nature of Jesus.
Hm.
Nice try, I’ll give you that. Even if I was to grant you that Jesus was (as you suppose) appealing to Reason. He certainly Isn’t appealing to a limited, flawed, human reason, but rather a second person of the trinity reason, no comparison.
Using examples from the nature He created is hardly “appealing”, to nature. But again, points for creativity.
I’m sorry that the fact that Jesus frequently, consistently, and readily appealed to scripture, seems so elusive to you. I’m especially sorry that you’re attachment to your Reason is so strong and that your focus is on yourself.
1. Re the “your sins are forgive.,,walk” passage. Let’s not forget what the context was, it was a response to those who accused Him of violating the Sabbath, the point wasn’t to “Reason”which of those two options was more effective, it was to point out that Jesus had authority over the Sabbath as well as the power to forgive sins. It was a claim of deity, not a debate question.
2. Yes, Jesus works (miracles) did indeed make a claim about His ontological nature, unfortunately His ontology is significantly different from ours.
But trying to compare Jesus miracles to what you do is impressive.
"Here we see that even when he appeals to Scripture, he also appeals to reason."
Here we see that He appeals to Scripture from which reason is drawn...if you insist on ignoring reality. There is no reason without first pointing to what Scripture says, after which He's really just expounding on the Scriptural passage to which He appealed. Any way you try to slice it, He's still indicating the authority and primacy of Scripture.
Indeed, you can't reason on mayters of faith and morality without first appealing to Scripture. Not as a Christian.
Are we done, here? Marshall, are you going to answer the question left to you?
Because you all are welcome to your hunches, you just can't expect me to validate what seems like nonsense to me.
Jesus doesn't appeal to reason. Damn, boys. What we gonna do with you?
Peace.
Bow before Dan’s Reason.
What question specifically, Dan? Please copy and paste it. But know this...there is one of the many questions you've put out that is not answerable in a manner that reflects reality, but instead forces the answer you demand for your own satisfaction, rather than a sincere desire to understand. I don't do that to you.
So, provide ONE BIT of actual hard data (a passage that DOES insist that the author is teaching SS, even if it doesn't use those terms...) to support your claim or admit that you can't. Or just quit commenting.
Ball's in your court, but any responses that do not provide hard data support, a verse (or a few verses) that DEMANDS/insists upon SS will be deleted.
OK. I'll pull up several for you that do exactly that when I'm at home (though it may take a day or two), and then you can go ahead and pretend they don't without any more explanation than you asserting they don't, as you've been doing this whole time.
Post a Comment