Craig over at another blog recently posted some questions in my general direction and I've answered them. I thought it might be instructive to the previous posts to re-post those answers here. He asked questions about the idea of what our human nature is like.
Does our nature determine our actions, or do our actions determine our nature?
Both. We are who we are. I may be, by nature, a naturally lazy or ungrateful or ungenerous person... or at least tend towards those attitudes. However, if I - in spite of what I may think my nature is - start being a harder worker, or more grateful towards others or more generous... then I become a hard working, grateful and generous person. IF I am working hard, then whatEVER my "nature" might be, I AM a hard worker and not lazy. If I decide that it's important to give and start giving to good causes (in time and money), then i AM a generous person. So, ultimately, our actions determine our nature, but I'd say it's some of both.
And I'd state that based on all the evidence we see. Further, there is research that says that, even if we don't think of ourselves as generous (for instance), if we start giving, we develop more of a giving nature.
It's like that old parable: There are two wolves within us. One is evil and one is good. Those wolves are fighting. And which wolf wins the fight? The one we feed.
2. Can you really, accurately, objectively determine a person’s nature based on subjective observations of part of a person’s public actions?
I don't know that we can objectively determine a "person's nature" but I think we can REASONABLY and generally ACCURATELY determine a person's nature based on observation.
It's POSSIBLE that a truly evil person can keep evil intentions hidden from friends and observers all around over time, but the odds of it truly being hidden, in spite of evidence of a good life, are ridiculously small. I'd say, along with Jesus, that one can recognize them by their fruit/by their actions. A good tree, Jesus said, will bear good fruit and that is observable.
Is a “good” deed done for a “bad” motive really qualify as “good”?
My short answer: No.
My slightly longer answer: I would say that it would truly depend. The question is too vague and not enough data is available. Generally speaking, I'd be suspicious of good deeds done for a bad motive.
Can the same action be good or bad depending on the circumstances or motivation?
Yes, I think so.
If we’re defined only by our actions, then what’s the magic number to be considered “good”?
There is no magic number.
No one is arguing that a person that we observe who is "reasonably good..." i.e., the saints we all have in our lives... people who are consistently patient and kind and helpful and loving to people - especially the down and out and marginalized, and with no obvious immoral actions - No one is arguing that such a person is PERFECTLY good. I'm just saying that, given the fruit of one's life and especially over time, you can recognize good people by their fruit.
Perfectly good? No, of course not. REASONABLY good. Yes, of course.
++++++
Those were my answers to his questions. My questions to him went unanswered.
What I've asked are questions like...
1. We all have those saintly people in our lives - people we recognize as good, who are, over time, consistently helpful, patient, kind, loving, grace-full, welcoming and who have no huge obvious misbehaviors in their actions - or at least, I do. Do you have people in your life who you recognize as obviously good people?
2. Given the evidence of Good People in the world, do we have any reason to suspect that they're NOT good, for some reason?
3. I recognize that some Calvinist types may say that by Good, they mean Perfect, i.e., without sin, like God. But that is not the standard definition of Good. Using the commonly understood, standard definition of Good, do we have any reason to suspect that no Good people exist?
4. What would be your argument for that? Do you recognize that this sounds crazy on the face of it to many - perhaps most people?
80 comments:
"Does our nature determine our actions, or do our actions determine our nature?"
Not "both". How we feed the wolf means our nation determined our actions either way. I freely admit to others that I'm naturally a lazy guy, would love nothing better than to while away the hours in a hammock. But laziness is an unacceptable state of being so I "act" to dispel any notions about me being a lazy guy. Few regard me as lazy because I work to contradict that notion. Yet, I'm still, by nature, lazy. In a sense, a more influential aspect of my nature is to appear to others to be a better man than I am. It determines my actions. If I allow my laziness to manifest, my actions reflect my true nature. Sometimes my laziness does manifest. So either way, our nature determines our actions. There are no habits I can develop that have ever proven to overcome completely my nature. Times come when my nature will attempt to force itself to the fore and I must be ever vigilant.
"2. Can you really, accurately, objectively determine a person’s nature based on subjective observations of part of a person’s public actions?"
The correct answer is, "no". We can only determine what a person chooses to project to us. We can, for example, know that a person is generous in their habits. We can't know how much effort the person puts forth to be generous. It's enough for me to know that a person appears to be generous. I don't need to know that he forces himself to be, or has to think about it lest he never does anything. I can still consider him generous regardless.
"I'd say, along with Jesus, that one can recognize them by their fruit/by their actions. A good tree, Jesus said, will bear good fruit and that is observable."
As I explained earlier, you're corrupting this concept. He's referring, in essence, to Christians. Christians act a certain way. They make a conscious effort to act according to Christ's teachings. For some, certain behaviors come easier. For others, they exert great effort to overcome their sin natures. The former aren't without sin natures. Neither have eliminated them. Christ has atoned for them.
So, all you're doing is recognizing what they aspire to be, not necessarily what they are.
More coming now...
"Is a “good” deed done for a “bad” motive really qualify as “good”?"
Yes. A good deed is a good deed regardless of the motivations behind it. The question is the motivation. One can judge the motivation as wicked, while still insisting the deed is good. If you save a life because that life saved can serve your evil purposes, you've still saved a life. That's a good deed regardless.
"I'm just saying that, given the fruit of one's life and especially over time, you can recognize good people by their fruit. "
Of course, you're speaking in human terms, by human standards of what constitutes "good". That's perfectly fine for dealing with worldly things.
"Perfectly good? No, of course not. REASONABLY good. Yes, of course."
Again, "good" by human standards. Not a problem when dealing with the earthly realm.
To your questions:
1. Again, "good" by human standards. Not a problem when dealing with the earthly realm.
2. Again, "good" by human standards. Not a problem when dealing with the earthly realm. But by the standard Christ put forth, it would not be a "suspicion" that no one is good. It would be a statement of fact. So by which standard are you speaking? That's rhetorical because I know you insist that Christ's/God's standard must be identical to our earthly, worldly human standard. Too bad that's not the case.
3. Here, you're just restating the obvious. The "commonly understood" definition is the human standard, by which it is perfectly fine to regard some people as good.
4. It is only "crazy sounding" to those uneducated in theological matters, and to others like yourself who reject the sound, clear teaching of Scripture. To the former, the important distinction between the spiritual and the worldly must be explained clearly, and upon learning, the concept isn't the least bit crazy. Indeed, it's quite clear and reasonable. We're not God. We're nothing like Him. We're only created in His image, not as if we're clones. There is much we can never fully understand...at least while we still live in the world.
So, in this post and the last one, it seems to come down to this for you, Marshal:
1. You AGREE that TO HUMANS (i.e., you and me), we can agree that there ARE good people in the world. This really isn't in debate, by human understandings of Goodness, there ARE good people in the world. You agree to that.
2. AND YET, you hold an OPINION - one that you flatly can't prove in the real world - that, IN YOUR OPINION, you think that God made up a different definition of Good. For God (you think, in your human opinion that you absolutely can not prove), that God defines Good as "god" or "perfect." You have no reason to think this other than YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of passages in the Bible that YOU TAKE TO MEAN that this is what God is doing.
3. And as stated, you flatly absolutely can't prove it. It's just a wild ass hunch based on YOUR hunches about how YOU want to interpret some passages and the meaning that YOU are assigning those passages.
4. And thus, TO YOU, God thinks that we are all "not god," and thus, all "not good," and thus, being less than god means that you deserve to be tortured for an eternity.
5. And this IS crazy-sounding, monstrous-sounding EVEN to someone like me who IS educated in theological matters and who does NOT "reject the sound clear teaching of Scripture," only YOUR HUNCHES about theology. So, on that point, you are again, flatly wrong and flatly unable to prove your false claim, given that it is a false claim.
I will give you this, Marshal: At least you have the courage to put out there your crazy and monstrous-sounding hunches and answer questions in a relatively clear and relatively direct manner. So, good for you for that. Stan and Craig and many others can't stand up under direct reasonable questions to insane theories, but you'll just answer and stand by the crazy.
But, that doesn't help you when your theories about your monstrous and unjust god are not provable or rational or consistent with justice and goodness and love and grace.
I get that's not a problem for you. You just redefine goodness to be "not perfect" and justice to be "unjust" and go with your human traditions and theories.
But unless you can come up with some proof to support your theory that Good should be defined as "God," or "perfect" and that it's reasonable and just to punish someone to an eternity of torture for the "sin" of being imperfect, even if they are nominally good "as humans understand it," you've answered all you need to answer.
So, don't bother commenting further UNLESS and UNTIL you come up with some answer to the demand to prove objectively that Good should be defined as God or Perfect and that it is reasonable and just to punish someone for an eternity for being imperfect.
Thanks for your answers, crazy and unsupported as they are.
I will just offer this in closing, Marshal... consider this conversation with a flat earther:
FE: The earth is a flat square.
Everyone Else: ? But we can see that the earth is a globe, and not flat and earth.
FE: But the Bible refers to the "four corners of the earth," thus, the earth MUST be a flat square.
EE: But that passage is clearly metaphorical/figurative.
FE: Prove it.
EE: Look at video of the earth from space. The earth IS demonstrably a globe.
FE: That's only according to HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. But God makes clear that the earth is a flat square when God referred to the four corners of the earth.
EE: But why wouldn't you take it as figurative?
FE: Why wouldn't you prove it is SUPPOSED TO BE figurative?
EE: BECAUSE, we can see that the earth is not a flat square, but that it's a globe.
FE: Maybe, to human understanding. But our understanding is flawed and God's ways are different than ours. Thus, unless you can prove that the earth is a globe, we should take the language literally when God called the earth a flat square.
EE: But, we can PROVE that the earth is not a flat square by just looking at the globe and observational science.
FE: Again, that's just according to human understanding.
EE: Do me a favor: Go take a long hike and fall off this flat square earth.
Your reasoning is irrational and question begging/flawed. You make assumptions and then refer to those assumptions as if they are proof.
They're not.
Ah! Deleting comments you can't possibly rebut, I see. Typical cowardice.
Marshal, I don't know how else to tell you this: Merely stating "Mark 10:18" is NOT in any way proof that Jesus defined Good to be God. Nor is it proof that Jesus defines Good to be Perfect.
In fact, in Mark 10, what you have is the story of the rich man who Jesus demonstrates not to be "good" because he valued his money more than giving to the poor and following Jesus. In that case, he's making the point about where the rich man's values lay, NOT redefining Good.
Jesus in Matthew 12 says " The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good," so clearly, he recognized that there were good people and it was related to their behavior.
So, merely citing one verse (or several) is not "proof" that YOU are reading it correctly.
Beyond that, merely citing one or several lines from ANY book is not proof, in and of itself, that you are looking at all the data correctly. Indeed, if one is citing ONE book as their "proof" about something as vague and unprovable as "the nature of humans" is exposing themselves as not open to the data that may support or diminish their argument.
You DO recognize that the notion of "human nature" is debatable and not provable, don't you? Great thinkers have had opinions about it forever and no one has proven anything. We have theories.
Your theory, sadly, rests upon you saying "Here's a verse" as if that was the end all and be all of understanding or knowledge or data.
Now, once again, IF you have some PROOF to offer that supports your human hunch that all humans are "not good" by which you mean all humans are not God and "God" is the demonstrably "right" way to define Good, offer it.
But it's not going to be the mere citing of a verse.
Do you understand what it means to prove something?
So, any PROOF you have will be considered. But not merely you asserting, "I think this therefore it is."
Jesus is not making a claim in Mark 10:18. He is repeating back to the rich man a customary tenet of Pharisaical Judaism. YOU believe no one is good, rich man, because if only god is good that lets you off the hook. So, what will it be today? Will you choose to be good and follow me, or not? The rich man couldn’t get off the hook like the disciples. So Jesus was sad. Jesus, by his testing and reaction, affirms that people can be good.
You, too, Marshal, want to be off the hook for your brutalizing behavior. Won’t happen.
"Other seed fell into the good soil, and grew up, and produced a crop a hundred times as great." As He said these things, He would call out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Good points, Feodor.
And it's interesting that Marshal, et al, are wanting to take "there is no one good but God" as a literal definition (even though, literally, Jesus was not doing that in his words), but ignore or make figurative the point about it being a wealthy man that Jesus was talking about.
There just is no consistency or reasoning about when they take a verse literally and when they make it figurative. It's all based on the whimsy of "well, I THINK it is literal here, but figurative there...)
I think reading Ancient Scripture is altogether a task of interpreting the literal and the figurative. They are written texts - written by writers - and so almost everything of importance - person, place, thing - is both literal and multi-figurative. Jerusalem is both literal and figurative of heaven/peace/divine reign. The fig tree is both literal and a figure of natural law of goodness/blessing. Jesus himself is literal and figurative, flesh and spirit, incarnate. He is the promise given to Abraham and Sarah; he is David's heir and greater summation; he is a priest and king in the order of Mechizedek. He is the morning star. The logos.
We are reading language and language cannot be literal without being figural and cannot be figural without being literal. The literal sound of the word has zero basis in reality, unless it figures something held to be true. The symbolism of all words have zero efficacy unless they have literate signification of a tangible reality in human experience.
The rich man in Mark 10 is both literal and figurative of the ontologically immoral trap of riches and figurative of the choice before the human heart.
The a priori question for the Christian reader - and where you and I have made conscious choices before us to follow the living Christ - is how does one wield the Tradition of Christian faith when one reads and interprets: is Tradition old, sacrosanct dogma? The script "word"? Is Traditon the dead faith of the living? As it is for Marshal and Craig and Stan.
Or is Tradition the living faith of the dead? Faith passed on for our living, our need, our times, our reading ourselves into Scripture since we are, after all, made in the image and likeness of God. Has not made us good? And ready? Of course he has; of course we are. We are the body of Christ.
In short, then feo, what your affirming is your (and Dan's)now well-known habit of interpreting according to your own desires about what and who you want God to be.
Whether you want to regard the verse, or the little story the passage relates, as literal or figurative is in this case wholly irrelevant to the point of what Christ meant when He said, "no one is good but God alone".
As such, Dan, feo's points were nonsensical. This is especially true given his inane suggestion that for me to accept that only God is good gets me "off the hook". I've actually and clearly said just the opposite in fact. Since only God is good, I am now "ON the hook" and in need of Christ because of it.
No commentary I've read thus far (a couple dozen, or close to it) have come close to interpreting the verse as feo does, who isn't nearly as bright as he so desperately strives to make us all believe. These commentaries, by people with actual knowledge and understanding, derived from a desire for the truth rather than to pretend they're smarter than everyone else, all support the understanding I inferred by a simple reading. Their take affirms the truth that only God alone is truly good, as well as the suggestion by Christ's words that the rich man did not as yet recognize Christ as God. Said another way, if Christ was merely a prophet, rabbi or just a man, the term could not truly be applied to Him because only God is good.
In acknowledging these facts, it in no way dismisses or ignores to whom Christ was addressing, as if the dude's financial status mattered to the response. It does not. Not in the least, regardless of how badly Dan wishes to make everything about "the evils" of wealth.
The "whimsy" is all yours. Neither of you have yet to support the notion that a legitimate alternative interpretation exists other than what I've been defending. Neither of you have any more agenda in that regard but to insist I'm wrong in stating the obvious with regard to this verse or to either of you. But your constant assertions about me, my character or my understanding of Scripture does not amount to a case for YOUR opinions, none of which you've actually presented with regard to this verse. That is, if it doesn't mean what I say it means, then what does it mean and how do you support that opposing position? I know you're not into expressing and defending your alternative beliefs, but it would be a nice change if you did so here...for once.
By the way, I don't need your opinions about the character or works of those you regard as "good". That doesn't mitigate a thing with regard to Christ's clear and unambiguous statement, "no one is good but God alone".
No, Marshal. This is where your ignorance of Christianity crippled you. You’re ascribing to me a radical protestant tradition that every single person can read scripture for themselves to live by. This is why there is such a proliferation of Calvinist protestant sects. Also why Calvin’s governance of Geneva was so brutal.
I belong to an ordered denomination whereby bishops and priests, deacons, and lay people govern together in convention and reason out theologically as a corporate body. In other words, catholically.
You’ve got it completely backwards. As usual.
No, feo. I'm ascribing to you that which you've proven...that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
"I belong to an ordered denomination whereby bishops and priests, deacons, and lay people govern together in convention and reason out theologically as a corporate body."
Two problems here:
1. You depend upon numbers to validate your goofy opinions of what Scripture means. It's very similar to Dan presuming his position is held by "most" people, though no polling numbers are ever given. So, your "ordered" denomination...assuming it exists in reality rather than in your fevered imaginings, don't hold sway, because...
2. There's very little in your history on the blogs that suggest you understanding the positions of your own denomination. Like Dan, your expressed opinions don't demonstrate a lick of sense or understanding, and thus to presume you understand what your denomination believes is absolutely suspect.
What's more, you appeal to your "ordered" denomination doesn't in the least bit stand as an argument against my position, much less an argument at all. Epic Failure, thy name is "feodor".
1. “You depend upon numbers to validate your goofy opinions of what Scripture means.“
No one person is the body of Christ. The ekklesia is. Scripture tells us thus. Interpretation of scripture should be done by the worshipping body of Christ as led by those with the spiritual gift of intellectual reason.
This is what the Church knows.
You, Marshal, by your brutal refusal to be led, have put yourself outside the theologically contemplative, worshipping ekklesia, the body of Christ.
2. And you are certainly ignorant of sacramental christian practice, such as the Anglican communion - which holds everything I’ve ever communicated - and the theological practice that rises from sacramental practice like that of the Anglican Communion, the Roman church, and Orthodoxy.
Craig is basically telling Marshal that many human beings are good. But no one is a god.
Boy, Craig is sharp as tacks.
No. Craig isn't telling me that at all, not basically or otherwise. Here's a helpful hint: Since you aren't anywhere near as bright as you think you are...evidenced by your routine failure to provide any reason to suppose otherwise...seek clarification before providing more evidence confirming that fact. In the meantime, I'll correct more of your evidence of your dimness:
"No one person is the body of Christ...etc"
Not at all the point. First, you have no intellectual reason. You have an arrogant yet baseless belief you should be counted among those who do. Secondly, you're appealing to a population to affirm your false understanding, as if the more who feel as you do, the more likely you're correct in your understanding. But if you want to play that game, you still lose given how my position is supported by thousands of years of traditional understanding and the many throughout that time who aligned with it. In any case, your "ekklesia" hasn't seen fit to apprise you of an actual understanding of "no one is good but God alone" that contradicts mine. Dan say, "Nyuh uh" and you back it up with "I know lots of people". Neither gets the job done.
"This is what the Church knows."
You've proven you don't know the church. You know the heretics and apostates who contradict the clear and obvious revelation of God's word as recorded in Scripture.
"You, Marshal, by your brutal refusal to be led, have put yourself outside the theologically contemplative, worshipping ekklesia, the body of Christ."
So you say, but haven't proven in the least. And as you've proven since you first soiled the blogosphere years ago, you're not the least bit capable in that regard.
" And you are certainly ignorant of sacramental christian practice...,"
...again, not that you've ever proven in the least.
"...such as the Anglican communion - which holds everything I’ve ever communicated..."
So, the Anglican communion holds that you're an arrogant and condescending ass without facts, truth and reason to justify the attitude? Wow. That's all you've ever communicated in all those sorry years you've been posting. You haven't communicated anything that's true...about Christianity or anything else. So, the point still stands...Christ meant literally that "no one is good but God alone". Your job, should you or Dan find the spine to accept it, is to bring forth evidence FROM SCRIPTURE (since it what Scripture teaches us that is the basis for this discussion on this topic) that Christ meant something else. I'll wait while you once again fail.
Sorry, Marshal, I lost track of how you lost track of what you’re saying. Is it:
A. “your now well-known habit of interpreting according to your own desires about what and who you want God to be.”
or
B. “You depend upon numbers to validate your goofy opinions of what Scripture means.”
Can’t be both, Mr expert on reason.
Here’s Craig telling Marshal that we can be good bit not god [duh]:
“You talk about comparing our good with God's good and how short we fall. So true. I think that's the problem. One way to put it is our standard of good by which we say, "People are basically good" is a human, "soft" standard.”
I really don't understand this line of thinking of Craig's and cannot get him to define it anything but the loosest and most vague terms.
We ARE humans. Why would we not use our human understanding of good to help us understand Good? What other standards are we going to use? Non-human?? How do we do that?
And before they answer "God's understanding of goodness..." they need to understand that their appeals to God's goodness are in fact their appeals to THEIR human understanding of God's goodness. God's goodness is what is in question.
They are begging the question when they say "God's goodness is different because it's God's goodness and it's different." It's circular reasoning and it goes without any support... No matter how much you press the moment.
Questions just go unanswered.
As you say, because god’s goodness is just a tenet of faith based on a statement in ink on a page, then god’s goodness is nothing more than a category, a self-referential claim (circular), the truth of which is satisfied merely by narratives of life, and therefore has nothing of actual life.
This is the result of bible idolatry. God is only a few strokes, a mark. Christ is a only an uttered word in English. Dead, never even having lived. Incapable of resurrection, because it is only a produced thing.
A party that has four and now perhaps five candidates of color, five or six? women, one of whom leads in the polls, and the only party in which absolutely no candidate could survive a day calling a woman candidate ugly.... is the racist/sexist party?
A party that won 88% of the black vote in 2016 is the racist party?
Craig is fucked in the head. And he hates the humanity of black people.
How could he possibly recognize what is good?
"We ARE humans. Why would we not use our human understanding of good to help us understand Good? What other standards are we going to use? Non-human?? How do we do that?"
I no longer think you're missing the point. I think you're consciously dodging it. The difference is between how we use the term "good" versus how Christ did in Mark 10:18. By His standard, "good" means something the human being can never attain. That's not problematic at all, but a mere statement of fact...a fact Christ Himself tells us exists. That doesn't prohibit us from using the term to apply to some humans relative to other humans. Why this simple concept is too difficult for you to acknowledge can only, in my opinion, be due to those "good people" you know being flawed in some way you don't wish to acknowledge as counter to Christian teaching...even if that flaw is ONLY their sin nature.
By His standard, "good" means something the human being can never attain. That's not problematic at all, but a mere statement of fact...a fact Christ Himself tells us exists.
1. You're still begging the question. Do you not understand that?
The question is: Jesus said "there is no one good but God..." did he mean that literally... that literally there are no good people?
To answer THAT question with "We know that is what he meant because that's what he said..." is question begging. What is your PROOF or SUPPORT that he meant it literally? According to you, sometimes Jesus says somethings that are figurative ("Woe to you who are rich" for instance) and you're correct that Jesus uses figurative language. So, in THIS case, how do you know he is not speaking figuratively... hyperbolically, for instance? SUPPORT.
2. "By His standard, "good" means something the human being can never attain."
God created us as imperfect. As Not God. We can never attain perfection or being God. That point, I think we can agree on. Now, answer the question: How is it moral, reasonable, just and just plain NOT insane to say that a perfect, just, loving God will condemn creatures that god created as imperfect to an eternity of torture for the "crime" of being imperfect, just the way that God made us?
That's a monstrous thing to say about a god. it's a description of an ancient, insane terrorist god, not a good and loving God.
Do you not understand that?
Marshal: “ I no longer think you're missing the point. I think you're consciously dodging it.”
Marshal dodging:
Sorry, Marshal, I lost track of how you lost track of what you’re saying. Is it:
A. “your now well-known habit of interpreting according to your own desires about what and who you want God to be.”
or
B. “You depend upon numbers to validate your goofy opinions of what Scripture means.”
Can’t be both, Mr expert on reason.
"The question is: Jesus said "there is no one good but God..." did he mean that literally... that literally there are no good people?"
That's not the question. Indeed, it's a question you ask for the purpose of muddying the waters, NOT to provide better understanding. We can easily argue why "four corners of the earth" is a figurative expression. Christ is unequivocal in his verse 18 statement. It directly addresses the man's salutation. But let's go with YOUR irrational point.
1. Why take the salutation literally? Should we not presume that he was referring to Christ as "good", or should we presume he meant that Christ was a really quality teacher?
2. If the dude meant that Christ was among the best at imparting knowledge and facts to his listeners, why did Christ question his use of the term "good" in addressing Him and not make any reference at all to His teaching ability?
3. Christ's response clearly made a point about Who it was the guy as truly addressing by specifically and unambiguously stating that there was only One who is "good". If Christ was indeed "good", then Christ is implying that He is God because only God alone is good. If Christ was not good, then He isn't God. The fellow did not understand the distinction or that the Person he was addressing was actually God.
So that's the case said another way, and still you've made no case of your own to justify objecting to the the verse being taken literally.
"God created us as imperfect."
"How is it moral, reasonable, just and just plain NOT insane to say that a perfect, just, loving God will condemn creatures that god created as imperfect to an eternity of torture for the "crime" of being imperfect, just the way that God made us?"
That's the deal, pal, but not in so many words. It's a lot simpler and easy to understand for anyone who spent decades in serious, prayerful study of Scripture. It's not "imperfection", unless by that term you refer to our sin nature. If so...and it should be...then the need for Christ is without question. Christ Himself said the only way to the Father is through Him. Reject Christ and it doesn't matter how "good" you think you are. Most atheists believe that if there truly is a heaven, they're good enough to get in. Scripture does NOT teach that AT ALL.
So your question reflects a wholly inaccurate understanding of basic Biblical teaching which Craig summed up with four words "Creation, the Fall, Redemption", the fourth word referring to Christ's sacrifice on the cross which resulted in our redemption if we believe on Him.
So, bring your argument, not simply your whiny "that's not fair" reaction. Like "good", you judge what's fair without any regard for the fact that God does not judge such things exactly as Dan Trabue does.
Not true. He didn't create us as God, because there is only One God. But He did create man as perfect. Adam's sin fouled that and from that point on we are all born in iniquity, possessed of a sin nature and thus not good. We are only "good" relative to other people, but not "good" in fact. Only God is as Jesus clearly stated.
"Sorry, Marshal, I lost track of how you lost track of what you’re saying."
Not surprised in the least. Happy to help.
"Is it:
A. “your now well-known habit of interpreting according to your own desires about what and who you want God to be.”
or
B. “You depend upon numbers to validate your goofy opinions of what Scripture means.”
Can’t be both"
Yes it can and it most certainly is. Point A refers to your heretical pronouncements about Scripture. Point B refers to your appeal to those YOU believe feel as you do to validate your heresies. Thus, both are true. The two points are not at all in conflict with each other.
What you think of as heresy is doctrinal practice in the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church, the UCC, and the theological work of Catholic and Orthodox volumes galore.
So, I didn’t come up with my positions like a Protestant. And I didn’t make up the communities that exist who did.
You’re just ignorant of the Christian world.
Well, since you've said nothing about anything related to the point here, I haven't any better idea of what you're asserting than you do. What's more...and I say this again because you clearly didn't get it the first time...there's little evidence you understand any of those entities to whom you appeal to validate your heresies. Further still, assuming any or all of those entities are in agreement with you, that doesn't make your heresies less heretical.
More to the point of this post, your appeal to those entities has done absolutely nothing to invalidate or contradict my position on the topic on the table.
Thanks for playing.
The point is that you lie - profusely - in order to support what you want to believe when faced with opposing arguments. You lie and divert.
And your actions determine your character.
You are created in the image and likeness of god. None of the communions of Orthodoxy, Roman, Anglican, Lutheran or Methodist churches have ever believed that the Fall destroyed this theological truth. And the UCC hasn’t believed in Calvinism in almost half a century. The deification of human beings - in time, here on earth - is a doctrine of Orthodoxy. Human beings possess goodness, are even inclined toward goodness as created by god (nature); able to grow in goodness by virtue of our capacities for 1. freedom of the will and 2. delight in the good, the true, and the beautiful; and 3. by reason of hope (faith) realize, celebrate, and support the goodness that emanates throughout creation - human society, the earth, and the cosmos (action).
These communions have arrived at these theological practices by studying scripture and making theology IN CORPORATE REFLECTION TOGETHER in councils, conventions, assemblies, etc. And I follow - I do not make anything up - the strands of tradition from the Roman Church into the Anglican Church, paying additional attention to Orthodox theology.
About all these alternative but common ways of being Christian that represent over a billion Christians, you are ignorant.
And in the face of these facts, the point is that you lie - profusely - in order to support what you want to believe when faced with opposing arguments. You lie and divert.
The point is, in consideration of Dan’s post, your lying actions corrupt your nature and determine your character. These decisions of yours are on you, not on Adam. You can do better. When you feed your desire to do better. Especially when you fix your hope in the living Christ instead of a book.
"The point is that you lie - profusely - in order to support what you want to believe when faced with opposing arguments. You lie and divert."
That's hilarious. You've never been able to point to a single lie I've told and you haven't now. What's more, I'm still waiting for an opposing argument from either of you to the premise Stan put forth and that I'm defending as true. You cry and pervert.
"And your actions determine your character."
Based on your actions, you're a most dishonorable character...and one incapable of truthfully and accurately judging the character of others...particularly those who don't agree with you.
"You are created in the image and likeness of god."
Yeah, I read that somewhere. I'm pretty sure it was the first chapter of Genesis.
"None of the communions of Orthodoxy, Roman, Anglican, Lutheran or Methodist churches have ever believed that the Fall destroyed this theological truth."
Guess what, Sparky? Neither do Stan, Craig or I! But the Fall did corrupt the image. That is, the Fall didn't destroy the truth that we were made in God's image. I destroyed, to a real extent, the image that was created. No one is a better example of that corruption than you.
"And the UCC hasn’t believed in Calvinism in almost half a century."
It hasn't believed in God's teaching on human sexuality for about that long as well.
"The deification of human beings... is a doctrine of Orthodoxy."
I've got bad news for you, Sally. It doesn't mean you're a god. It doesn't even mean you'll ever be one, nor that you could be.
"Human beings possess goodness...etc" First, this doesn't mitigate the point at all. Being naturally prone toward sin doesn't totally erase every inclination toward goodness. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
More importantly, you're...as Dan is doing...pointing toward a works-based salvation, and worse, stepping far too close to a pantheistic understanding. God is distinct from His creation. And as He is true Goodness, goodness doesn't "emanate" from His Creation. The best you can say is that His creation reflects it...despite being corrupted by Adam's sin. But again, this is all basic Biblical stuff. You should really read it sometime.
" And I follow - I do not make anything up - the strands of tradition from the Roman Church into the Anglican Church, paying additional attention to Orthodox theology."
Sure. You like to say this, but it doesn't square with reality...as pointed out in the paragraphs above and in many other discussions. It's simply another appeal to numbers, with the unfortunate fact that such an appeal doesn't mean you understand what those communions believe and teach. You just talk a lot.
"And in the face of these facts"
But you haven't presented any facts...none of relevance to the premise I defend...certainly none the refute or rebut it. As is your wont, you simply bore with sad attempts to convince me you know something. More sadly is your determination to insist I lie without doing a damned thing to prove it.
"Especially when you fix your hope in the living Christ instead of a book."
This is always my favorite bit of fraudulent condescension. It hopes to suggest some flaw in my faith, while what it really does is admit that you reject Christ in favor of some impalpable "living Christ"...like that means something...like that means you "get it" while rubes like me do not. The hilarity never ends with you. Your "living Christ" is one of your own making, while the book you disparage is the source of our knowledge of the real Jesus Christ, without which your "living Christ" would be a false god by another name. Your "living Christ" is just an invention that allows you to posture as a Christian while being anything but, rejecting Christian teaching as it suits you under the guise of being guided by the Spirit...who NEVER guides one away from what Scripture teaches.
Let’s see we’ll you did with comprehending Christianity:
Orthodoxy and deification? Failed.
Roman church and Thomistic god-imaging intellect? Failed.
Anglican Incarnational Theology? Failed.
Luther on Grace and Nature? Failed.
UCC departure from Calvinsim? Failed.
All these theologies celebrate the goodness of human beings, so good, in fact, s diluted system we are just a little lower than the angels.
None of them have posited that we are gods.
Because that’s not Christianity.
You’ve confused Christianity with Raëlism.
Show’s what you know.
“The problem came when Adam sinned. That sin introduced sin and its decaying effect on the entirety of creation. Here again I'm talking about basic Judeo-Christian teaching.”
Nope. Original sin is not a Jewish belief. And neither Catholic nor Orthodox theology applies the Fall like evangelical protestantism does: no absolutely corrupt nature. The very reason Saints are to be venerated and prayed to.
And so Marshal is ignorant of what constitutes “Basic Christian teaching.”
"Let’s see we’ll you did with comprehending Christianity"
There's no way you can tell because you don't comprehend Christianity. That's crystal clear.
"You’ve confused Christianity with Raëlism."
You've confused this blather with an actual argument against the premise that we are all sinners, born with a sin nature and that, as Christ Himself said, there is no one good but God alone.
So again, you appeal to numbers and fail.
You appeal to authority (all those denominations) and fail because you don't comprehend Christianity and likely don't comprehend any of those denominations. Indeed, a review of various synopses definitely indicates a view of the nature of man being sinful, a nature with which we are born and an inclination that remains throughout our lives. It's certainly strong in you. Even Orthodox Jews hold this view, while Reformed Jews may not.
Regardless, Christian teaching...that is, what Scripture actually says...indeed teaches this concept. And again, you're a great example of it as you seem to embrace your inner jerk with relish.
You obviously don’t know what scripture says, Marshal. You ignore the Greek it is written in.
You know swuate about christian history mostly because you’re imprisoned in a mid-century agrarian Calvinism and don’t even know that.
You’re ignorant of basic christian theology.
Which leaves with just one tool: believing what you’re told by people you like. So, you’re totally unprepared to defend what you believe. And it’s not what you believe. Because you’ve never asked questions if it. It is only what you inherited. A dead faith. People like you, being without a living spirituality, fall in behind Trump.
I'm supposed to believe what those like YOU tell me? That's hilarious! Maybe I should listen to Dan, right? Or how about any of the many "progressive" "Christians" who, like the two of you, can't get something as simple and straightforward as either Mark 10:18 or Lev 18:22 right? You're a clown, feo...with whom I engage at this point strictly for entertainment. NOT because you're capable...certainly not willing...to provide substance worthy of serious consideration. This latest waste of time was just one more "I'm smarter than you" without any proof, without any actual argument.
You think posting Greek is enough. It's not. You still have to argue for the premise you support or against that which you oppose. Copy/pasting Greek doesn't impress in the least, and certainly doesn't persuade because doing so doesn't constitute an argument.
But again, thanks for the laughs.
Marshal, you are obviously free to construct the contours of your faith in ways you think best.
But when you make grand claims that Jesus never said this or that and you’re clearly wrong - and then double down when caught - then you’re not thinking through faith. You’re lying.
And when you claim that certain protestant concepts are the core of Christianity when the very word and action of protestantism means a rejection of 1500 years of christian thought and practice and a billion+ Christians still believe otherwise - and then double down when taught correctly - you’re not thinking, you’re lying.
In Luke, Jesus taught a clear lesson on grace. He used the word as the core of his lesson: loving those who love you is behaving with zero grace.
In Mark, Jesus, as is his habit with everyone, but especially in Mark (google Messianic Secret), is tearing the rich man. Jesus isn’t making a claim; he is obviously teasing out the contradictions of the rich man and his culture’s beliefs. As always in the gospels, Jesus is challenging the person to choose the good. Because each person can. In this case, the *rich man couldn’t because he IS rich. And Jesus is sad.
Out of ignorance, you claimed he never did say grace. Out of ignorant tunnel vision you say Jesus is making a declarative statement when he clearly is not. When taught better, you doubled down. You’re not thinking, you’re lying.
You are unable to choose what you believe because you are not starting out with faith and thinking about it. You are starting out corruption and defending it.
And not for nothing, but there is a way to defend Calvinism thoughtfully. There are so many smart, compassionate christians thinking and working from within modern Calvinist and Reformed theology. Serene Jones did her Ph.D work on Calvin's Institutes. George Hunsinger. David Kelsey. George Stroup. Letty Russell. A hundred others. Your own denomination. Or former one. There is a comprehensive and elaborate return to look at the work of Jonathan Edwards as an American genius. But all this theological energy is engaged in a living way, a moral way, to be nourished by the living system of past thought and genius but not to replicate its outdated and brutal outcomes.
You just don't know enough of your own tradition relative to the history and current practice of other Christian traditions to defend yourself. And it is not your ignorance that is objectionable.
Smart, compassionate believers working within Calvinism understand that the depravity of humankind is the very reason to defend the abused, the marginalized, the powerless, the second class citizens and AS A CALL to work for equity. Modern smart Calvinists read Jesus's ministry rightly as one of love and equality before god and so, therefore, ought it to be on earth. Equal rights for women; care for immigrants; racial justice; just society for LGBTQ. These are natural acts of Christian faith from within modern Calvinism just as it is for other theological traditions.
But your problem is not your lack of knowledge. It is your commitment to judgment. And the direction you train your judgment: every one else before and more than white men: girls and women who are sexually assaulted; brown and black people; black and brown foreigners; the refugee and the desperate; gay and otherwise queer people; your own liberal fellow citizens.
Your are objectionable because of your hate. And your hate increases the corruption of your hope in a dead 19th century, rural, anti-intellectual protesting, race-based faith.
Craig, too, for that matter. And Stan.
"But when you make grand claims that Jesus never said this or that and you’re clearly wrong..."
Not wrong. Accurately and factually explained in the other thread.
"And when you claim that certain protestant concepts are the core of Christianity when the very word and action of protestantism means a rejection of 1500 years of christian thought and practice and a billion+ Christians still believe otherwise - and then double down when taught correctly - you’re not thinking, you’re lying."
This coming from a guy who, along with his compadre, like to insist that thousands of years of Biblical understanding on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior is somehow no longer valid based on recent (false) reinterpretations of the obvious. And that's just one issue you "progressive" "Christians" pervert. Yet what I defend goes back to the writings of Paul, Peter and John. So, provide the polling data for your "billion+ Christians" or admit that you're appealing to numbers (you simply make up) for validation of your poor understanding.
"In Luke, Jesus taught a clear lesson on grace. He used the word as the core of his lesson: loving those who love you is behaving with zero grace."
Not how He uses the word as I accurately explained in the other thread. It's not "grace" as we've been discussing the word. The context of the passage doesn't support your opposition to my position.
"...you say Jesus is making a declarative statement when he clearly is not."
He most definitely is. You're injecting your opposing view, not because you actually believe it, but because you're so invested in both appearing intellectually superior and in acting contrary to Jesus teaching in Luke 6:32. You have to know correctly to teach correctly. You know very little but that which is of little value.
"You are unable to choose what you believe because you are not starting out with faith and thinking about it. You are starting out corruption and defending it."
If it makes you feel good to believe so, have at it, false priest.
"You just don't know enough of your own tradition..."
You don't know what my tradition is. You like to think you have insight into other people. You have only the self-satisfying but unjustly high opinion of yourself. That makes one of you.
Smart, compassionate Christians of all denominations do not enable sexual immorality like you and other "progressive" "Christians" do.
"But your problem is not your lack of knowledge."
You're my problem, feo. How to get through to one who believes he's something he's not and never will be. But with God's help, who knows?
"It is your commitment to judgment."
Says the guy who disparages and criticizes me at every turn. Good thing you've proven yourself to be the buffoon you are, otherwise I might feel badly.
I do not judge unfairly or in any way that contradicts Biblical teaching. That's YOUR shtick. I simply recognize bad behaviors and don't pretend they aren't simply because I want to posture as something pleasing to the world.
"And the direction you train your judgment: every one else before and more than white men: girls and women who are sexually assaulted; brown and black people; black and brown foreigners; the refugee and the desperate; gay and otherwise queer people; your own liberal fellow citizens."
Again, none of this is close to true, nor have you ever brought a legitimate case against me. You simply accuse. This is worse than the type of judgement against which Christ speaks. It's just lying outright with malice aforethought.
"Your are objectionable because of your hate."
The hate is all yours, Skeeter, and it drips from every comment you post. Defending moral behavior is not hate. It's a Christian's duty. Study Christianity and you'll find that to be true.
"And your hate increases the corruption of your hope in a dead 19th century, rural, anti-intellectual protesting, race-based faith."
Not my faith, nor Craig's nor Stan's. But if it helps you to sleep nights believing lies you make up about us, so be it.
Marshal: "He never mentioned "grace"... because my NIV from Grand Rapids doesn't recognize it.
Marshal, your biblical study skills are the poorest one can imagine.
____
καὶ εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστίν; καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶσιν. καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν ἀγαθοποιῆτε τοὺς ἀγαθοποιοῦντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστίν; καὶ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν. καὶ ἐὰν δανίσητε παρ' ὧν ἐλπίζετε λαβεῖν, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις [ἐστίν]; καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς δανίζουσιν ἵνα ἀπολάβωσιν τὰ ἴσα.
And if you love only those who love you, how have you shown χάρις (GRACE; unmerited favor)? Even sinners love those who love them. For, again, if you do good only to those who do good to you, how have you shown χάρις (GRACE; unmerited favor)? Even sinners do as much. And if you lend only where you expect to be repaid, how have you shown χάρις (GRACE; unmerited favor)? Even sinners lend to each other to be repaid in full.
πλὴν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ ἀγαθοποιεῖτε καὶ δανίζετε μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες: καὶ ἔσται ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολύς, καὶ ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ ὑψίστου, ὅτι αὐτὸς χρηστός ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀχαρίστους καὶ πονηρούς. Γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες καθὼς [καὶ] ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστίν.
BUT! you must love your enemies and do good and lend without expecting any return; and you will have a rich reward: you will be sones of the Most High, because he himself is χρηστός - loving - to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be compassionate, as your Father is compassionate.
____
Clearly, Jesus is teaching us that we can do good, be good, so good, in fact, we will get a reward from God.
Denying that Jesus himself says so, Marshal, is continuing evidence that you have no intention to go where scripture leads; you do not understand the fullness of the Christian faith that sees the beauty and goodness and truth in creation, in our own creation which was not destroyed in the Fall, only mortality was the result, and the freedom to choose the good and the wicked.
The larger, smarter communities of Christian faith do not believe that we can be perfectly good - which is a god - simply because we are not god. But we do believe that god made us with the capacity to be good and we can practice and grow in our goodness, with god's help.
Ὡς πάντα ἡμῖν τῆς θείας δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν δεδωρημένης διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ, δι' ὧν τὰ τίμια καὶ μέγιστα ἡμῖν ἐπαγγέλματα δεδώρηται, ἵνα διὰ τούτων γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, ἀποφυγόντες τῆς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορᾶς. καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δὲ σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισενέγκαντες ἐπιχορηγήσατε ἐν τῇ πίστει ὑμῶν τὴν ἀρετήν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἀρετῇ τὴν γνῶσιν, ἐν δὲ τῇ γνώσει τὴν ἐγκράτειαν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐγκρατείᾳ τὴν ὑπομονήν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ὑπομονῇ τὴν εὐσέβειαν, ἐν δὲ τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ τὴν φιλαδελφίαν, ἐν δὲ τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ τὴν ἀγάπην.
Thus God's divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.
___
You've got a lot of work to do, Marshal. "For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness..."
"This coming from a guy who, along with his compadre, like to insist that thousands of years of Biblical understanding on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior is somehow no longer valid..."
That's right, Marshal. In order to participate in helicopter engineering, one must do a lot of study and garner accreditation.
In order to interpret any scripture and interpret christian history and christian theology, one must do a lot of study and garner accreditation. THEN, one can participate.
Just as Jesus and Paul and Peter and Philip and the writer To The Hebrews and the early church and Christian communities ever since have re-interpreted scripture to cast off ancient taboos like pigs and periods and two fabric shirts and dispelled the superstitions regarding eating meat sacrificed to gods and women being silent and sex and sacraments and icons, we, too, learned and witnessing the Holy Spirit welcome gay and lesbian and queer partners in the ministry of the church just like Peter in Cornelius' house broke open church's exclusion of gentiles.
"Then he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” This happened three times... Then Peter began to speak to them: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him"... While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter said, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”... "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”
Your ignorance, Marshal, is backed up by your corrupt intentions and your will to disbelieve what you read in that book you worship in idolatry. You cannot witness the movement of the Holy Spirit.
"It is your commitment to judgment."
"Says the guy who disparages and criticizes me at every turn. Good thing you've proven yourself to be the buffoon you are, otherwise I might feel badly."
“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."
You've done it to yourself. Brutalists need to judged in order to appeal to whatever conscience you have left.
"My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and is brought back by another, you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins."
Copying and pasting Greek doesn't impress. Anyone can do that. What credit is that to you? You are diverting from the premise I've been defending, that only God alone is good. You want to play semantic games with ancient Greek words used in a manner that doesn't support your objection, you go ahead. But I'd prefer one of you actually make a case that Christ didn't mean what the words on the page said. "there is no one good but God alone".
"Clearly, Jesus is teaching us that we can do good, be good, so good, in fact, we will get a reward from God."
No. He clearly isn't. He's teaching that we're to rise above what comes naturally and be something more. Anyone can love their homies. It's the Christian who also loves their enemies. That's the context. Love your enemies, for loving your friends ain't no big deal. Everyone does it.
"Denying that Jesus himself says so, Marshal, is continuing evidence that you have no intention to go where scripture leads;"
Yet, denying Jesus said there is no one good but God is evidence of what? In the meantime, I haven't denied any of Christ's teachings. Your perversion of His teachings doesn't count.
"But we do believe that god made us with the capacity to be good and we can practice and grow in our goodness, with god's help."
Having the capacity for good works is not the same as being good. Actually doing good works is not the same as being good.
"For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love."
If we are by nature "good", why would it be necessary to make ANY effort? This verse backs me up even more. Thanks.
"You've got a lot of work to do, Marshal."
As do we all. No one more than you.
----------------------------------------------
"In order to interpret any scripture and interpret christian history and christian theology, one must do a lot of study and garner accreditation."
I study all the time. I need no "accreditation". I need only honesty. For all your study, you get so much wrong and for all your study, you can't come up with an actual case for why Mark 10:8 shouldn't be taken literally.
"Just as Jesus and Paul and Peter and Philip and the writer To The Hebrews and the early church and Christian communities ever since have re-interpreted scripture to cast off ancient taboos like pigs and periods and two fabric shirts and dispelled the superstitions regarding eating meat sacrificed to gods and women being silent and sex and sacraments and icons, we, too, learned and witnessing the Holy Spirit welcome gay and lesbian and queer partners in the ministry of the church just like Peter in Cornelius' house broke open church's exclusion of gentiles."
WOW!! This is absolute rot! Neither Jesus, nor Paul nor anyone else "re-interpreted" Scripture. They didn't "cast" off anything. A new covenant replaced the old one. That's not a "re-interpretation". And no "Holy Spirit" (how blasphemous!) leads an honest Christian to believe that homosexual behavior is no longer as sinful and abominable as it had been since the time of Moses. That's just you being a false priest who puts the world above God. It's incredible how easily you pervert Scripture in a lame attempt to legitimize your heresies! Shame on you.
"Your ignorance, Marshal, is backed up by your corrupt intentions and your will to disbelieve what you read in that book you worship in idolatry."
And yet you are still unable to demonstrate any of this fantasy of yours.
"You cannot witness the movement of the Holy Spirit."
Ah! I see the problem! You're confusing your bowel movement with "the movement of the Holy Spirit."
"You've done it to yourself. Brutalists need to judged in order to appeal to whatever conscience you have left."
That's funny. What's not funny is how far you've strayed from Truth and how willingly you've given yourself over to your heresies, such that you refuse to be brought back from your wandering. Death seems your inevitable end despite my best efforts. You're too much into yourself for any other end. Sad.
"Copying and pasting Greek doesn't impress. Anyone can do that. What credit is that to you?" I gave you a translation, too. Apparently you can't read Greek and won't read the scripture that shows you that you're wrong.
"You are diverting from the premise I've been defending, that only God alone is good." That's not what Jesus... literally... says.
πλὴν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ ἀγαθοποιεῖτε καὶ δανίζετε μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες: καὶ ἔσται ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολύς, καὶ ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ ὑψίστου... BUT! you must love your enemies and do good and lend without expecting any return; and you will have a rich reward: you will be sons of the Most High...
"Actually doing good works is not the same as being good..." That not what Jesus... literally... says: "do good.. and you will be sons of the Most High. You infer that God is fine fathering wickedness.
You have failed reading scripture. You have failed believing Scripture. And you have turned your back on Jesus as he literally calls us to be good, while you double down on insisting that we cannot.
Once again, copy/pasting Greek doesn't impress. That you do so doesn't prove you understand any of it, or that your understanding is correct, accurate and sensible. What's more, you've done nothing to prove that Christ didn't mean what He said regarding only God being good. When will you get around to doing that?
""Actually doing good works is not the same as being good..." That not what Jesus... literally... says: "do good.. and you will be sons of the Most High. You infer that God is fine fathering wickedness."
No. I infer you're an idiot. Very hard not to come to that conclusion based on your idiotic comments. What one may become by doing good is not the same as proving doing good works is the same as being good. You further demonstrate idiocy with the following:
"And you have turned your back on Jesus as he literally calls us to be good, while you double down on insisting that we cannot."
Calling us to be good proves we are not. If we are good, why would He call us to "be good". You made this same stupid mistake some time ago with the notion of holiness. We wouldn't be called to be what we already are. It is illogical. Thus, you fail again. Nicely done.
Marshal, in your haze of anxiety, you just claimed that becoming Sons of the Most High is not good.
Didn't claim that at all. Didn't even come within a universe of such a claim. The truth is even further than that from where you are, false priest.
“What one may become by doing good is not the same as proving doing good works is the same as being good.”
If this is true - and they are your own words - then either you have destroyed sense-making by claiming that becoming something has nothing to to do with being that same thing... or, the only other option, you infer that god has stolen our freedom and ignores what we do with it. Which, if you believe the latter, is a gutter religion.
Your comprehension skills are extraordinarily none existent. One doesn't "become" what one already is. What we do with our freedom to choose has nothing to do with whether or not we are intrinsically good.
"Gutter religion" is what you preach. Repent.
More later...
“One doesn't "become" what one already is.”
I became a great tennis player because I was really great at tennis.
”What we do with our freedom to choose has nothing to do with whether or not we are intrinsically good.”
Plus, I chose to practice 4 hours a day. The guys I started out with and who we’re just as good chose not to put in the time. They fell behind.
In logic, Marshal, you’re a paragon of gutter thinking, too
If you were already a really good tennis player, you would not have to practice. If you were already a really great player, there'd have been no need to become one. But you didn't just pick up a racket one day and played like one who was already great.
Federer was really, really good at tennis. He became better still.
He still practices.
Or his terrific goodness would disappear.
Stop lying, Gutter Bob.
Did Federer, as a child, just pick up a racket and immediately start beating everyone at tennis, or did he have to learn how to play, how to swing the racket, how to aim, etc., etc. Simply having an affinity doesn't make one good at it. It makes one more likely than others to become good. Thus, to become good means one wasn't good to begin with. There isn't anything mysterious about any of this. The only mystery is why you continue to pretend you're intellectually superior. You never demonstrate it. Hey...maybe you can become so in time! But you certainly aren't so now.
One is already good has no need to practice to be good.
So, when will we see an actual argument from Scripture that supports the notion that Christ didn't mean, "there is no one good but God alone"? Neither you nor Dan seems able to come close to such an argument except the default "Nyuh uh".
No, Federer was born with the capacities to be good. Just a few are.
But not just Federer and a few thousand others, ALL of us are born children of god, created in the likeness and image of god. So we ALL have the capacities to be good. And practicing our capacities makes us even better - because in practicing, we are cooperating with what is inherent in human nature as created by god with the grace of creatures who image god. And cooperating in goodness - like forgiving and caring and lending and clothing and loving - is our grace in response to grace; our credit in response to unmerited credit. And so credit grows and grows: we get better and better. And god is pleased.
But when you stopped practicing your goodness dropped, Marshal. When you lie instead of admitting error, when you defend ruel and dogma instead of listening to the Spirit, you get further and further from being a Son of the Most High than ever before. This pattern is all spelled out there in the NT. You just got to trust its central message while careful scrutinizing all the 1st century cultural post-it notes.
The more you babble, the more you support my position. "Born with the capacity to be" necessarily admits that one isn't born "good". You're speaking of potential unrealized. Having potential doesn't mean anything, and what's more, one can have potential for both directions...evil AND good. We all have the capacity for great evil or great good...both at the same time. So potential or capacity has no relation to the premise of whether or not man is basically good.
You whine on about not admitting being wrong, but here, as in so many previous "conversations", you never admit to being wrong, doing all you can to continue posturing as intellectually superior. Nothing is more wrong than that.
As to "listening to the 'Spirit'", you say this to rationalize doing what Scripture prohibits, thereby proving it ain't the "Spirit" to whom you're listening...certainly not the Spirit of God. The central message of the NT is Christ is our Savior, Who died that we might live. Your certificate from Bob's Seminary & Taxidermy hasn't proven you have a real education in the faith.
No you’re right. I didn’t put that correctly.
We’re born good.
The better analogy is that Federer has native born gifts in tennis. Few people have native born gifts in tennis. He was born wired for great athletic achievement in tennis. And he used that wiredness well. Good for him.
But we ALL are natively born good: we are wired for goodness. From day one we are practicing and developing the goodness we possess, and we become better. We learn to more and more trust and depend upon our caregivers. We learn more and more to want and reciprocate relationship. We learn more and more to discover our feelings and to share them. We are born ready to interact with dogs and siblings and colors and shapes. And, in practicing our native born goodness, we get better.
It takes years and years before we develop the freedom to choose to be bad. And that’s because being bad isn’t natively born in us. We have to become aware of what it is. It’s alien to our created nature; not original.
So, you have pushed me to be clearer that “capacity” means, in fact, actual wiring/possession, not just empty potential. Actual agency ready only to be enacted. You have the capacity to learn. It’s there in you, ready to be used. We’re waiting for you to make the choice. In the case of human beings, we are born good, with the good wiring, even the possession of beginning goodness, and when used to be ever better. And that no one is born with the capacity to be bad, the wiring to be bad; that capacity is acquired later with consciousness and learning and freedom of choice.
But I would, however, totally agree with you that, in your words, “... speaking of potential unrealized. Having potential doesn't mean anything” is clearly true - before birth - of a zygote, an embryo, and a non- viable fetus. Of such organisms there is no “having potential that means anything” about being. There is no wiring yet for, no possession of relatedness, for goodness. Only the first few stages of cellular development. During which there is only a theoretical potential in the future to be born a basically good human being. At these stages that’s not yet actually possible: “ Having potential doesn't mean anything.”
What is true at these stages, though, is that a pregnant woman is entirely in possession of all aspects of her body and the right over it. No one else. And that’s a good.
"It takes years and years before we develop the freedom to choose to be bad. And that’s because being bad isn’t natively born in us. We have to become aware of what it is. It’s alien to our created nature; not original."
This is totally contrary to Biblical teaching. You're simply asserting this because you want to believe it, not because there's any truth to it. And again, you can't help but back my position with every example of "practicing" that which one who "is" needn't practice. If one is born "good", it is not necessary to "practice" being what one already is.
You also fail to show that your use of "capacity" is any different than "potential". You seem to think that because Federer developed his skill to become a great tennis player, that millions of others aren't also possessed of that potential....millions of others who simply have no desire for tennis. Some have natural abilities for athletics, while others need to develop them. There are notable examples of both in sports history, with many people admitting they had to work harder than others to develop their skills.
Your baby murdering comments don't do anything more than lend credence to the fact that you're no Christian. Being a zygote and having potential to be a fully formed adult human being ready for a Florida retirement is not the same as having potential to be a human being. The human zygote already is a human being and only Molech worshipers like yourself argue against that scientific fact.
It’s not a surprise that what we know about child psychology corrects what you think is “Biblical teaching.”
None of which you include.
That makes no sense. It seems no more than another lame attempt to convince yourself you're intelligent. Worse, you provide yet more evidence you're no Christian as you subordinate clear Biblical teaching to self-pleasing "psychological" teaching. Not at all surprising...but not a rebuttal of that Biblical teaching that contradicts the belief that man is basically good.
"This is totally contrary to Biblical teaching. You're simply asserting this because you want to believe it, not because there's any truth to it."
You're simply asserting this because you want to believe it, not because there's any truth to it. You didn't back it up with any citation.
"That makes no sense."
Sense is not your forte.
But I did back it up. Stan backed it up in the very post that started this debate. The fact is that you and Dan reject the clear teaching of Scripture when it conflicts with the worldly passions you defend, celebrate and enable. The entire debate was based on Stan's post showing what Scripture says and how what it says contradicts the notion that man is basically good. I provided Mark 10:18. Neither of you have provided anything from Scripture that contradicts those we've offered or shown the verses mean something else.
And you dare question my sense. Amazing!
If Jesus is making a propositional claims in Mark 10:18 t h en he has denied his godhead.
The only way to understand him as not denying his godhead is to agree that he is testing the man with misleading puzzle questions: which are not propositional claims because the purpose is to lead people to faith, not screw right knowledge into their head.
Besides, Marshal, you’ve unwillingly admitted that the NT cannot ever be definitive about Jesus actually said. We cannot absolutely trust the layers of accumulated translations that are all interpretations. Does the Holy Ghost have a favorite? We cannot know.
The book is no absolute guarantee. All you can do is suggest what you think consistent with your theological commitments. Just like a liberal. Although your commitments are pretty brutal. For certain reasons.
"If Jesus is making a propositional claims in Mark 10:18 t h en he has denied his godhead."
Not in the least. Indeed, He's actually suggesting the opposite...that He IS God. In asking the the man the question, He's demonstrating the man has no idea to whom He is addressing. If the man knew, he could easily answer Jesus question, "Of course I know only God is good and that's why I addressed you in this way." The man didn't know. The man was simply being kind in ascribing goodness to Jesus and Jesus used that to make a point about Who He is. And He makes the point by stating a truth...that there is no one good but God alone.
"Besides, Marshal, you’ve unwillingly admitted that the NT cannot ever be definitive about Jesus actually said."
A typically moronic, possibly intentionally dishonest assessment of my position and comments. I don't question what Scripture says and wasn't questioning it with regard to Mark 10:18 or Luke 6:32. But I'd be damned foolish NOT to question anything YOU say, since you're the false priest. I have full confidence in most Biblical translations and don't play games with it when one translation devoted to word-for-word as opposed to translating the message can be used by false priests to make a point intended to disparage rather than enlighten.
There's very little significant difference between the many translations that aren't published to push an agenda. Most translations have the specific purpose of honest interpretation for the sake of understanding. A few...no doubt some of which you find arousing...have a selfish agenda (a gender-free God, for example). Those I dismiss as I dismiss the falseness of you.
You do not abide the Holy Spirit. You exploit the words "Holy Spirit" in order to give yourself license to reject Scripture you find personally displeasing. Talk about the unforgivable sin!! You wallow in it!!
My "theological commitments" are informed by Scripture. Yours clearly impose meaning on Scripture that the text itself doesn't imply...which is just like a liberal...for obvious self-satisfying reasons.
1. You’ve demonstrated to us that we cannot be certain what Jesus actually said. And I appreciate that because we and you are now able to consider the texts for what they are: composed works. Mark has composed his gospel a) in a language Jesus didn’t speak; b) years later; c) framed for a specific audience; d) framed by certain thematic interests intended to be persuasive as literature, one of which is that the reader knows a secret in Mark together with the disciples. Particularly in Mark, the Messianic Secret is a literary device by which we readers can continguingly experience the choosing of Messianic faith with the characters in the narrative who do not know and are tested.
2. In Mark, Jesus is portrayed as playing with this secret in dialogue with characters in such a way as to test them, tease them, prod them to expand their frame of reference for faithfulness. Jesus is not saying straight out to this man that only god is good. He acknowledges that religious custom claims that god is good. And yet the man is moved to see Jesus as good. By his questioning Jesus is pointing out that the man has the capacity to recognize good even if it means breaking customary sanction. The man is on the verge of recognizing the Messiah both because Jesus is the Messiah - something Mark’s reading/hearing audience and we already know - but also because the man’s will is challenged to raise his awareness of the good to consciousness. And this drama is the real drama. The question Jesus asks brings the drama to a head. The man’s capacity to see the good brings him to the point of deciding on faith or to retreat from his recognition of the good, the good in Jesus but, more fatefully, his own goodness. Since god is good, so are all things that are from god. The rich man can be good, too. The woman at the well. The woman caught in adultery. Zaccheus, Nicodemus, Galilean fishermen; etc., etc. Why do you call me good? You recognize true goodness don’t you? Because you have goodness, too.
Act on it. (Practice it. You’ll get even better with god’s help.)
Reply
"You’ve demonstrated to us that we cannot be certain what Jesus actually said."
No. I certainly haven't. That's just something you need to believe is true. The more ambiguity you lefties can force into Scripture, the easier it is to pretend you are cool with God while doing what He prohibits.
"...we...are now able to consider the texts for what they are: composed works."
No. They're not. They're records of historic events...the life and ministry of Christ.
"Jesus is not saying straight out to this man that only god is good."
That's exactly what He's doing. What's more, you haven't provided any Scriptural evidence to contradict this plain explanation for a clearly unambiguous statement.
"He acknowledges that religious custom claims that god is good. And yet the man is moved to see Jesus as good. By his questioning Jesus is pointing out that the man has the capacity to recognize good even if it means breaking customary sanction."
Says you. Try backing it up.
"The man’s capacity to see the good..."
There's no indication in the passage of the man even possessing such a capacity. It is merely a polite salutation. "Excuse me, my good man..." Nothing more. Jesus then uses it to make the point that there is none who is good by God alone. Then He moves on with the man's true purpose for approaching Him. But hey...you think the Holy Spirit tells you homosexual behavior isn't sinful, so...
"Since god is good, so are all things that are from god. The rich man can be good, too. The woman at the well. The woman caught in adultery. Zaccheus, Nicodemus, Galilean fishermen; etc., etc. Why do you call me good? You recognize true goodness don’t you? Because you have goodness, too. "
So this is what you tell yourself as you promote, celebrate and enable unChristian behaviors, such as sexual immorality, the murder of the unborn and other heresies. God declared His Creation good before the Fall of Man. Afterwards? Not so much. Someday, you should actually read and study the Bible. You'd learn so much more than you ever could from the voices in your head you like to believe are the Holy Spirit.
Feodor: "You’ve demonstrated to us that we cannot be certain what Jesus actually said."
Marshal: "No. I certainly haven't. That's just something you need to believe is true.
___
Marshal's actual words that committedly distrusts the greek NT: “Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?”
Even Stan has tacitly acknowledged the "fundamentlst problem" by aligning himself with William Lloyd Garrison whom he considers was on the right side of history:
"The human mind is greater than any book. The mind sits in judgment on every book. If there be truth in the book, we take it; if error, we discard it. Why refer this to the Bible? In this country, the Bible has been used to support slavery and capital punishment; while in the old countries, it has been quoted to sustain all manner of tyranny and persecution. All reforms are anti-Bible.”
- William Lloyd Garrison
You continue to see what doesn't exist...such as a Holy Spirit guiding you to defend sexual immorality. Here, you suggest something I as not saying at all. MY position is that YOU don't understand what Christ said, not that the text is problematic. If "charis" means "grace" as we're discussing it here, then the word is improperly used in the text to convey Christ's meaning, which most translations correctly present. Since I trust the translations, I cannot also trust what you're saying without being contradictory. The word isn't being used to denote "grace" as we're discussing it here, so Christ wasn't speaking about grace in the verse you falsely/incorrectly use to pretend I'm wrong in my position.
Young’s literal translation (just used by Stan in his latest post):
32 and -- if ye love those loving you, what grace have ye? for also the sinful love those loving them;
33 and if ye do good to those doing good to you, what grace have ye? for also the sinful do the same;
Post a Comment