Stan (at his "Winging It" blog), recently took it upon himself to speak for me, telling me what I believe and identifying some area of agreement between us. The conservatives that I've interacted have historically proven incredibly inept at stating MY positions. Stan did better than many have done, but still missed the important distinctions of what I believe.
Stan said, among other things...
There is something that he and I agree on. Seriously. Dan argues that morality is based on harm. Without quite agreeing with that, I believe that harm is a principle that is involved with morality. Unfortunately, at that single point of agreement ... we diverge. Dan believes, next, that we can reliably figure out what "harm" is so we can reliably determine what should or should not be moral. I don't...
Dan and I both believe that morality and harm are interlinked.
The difference is that Dan is absolutely certain that he has the ability and wisdom and far-reaching understanding to determine what constitutes harm, and I'm just not that good. So I tend to rely on the Manufacturer, the Maker of humans. If He says, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? ..." (1 Cor 6:9-10) (for instance), I'm not going to castigate Him for saying so. I'm going to warn those I love. "Watch out! This will hurt you!"
His post is called "The Harm Principle," if anyone wants to read it in full.
Some clarifications/corrections...
1. Dan doesn't argue that morality is "based on harm."
2. Dan argues that IF we're causing harm to an innocent person, then we're almost certainly wrong to do so. That is, it's morally bad to harm another baselessly. It's wrong to kill someone. It's wrong to abuse, rape, burn to death, torture, blow up, steal from, assault another human being. That may be similar to "morality is based on harm," but I just wanted to clarify because it's not the same, to me.
The way I would put it might be something more like...
Morality can probably be best understood as supporting that which strengthens, encourages and helps, and immorality can probably be best understood as that which causes harm, oppression, a devaluation of human rights.
3. Where Stan suggests that I'm doing something amazing ("Dan believes we can reliably figure out what harm is...") I disagree. Where Stan says he's not reliably able to figure out what harm is ("I don't..." and "I'm just not that good..."), he is of course, mistaken. OF COURSE he can recognize that killing his neighbor is wrong. That abusing his child is wrong. That catching a person's house on fire is wrong.
That is, generally speaking, we all universally understand the reasonable and moral nature of Do No Harm to Others and the corresponding, Be Helpful, Be Kind, Be a Good Neighbor. In broad strokes, we tend to understand that, regardless of culture, religion, beliefs or politics.
4. Stan's "solution," on the other hand, "Use the Owners Manual," has its own set of problems.
4a. Not everyone agrees that the Bible is the owners manual, or even a good source for morality.
4b. Even amongst those who value the Bible's moral teachings, there is not universal agreement on what is and isn't moral.
4c. Referring to the "owners manual," then, to understand what is and isn't moral STILL involves our human reasoning and our human reasoning is imperfect.
Thus, the advantages of using Harm as a gauge of morality is that it's practical, it's understandable, it's understandable pretty universally, it's not dependent upon belief in a certain segment of sects within a given religion and its sacred text. It's a more universal way of understanding right and wrong.
And if, as Stan seems to acknowledge, that God wants the good for us and doesn't want bad, then we could also reason that IF we find a moral ruling that causes harm ("Polluting is okay, as long as it's only in rural water streams where not as many people live," for instance), then we can be pretty sure that it's violating "the owners manual..."
Put yet another way: IF an inability to understand morality 100% perfectly is a problem with using Harm as a guide, it's every bit as true that understanding morality based upon reading the Bible will also not result in 100% understanding.
Stan would not take the time to correct or address his misrepresentations and lack of understanding of my views on his blog, but I would ask him, Where am I mistaken?
Reading the Bible will not result in 100% perfect understanding of morality. Correct?
Using harm as a guide will not result in 100% perfect understanding of morality. Correct?
There is no data to suggest that using the Bible as a guide is ANY more effective at understanding morality than using harm as a guide. Indeed, given that some significant portion of the world does not take the Bible as a moral guide AND that even with those who do value the Bible, there is disagreement on moral questions, then one could argue that it's a less effective way to understand morality.
Is that not reasonable? Practical?
84 comments:
Stan has a faith problem.
He writes today, "Despite all the places in Scripture that warn, order, command, cajole, urge, and demand that we avoid sin, we sin."
So where does he find refuge?
"So what does the Bible recommend?" 😂
Stan refuses to believe in a living god. He keeps trying to find the power of faith in a book. Stan and the goons have a plug to their spiritual selves, but they keep tryin to plug it into the Bible, which is only a mirror of the power.
The living Christ moving in love by the power and freedom of the Holy Spirit... it the source of our power to be good and to do good.
We make Stan aware of the house of cards he stands on when we engage with his points.
This is made clear by the fact that you welcome his comments here but he blocks us both.
Fearful life is not faithful life.
A question then a comment:
Question: Why do you not link to the Stan blog post you're referencing with this post? To do so would allow readers, should there be any, to see for themselves just what Stan posted in its entirety and thus in its complete context, rather than just your snippets. If it's a matter of not knowing how, I'd be more than happy to provide instruction. But since you've posted other links to other sources, I don't think that's the problem. There may be one issue with doing so that may a problem and that's linking to the actual post itself as opposed to Stan's blog generally. If this is the case, then all one needs to do is to click on the title of the post in question and that will provide just the post and an url specific to it.
Comment: Regarding this point, "4a. Not everyone agrees that the Bible is the owners manual, or even a good source for morality.", Stan is speaking to Christians, so it really doesn't matter what non-Christians agree with regarding the Bible. I would hold Christians as suspect if they do not find the Bible to be a "good" source of morality.
More later perhaps...
I don't link to Stan's for good reasons.
1. The main people who come here know who Stan is. I gave the name of the post and blog so anyone who wants to see it, can. Someone could also ask and I could tell them, if they really wanted to know.
2. I quoted the pertinent passages and did not misconstrue what he said.
3. I don't like the idea of promoting deviant or dishonest posts or sources. It's the same reason I increasingly will delete comments from people like you who come here and post false, unsupported claims of fact. I've decided that promoting dishonest or irrational sources is just not a good idea.
Yes, all the killing and raping of non-israelites and David's rape of Bethesda makes for excellent moral sources for Marshal. Or, as a Christian, does he cut off the Hebrew Bible and, if so, ready to give up his cutting off of his gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as his ready to give up avoiding pork and menstruating women?
And further to Marshal's self-deceiving hypocrisy, he doesn't link to you, Dan... though he names you and "recapitulates" your points 6 times just on the first page of his site.
1. I suppose it's up to you if you choose to discourage a large readership, and refusing to provide full context for what you copy/paste from another blog is a good way to do that...in addition to your other dodgy ways. Indeed, you're probably better off. I always regarded it as both a courtesy and a gracious sign of good faith.
2. So you say. The new reader has no assurance in that regard, and it's far from uncommon you do indeed have a history of misrepresentations.
3. Ah! That's why you never linked to feo's blog. But now that his once again no longer exists...you being as disinterested as anyone else, humorously enough...your projection would be validated by linking to that which you claim is deviant or dishonest. Or do you just prefer less competition in that regard? What you do promote leaves much to be desired with regard to notions of honesty and rationality. But then, that's how you roll.
It wasn’t a blog. I constructed a wall board of your idiocies and brutalities… but I couldn’t keep up.
Do you have anything to say on-topic, Marshal?
For instance, are you saying along with Stan that you are entirely lacking in ability to distinguish right and wrong without referring to a book?
Or, I made the point that we can not perfectly figure out morality using harm as a guide, but we can do a reasonably good job of it... that we can easily recognize the harm and wrong of killing, abusing, assaulting, stealing, driving while drunk, harassing women, objectifying people, etc, etc and that we don't need to appeal to a sacred text (and interpret it) to understand the wrong in causing harm.
Do you acknowledge that simple and easily understood truth?
Likewise, we can't perfectly understand God's will on morality by appealing to the Bible. People will and do disagree about interpretations. So we can't appeal to either The Bible OR harm to have a perfect understanding of morality, agreed?
"For instance, are you saying along with Stan that you are entirely lacking in ability to distinguish right and wrong without referring to a book?"
I can distinguish the difference between harm and morality, while you're conflating harm with morality. While what is immoral is harmful, not every harm experienced or inflicted is immoral.
One can kill or assault without it being immoral. But I have to point out your typical tactic of trying to reference the most egregious in order to make this point of yours, even though it doesn't truly work. At the same time, what makes any of those things (killing, abusing, assaulting, stealing, driving while drunk, harassing women, objectifying people) immoral? It's not the harm inflicted or experienced, but the fact that God says not to do it.
If we as a society determine some behaviors must not be tolerated (killing, abusing, assaulting, stealing, driving while drunk, harassing women, objectifying people), it's because of the harm perceived to be inflicted or experienced. We may then come to regard those behaviors as immoral, but not everyone will. Clearly, thieves, for instance, don't necessarily regard theft as immoral. Many don't regard sex outside of marriage as immoral, but clearly it is...not because of any harm the participants believe exists in the act, but because God says so.
In the same way, not everyone regards the inflicting of harm as immoral. Some cultures still cut off the hands of thieves, or throw homosexuals off buildings. Is that not harmful? They wouldn't disagree, but they wouldn't say it's immoral.
I wonder where you find Scripture ambiguous on morality. It seems rather crystal clear to me. I believe those who share your difficulty share your desire to legitimize immoral behaviors you'd prefer were not on the list.
Marshal, if you want to comment here, you HAVE to ask the questions that are being asked of you. I'm leaving your comment up because I want to comment on what you've said. But if you try to comment here again without answering the questions asked, you will be deleted.
Marshal... " While what is immoral is harmful, not every harm experienced or inflicted is immoral."
Agreed. The dentist who causes harm to fix my tooth is not being immoral. It's when someone starts operating on my teeth, causing me harm without my permission that it's wrong.
It's more nuanced than "harm=immoral," which is why I haven't said that. It's a general guideline with reasonable extenuating circumstances. Of course.
Marshal... "Clearly, thieves, for instance, don't necessarily regard theft as immoral."
While that may be true for some narcissistically amoral types, in general, you are mistaken. Thieves, in general, would certainly find it wrong when people steal from them. Do you think otherwise? You're mistaken. You're just factually mistaken. CLEARLY, even thieves think it's wrong to have things taken from them. Even murderers don't want their loved ones murdered.
"Sinners," those who do wrong, can find ways to justify themselves in doing what is normally "wrong," but it doesn't mean that they don't think causing harm is wrong.
Right? If you disagree, you're just reading things wrong and you certainly have no evidence to support your mistaken hunch.
Marshal... "I wonder where you find Scripture ambiguous on morality."
By and large, I don't. I find the INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY SOME HUMANS ambiguous or just wrong. That is, what SOME people think is clearly wrong because "the Bible," is an instance of them misunderstanding both morality and the Bible.
For instance, those who would argue that not all slavery is wrong because God commanded it (as they understand the Bible) are mistaken in their interpretation of the Bible. Those who think that God would not celebrate when people unite in a loving marriage, regardless of gender, are mistaken in their interpretation of the Bible.
The reality is that people DO disagree about what the bible teaches about morality. You can see that in our disagreements. Who is to say that YOU are right and I'm wrong? Or vice versa? To whom shall we appeal for a ruling on marriage for all? To whom shall we appeal about certain war practices or war, itself? Christians - even Christians who love the Bible! even conservative Christian to conservative Christian - don't agree on all instances of what is and isn't moral according to the Bible or, as I prefer to seek, according to God. And I'm more interested in finding methods of understanding morality that are not limited to what Marshal thinks about the Bible, something that is more universal and more easily understood.
I think harm is a good starting point.
Both the Bible and harm are imperfect rulers for morality, but looking to harm is more universally understandable and agreeable. Do you have ANY evidence to the contrary?
Again, responding without answering the questions that were asked of you will result in deletion.
What questions?
The sentences with a question mark at the end.
For instance, I asked...
"For instance, are you saying along with Stan that you are entirely lacking in ability to distinguish right and wrong without referring to a book?"
And you responded to a DIFFERENT question...
I can distinguish the difference between harm and morality, while you're conflating harm with morality. While what is immoral is harmful, not every harm experienced or inflicted is immoral.
It's a relatively simple question. CAN YOU distinguish between right and wrong without referring to your interpretation of your sacred book? DO you need a book to tell you that it is wrong to beat your children? To drink and drive? To burn a black church down?
OR, are you like most people and we can just KNOW that these things are wrong, NOT because there's a line in a book telling us it's wrong (there isn't), but because it causes harm in an unjust and irrational manner?
Note the question mark. That means THAT is the question I'm asking, NOT "can you distinguish between harm and morality?"
"It's a relatively simple question. CAN YOU distinguish between right and wrong without referring to your interpretation of your sacred book?"
Well, you're quite simple minded. You seem to think that what you feel needs no reference to or reliance on Scripture wasn't the result of being raised in a culture vastly influenced by Scripture and has been since the Resurrection. On what basis can you assert that you would feel as you do without having been raised in such a culture, particularly with your own life in the church, regardless of your current perversions of the faith? Muslims do not regard morality as real Christians do, for example. Again, they chop of the hands of thieves. They have a totally different notion of both harm and morality.
You also seem to think that what is moral is the result of consensus opinion with your constant references to what "most people" think...as if you did an actual poll of "most people" (that would take a long time given how many people there are in the world).
more later...
Sooo... Is that a no, you're not able to recognise good and bad without referring to a book? You give yourself less credit than I do, if so. I think you are probably capable of recognizing some very basic notions of morality, even without a book.
Put another way, to try to get you to answer the actual question that you're being asked, if you had never been exposed to The Bible, do you think that you would be unable to recognize the evil of rape or murder?
The book doesn't even refer to the book: "the word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart."
Precisely. I have long said that the biggest problem with Inerrancy in The Bible being the primary source of wisdom is that this is not a biblical teaching. In other words, it is a self-defeating argument.
In fact, scripture exemplifies self-corrective criticism: progressive insight. God regrets the flood and commits to never doing that again. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus changes and intensifies the social code in the Law. Peter tells the Jerusalem church how the Holy Spirit has changed their understanding of the gospel: Gentiles are included. Paul confronts Peter about how nothing of Jewish law is required of Gentiles to be Christian. Paul says the strong in faith do not need to worry about myths or customs or superstitions the way weak Christians do: like eating meat sacrificed to idols.
Marshal continues to answer OTHER questions beyond the ones I've asked him. You bore me, Marshal. I would like to know your answer to the question I'm asking you. Answer or not, that's on you. But your unsupported hunches and wild-assed guesses are just a boor.
What Marshal said and WHY it isn't an answer to the questions being asked of him...
"You seem to have a hard time with the concept of the deeply ingrained influence of a couple thousand years of Christian influence on our culture."
I asked IF he was able to discern right and wrong without referring to a book. This sentence does not answer that question. I'm not talking about whether or not our culture has Christian influence. I'm asking IF he could discern right and wrong without a Bible.
Marshal continued...
"If one has absolutely no upbringing in the faith, but is raised in a western culture, particularly like ours, there's no way notions of right/wrong aren't the result of generations of Christian influence."
Again, this does NOT answer the question: IF THERE WERE NO BIBLE IN THE WORLD, would you be able to discern right and wrong? THAT is the question.
Marshal continued...
"As a result of you being a product of that cultural influence, you can't conceive of an understanding of the moral implications of any behavior different than your own which is the result of that influence."
Again, I'm NOT ASKING if our culture has been influenced by Christianity. I'm asking IF he could discern right and wrong without the Bible.
Marshal finished...
"So much a product of this influence are you that you even cite Scripture to support your opinion you wouldn't be any different were you not of the culture!"
I don't even know what this means. But it is NOT an answer to the question being asked.
Marshal, THE BIBLE says that even pagans recognize right and wrong, that we have the law of God written on our hearts and conscience. We have the Holy Spirit speaking to us. The BIBLE suggests that we can recognize right and wrong WITHOUT the Bible. Do you agree with that simple little bit of a question?
CAN YOU DISCERN RIGHT AND WRONG IF YOU'D NEVER BEEN EXPOSED TO THE BIBLE? (and, since you keep yammering on and on about Christian culture, I'll extend the question to ...IF YOU'D NEVER BEEN EXPOSED TO THE BIBLE OR CHRISTIAN CULTURE?)
THAT is the question you need to answer. Or just go away. It's a reasonable question and I don't know what you and Stan think. Since it's entirely biblical to recognize that humans have within them "the Word of God" and the notion of right and wrong, I can't imagine you'd disagree with it, but the way you all dodge and hem and haw and put up all sorts of caveats, it makes one wonder.
It seems to me that Marshal has answered your question and has answered it almost exactly as we would.
These points are absolutely true:
- "...the concept of the deeply ingrained influence of a couple thousand years of Christian influence on our culture"
- "If one has absolutely no upbringing in the faith, but is raised in a western culture, particularly like ours, there's no way notions of right/wrong aren't the result of generations of Christian influence."
Marshal has hit the nail on the head: our society is so shot through with Judeo-Christian morality that gay Catholic essayist, Richard Rodriguez says that if you stay in the US long enough you take on protestant aspects of viewing life and the world. Marshal has got it right because he has ignored the Bible and its problem with pigs and menstruating women and women altogether and two crop shirts and brutalizing parenting and nation-state favor and slavery and keeping the gospel from some but not others and putting men on a pedestal.
Marshal has got it right because he admits history into our thinking. Culture after all is the whole grab bag of custom and thought and law and arts of a people that persist in history and change according to the experience of those people. Marshal is right because our ideas of right and wrong AS CHRISTIAN CULTURE has changed in time.
This is exactly we would argue, Dan.
Christian culture has disowned slavery. Christian culture has disowned bigamy. Christian has disowned the superiority of men. Christian culture has disowned the absolute right given to straight, married men who have fathered children. Christianity has disowned anti-semitism. First the slave, then women, then single people and communion with Jews and Muslims and gay people and then trans people... have all followed one after the other in history into the Christian arms of welcome and love and brother and sisterhood and now common with non-binary folks.
Marshal is right! Our Christian culture has travelled this road over centuries. Continuity of purpose: to love as Christ loved us. And discontinuity of power: no one is above another. Christian culture has morphed and moved and arrived at the current epoch more able to see right and wrong.
We have done so because of exactly what Marshal has written: - "...the concept of the deeply ingrained influence of a couple thousand years of Christian influence on our culture.... If one has absolutely no upbringing in the faith, but is raised in a western culture, particularly like ours, there's no way notions of right/wrong aren't the result of generations of Christian influence."
Perhaps Marshal can unpack the second pair of his brilliant points and show us how he is right again?!
-"As a result of you being a product of that cultural influence, you can't conceive of an understanding of the moral implications of any behavior different than your own which is the result of that influence."
-"So much a product of this influence are you that you even cite Scripture to support your opinion you wouldn't be any different were you not of the culture!"
I take this as Marshal's great encouragement that despite the promise and congratulatory notes of his first two points, we should take caution: we are limited by being raised in one culture only. It is absolutely true that we "can't conceive of an understanding of the moral implications of any behavior different than [our} own" because our western cultural frame of conceiving the world is limited precisely because it is specifically and only western christian.
I do believe he is right again in saying that scripture can open us up to the realization that we are limited, that we do not know everything about right and wrong. }
Not only culture tells us truths and how some truths pass away and other truths arise ready for the moment. Scripture, too, tells us that are other kingdoms than ours to which god attends; that the Spirit moves as it will, like the wind; that even those closest to Jesus, some of whom wrote some of the NT got it wrong, that Jesus never told them that Gentiles would believe by the thousands and then tens of thousands unto billions. Jesus never knew taught them that. The Holy Spirit had to.
And when we consider that the earliest church, in Jerusalem perished and disappeared, that Jewish Christians didn't make into a second century of faith...
... all the more reason we should be humble and realize our limitations as Marshal writes. We cannot but view things as western christians.
That is who we are; that is how we construct a moral view of the world as we do. And scripture tells us that while we can imagine marvelous things, we will never reach as wide as god's love.
Marshal is right! Culture tells us better and better stories of what's right and wrong both by how we get it right over time and how we get it wrong. And scripture is its own critic on how it, too, gets so much right and also so much wrong.
Amazing. I've answered the question in the only honest manner available. How can I possibly answer the way you want me to answer when there's no way in this culture that one can not be discerning right and wrong without the influence of Scripture so permeating all of it? I was born to Christian parents who put me in Christian schools. Like all "good" Christians, my sense of right and wrong is wholly determined by Scripture. How can I possibly insist I'd do anything different if I had no exposure to Scripture, either directly as in my case, or due to existing in such a strongly Christian-influenced culture?
No doubt I'd like to believe that I could discern between right and wrong without Scripture, but I can't be honest in saying I actually could. Scripture and its influence is just to ingrained through both personal upbringing and immersion in this culture. What's clear, however, is your determination to project this notion that God, via Scripture, isn't the basis and source of morality.
But let's assume I've had no exposure of any kind. Assume I don't exist in American or western culture at all, as well as no religious culture at all. Let's go so far as to say there is no established set of civil laws by which to guide my behavior. Could I then know right from wrong? I would insist that I would do what even so many within any of these cultures do now. I'd make up my own based on how things impact me personally and directly. You mention, for example, thieves, "in general, would certainly find it wrong when people steal from them." But that's not the same as thieves, in general, believing it's perfectly fine to steal from others. It's one thing to murder me or my family or friends, but that guy had it coming. None of this is a legitimate argument supporting your premise.
You also whine about interpretations. While I insist you don't interpret so much as simply ignore truth, I've far less confidence in those who would NOT rely upon Scripture, even poorly as you, in favor of "reasoning" for themselves.
And again, you ignore the influence of Scripture that permeates the culture in which you were raised.
""So much a product of this influence are you that you even cite Scripture to support your opinion you wouldn't be any different were you not of the culture!"
I don't even know what this means."
And then you go and do it again just a few sentences later...
"THE BIBLE says that even pagans recognize right and wrong, that we have the law of God written on our hearts and conscience. We have the Holy Spirit speaking to us. The BIBLE suggests that we can recognize right and wrong WITHOUT the Bible."
You know this ONLY because Scripture tells you so. Would you know it if Scripture didn't exist? More than likely, there would be no possibility of the thought even occurring to you. (I would also suggest...though I'd have to go back and study further to confirm it...that what you're paraphrasing speaks specifically to pagans who act in a similar fashion to Christians...not ALL pagans.) feo also references Scripture to make your point, yet without Scripture the argument can't be made.
So without referencing Scripture, what I would...what ANYONE would...do would be to invent right and wrong according to who actions affect them, and then it's a matter if they have empathy for others as to whether they'd be consistent in what they regard as right or wrong...that is, it's wrong even to perpetrate against others as it is to have it perpetrated against me. We are prone to rationalizing our own behaviors, including doing that which we don't want done to us.
Marshal is having trouble going in and out of sense.
Marshal did not grow up in a Christian theocracy run by scripture. Just a Judeo-Christian infused culture dominated by Democratic principles (of pagan origin) and rules of law (of Jewish) and laws of physics (of Muslim origin). We pick up right and wrong not from a 2000 year-old papyrus but from our present day infused culture which regularly deals with things that did not exist and could not be thought of 50 years ago. Like those people did 50 years ago in relation to the birth of the 20th century. Like those people at the birth of the 20th century did after all those before them.
At some point, going back, Christians burned Christians and Jews and Muslims at the stake. One century female mystics were had become the rage, the next, toast.
After, we learned better. We had to figure out that burning at the stake was wrong all on our own.
Scripture did not keep that from happening in Christian culture. It is a helpful source, but it's helpfulness rests solely on our capacity to image god. And it is not necessary. As centuries of Christian life can attest. And as Jewish lives can attest. And Buddhist live. And Muslim lives. And the great mass of almost all people that didn't give any of those much attention at all but were good fathers and mothers and innovators and artists and farmers and shoe makers and therapists and doctors and bakers.
I'll let Marshal's response stand, even though he STILL hasn't answered the question(s) put to him. I'm letting it stand to explain how to answer questions to him. Marshal seems perplexed and asks...
" How can I possibly answer the way you want me to answer when there's no way in this culture that one can not be discerning right and wrong without the influence of Scripture so permeating all of it?"
Make a reasoned guess? Adults do it all the time.
For instance, "I know you're not yet a parent, but what do you think your take will be on corporal punishment...?" The adult, who isn't a parent but who has reasoning capability can think about it and offer their opinion about what THEY would do.
Or, "I know we've only known a life with cars, but do you think you'd like to live in a car-free society...?" That's a question that people can answer with a reasoned response, IN SPITE of not having lived that reality.
In the case of this question, one could look at cultures that didn't have Christian influence. The !Kung people of the Kalahari in Africa. They've long been known as natural peaceful, non-aggressive people. They didn't have the Bible to tell them that's a good thing. There are other examples. Or just knowing yourself... are you so unimaginative that you don't think you'd instinctively KNOW not to harm another person? Or are you so bad that you think you would tend to WANT to harm others?
Maybe this is a matter of projection on your part, perhaps? Perhaps, not knowing anything but your own instinct to cause harm, you assume that ALL people must be that way and you can't imagine anything else, without a rule book to stop you from it. I don't know. You tell me.
The thing is, you CAN answer the question, it's not an impossible question. It would be hypothetical, to be sure, but that doesn't mean a reasoned answer is not possible.
Marshal... "What's clear, however, is your determination to project this notion that God, via Scripture, isn't the basis and source of morality."
God has not told you, nor has the Bible, that "God is the source of morality." That's a human tradition, not a biblical one.
It APPEARS you are suggesting that there was this wide world and God just decided, "here are some rules that I'm making to keep people moral... the rules aren't tied to anything, I'm just grabbing them out of nowhere and NOW we all can know what is and isn't moral..."
There's that notion (you can clarify if that's what you're suggesting) OR there's the more reasonable, "Here are things that cause harm to others - killing, abuse, oppression, theft... Don't be a dick. Don't cause harm to others. You wouldn't want them to do it to you, don't do it to others..." and THAT is morality. As Jesus said, "Love God and Love people. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” And what is "loving people and loving God..."? Treat them as your neighbor, Jesus said. Be kind. Don't harm them.
So, we have one view that seems to suggest that God just willy nilly made up rules and another view that says morality is not harming others, but doing good to others... it's best understood as avoiding harm and doing good. And THAT is something we can understand whether or not we have a Bible.
Should I get sloppy drunk and drive a car load of children down a mountainous path at 100 mph? I don't need a bible to show me that's a stupidly bad idea. Immoral, even. Why? Because of a line in a book? OR because of the potential for great harm?
I say it's reasonable to conclude the latter.
Marshal... "You know this ONLY because Scripture tells you so."
Prove it. This is just another empty and ridiculous claim. I know it because I see it. It is a reality-based understanding, observable and demonstrable.
Marshal...
"Would you know it if Scripture didn't exist?"
Yes. Why wouldn't I? The notion of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you...) across religions and non-religious philosophies. You know that, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Ancient_Egypt
Marshal... "We are prone to rationalizing our own behaviors, including doing that which we don't want done to us."
Yes, we are. BUT that doesn't mean that we don't recognize that stealing is wrong.... generally... but I can find a reason to make an exception for me. Recognizing that stealing is wrong... that causing harm to others is wrong is a first step in recognizing that it is also wrong for me to harm others. Why would reasonable people not be able to see that?
"So, we have one view that seems to suggest that God just willy nilly made up rules..."
Who's "we"? I certainly haven't made that suggestion. Clearly you need to believe I have, but you can't support it with anything I've ever said.
But you continue to suggest that these ambiguous concepts..."doing harm/doing good"...are hard and fast rules which are clear and undeniable by all people all over the world. You do this having been raised and existing in a culture that is shaped and influenced by Scripture, and pretend that influence plays no role, has no true affect and wouldn't make a bit of difference if it never existed. This presumption ignores what is more likely true, that the culture in which we live would surely look drastically different if not for the influence of Scripture. And such a culture would result in a vastly different world view which you would treat as every bit as obvious as what you think you believe now.
What's more, these concepts are still susceptible to personal opinion despite your deceitful referencing of some of the most obvious (to us) examples of "doing harm". I would love to believe that everyone who engages in behaviors I know/believe are wrong continue to engage in them with a guilty conscious because they know deep down it's wrong to engage in those behaviors. But as we can see with regard to human sexuality, that is absolutely not the case. Thus, I've no reason to believe all who steal believe it's wrong for them to do so, and I know from the many testimonies of organized crime personnel there are many behaviors they perpetrate upon others which are not viewed by them as "wrong".
But to the point regarding the question you insist you can answer easily while I don't, you are not asking as one who takes the slightest time to consider what our world would be like without Scripture. We would choose what we regard as moral and immoral based on that which pleases US, and that is not a basis for morality. It is what is fashionable and subject to change for any number of reasons that provoke a shift in perceptions. Scripture is fixed, even with those like yourself pretending interpretations are unreliable, when in fact the reality is you're not interpreting as much as rejecting.
Thus, it isn't a matter of whether or not I, too, could come up with some code of morality without Scripture, but whether or not it is to my benefit to do so. You provide me with enough evidence all on your own to know it is not.
Marshal... "You provide me with enough evidence all on your own to know it is not."
Your very argument is undone by me. I believe what I believe BECAUSE I took The Bible seriously. It is the bible's teachings that lead me to believe what I believe. And that, while I was still something of a literalist! Thus, if you think I'm wrong, then you're blaming The Bible and saying it isn't sufficient.
Marshal... "But to the point regarding the question you insist you can answer easily while I don't, you are not asking as one who takes the slightest time to consider what our world would be like without Scripture. We would choose what we regard as moral and immoral based on that which pleases US, and that is not a basis for morality."
I can answer it easily BECAUSE I have taken a great deal of time over the years thinking this through. Remember, I come from the world of believing in the inherently sinful, awful nature of humanity. Over the years, I realized that humans just don't tend to be evil. Imperfect, yes. Flawed, of course. But nothing like evil or utterly or totally depraved.
In fact, humanity shows (in cultures with exposure to Christianity and without) a great good bit of commonality. We pretty universally avoid murder, theft, rape, abuse, etc. In fact, the places that we have some of the greatest problems with these overtly awful sins/crimes are nations exposed to a great deal of Christianity.
CS Lewis (Mere Christianity) argues that this nearly universally inherent and consistent sense of right and wrong is one of the evidences of God (which point could be debated, but that's another topic).
So, as one who's taken DECADES to think about humanity and sin (not "[not taking] the slightest time," as you stupidly falsely claim), the notion of us recognizing what is right and wrong to be done TO US is indeed a good measure for right and wrong. It is, after all, the Golden Rule.
Marshal... "Who's "we"? I certainly haven't made that suggestion."
I was CLEARLY asking you the question, giving you an option to clarify. You can tell by the way I said, "you can clarify if that's what you're suggesting."
Thanks for clarifying. So, you are NOT saying that God just willy nilly made up rules. Are you also agreeing, then, that the rules are about doing that which is kind and NOT doing that which causes harm?
1. Or are you proposing some third alternative?
Don't make ANY other comments until you answer that line of questions/clarify what it is you ARE saying.
Likewise, this...
"you continue to suggest that these ambiguous concepts..."doing harm/doing good"...are hard and fast rules which are clear and undeniable by all people all over the world."
I literally did NOT say there are "hard and fast rules."
CAN YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT I SAID? And that you were factually mistaken when you made this claim?
Indeed, I've been quite clear that causing harm is wrong and that we can all GENERALLY agree upon this concept... AND YET, we can oftentimes find reasons why it's reasonable to make exceptions for us to cause harm.
Right?
Don't make any further comments without answering the bold questions. IF you do, they will be deleted.
"1. Or are you proposing some third alternative?"
No.
"CAN YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT I SAID? "
No.
"And that you were factually mistaken when you made this claim?"
No.
"Right?"
No.
"So, you are NOT saying that God just willy nilly made up rules"
No, I'm not. That's just something you like to say in order to disparage and insult. I've not so much as hinted at such a thing and you damned well know it. So why say something like that except to disparage and insult? The claim you're seeking clarity is bullshit. This is what seeking clarity looks like:
"Are you also agreeing, then, that the rules are about doing that which is kind and NOT doing that which causes harm?"
This question is poorly worded and makes no sense. Please restate it.
See how that works?
"Your very argument is undone by me. I believe what I believe BECAUSE I took The Bible seriously."
Then your argument is undone by your own self. You've just admitted the influence of Scripture and thus you've made my case. You can't judge morality without Scripture. Your claim of being able to discern right and wrong without referring to a book fails if your beliefs are so influenced by that book. You believe what you believe because of the Bible. I'd certainly like to believe that I'd come to the same conclusions about right and wrong I now hold without Scripture, but the fact is that's not possible nor possible to know if I could were I to have been raised without its influence. YOU certainly want to believe that the Dan that exists would be exactly the same were it not for the influence Scripture has had on him, both through direct exposure of his being raised in a Christian home, as well as through his existing in a culture in which the influence of Scripture is so deeply ingrained.
Marshal... "Then your argument is undone by your own self. You've just admitted the influence of Scripture and thus you've made my case. You can't judge morality without Scripture."
SAYS WHO?
As to the rest of your evasive responses... sigh.
Look, here are TWO options.
1. Morality can be viewed, perhaps primarily, as that which unjustly causes harm. Stealing, rape, arson, lying, slander, murder, oppression... these things ALL cause harm to others and oftentimes, unjustly/unfairly/in a manner that violates the human liberties we all should enjoy.
THIS option makes sense to me as a helpful way to understand morality. YOU APPEAR to be saying that this option is wrong.
ARE YOU?
2. God makes up rules, NOT based on harm but just God's wishes, what God wants and doesn't want, regardless of harm.
Is THIS option what you're proposing? You just answered NO to that, right?
IF it's not 1 or 2, THEN IT MUST BE a third alternative. Which would be fine. BUT YOU JUST SAID YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING OF A THIRD ALTERNATIVE.
Rationally speaking, it MUST be 1 OR 2 OR some other alternative. You're answer can't be NO to all three. That makes no rational sense.
Explain, please.
Also, there's this bold faced lie. I asked...
"CAN YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT I SAID?" (that there are hard and fast rules identified by using harm as a guide)
You responded...
"No."
Well the reality is that I DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU SAID. It's just a shit-in-your-brainskull-stupidly false claim. THAT is why you get deleted, making such stupidly false claims and not even trying to support it, which you can't because it's stupidly false.
NOW either admit that clearly AND apologize for doubling down on your stupidly false claim or SUPPORT it, which you can't because I literally never said that and was quite clear that this was NOT what I was saying.
Answer the bold questions.
"You've just admitted the influence of Scripture and thus you've made my case. You can't judge morality without Scripture."
"SAYS WHO?"
Says you. "It is the bible's teachings that lead me to believe what I believe."
"1. Morality can be viewed, perhaps primarily, as that which unjustly causes harm."
It can be viewed any way you choose to view it. That doesn't mean it's true.
"Stealing, rape, arson, lying, slander, murder, oppression... these things ALL cause harm to others..."
Again, harm does not equal immoral. More specifically to this attempt, all those things do not represent the totality of immorality. You want immorality to be defined by what you regard as harmful behavior. I, as a Christian, believe morality/immorality is defined by God. Thus...
"THIS option makes sense to me as a helpful way to understand morality. YOU APPEAR to be saying that this option is wrong."
It is.
"2. God makes up rules, NOT based on harm but just God's wishes, what God wants and doesn't want, regardless of harm."
Yes. Whether or not that's the most accurate way to frame it, the initial part..."God makes up rules"...is the reality. I prefer the more accurate and honest way to frame it, which is that God determines what is or isn't moral based on that which does or doesn't please Him. I can't understand why you have a problem with that, other than the fact that you don't care what does or doesn't please Him so much as what pleases you and your friends.
"CAN YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT I SAID?"
I will clarify: I can only agree that those were not the exact words you used.
Marshal... "harm does not equal immoral."
To make things more clear, I added the qualifier UNJUST harm. UNJUST harm is immoral, do you agree? That is what makes all these crimes immoral, because they are unjust. I'm not talking about the dentist causing pain... and talking about a man raping a woman. Do you understand?
Ignorance does not equal moral.
My point is that Marshal is ignorant. He is not ignorant like a 14. year old. Marshal is determined to be ignorant. It is an act of his will. And because he is ignorant he is a brutalist white supremacist. He is - to our knowledge - not a criminal. So ignorance is the foundation of his brutality.
But the Bible cannot, has not, convinced him that he is ignorant. The Bible can tell him his actions in the world are brutal. Because we, Dan, being Christians can see it by the light of scripture. But Marshal wills to be ignorant.
So, the Bible fails to tell Marshal of the cause of his brutality: he is ignorant. Scripture is not stronger than a human beings will. This is precisely why scripture cannot be blamed: it is not superior to gods creation of the human person. So, Marshal’s Will to ignorance, being superior to scripture negates scripture’s plea re his brutality and the ignorance that drives it. If he had ears to hear…
Marshal’s ignorance does not absolve his accountability. It constitutes his culpability.
Ignorance does not equal being moral.
It's on him.
But Dan...."unjust" harm is subjective as well. Indeed, most would regard ANY harm experienced as unjust, as no one desires any experience of harm. So, couch it in any terms which you can conjure, basing morality on "harm" is subjective. Relying on the Word of God is not.
Marshal complained... "Unjust" harm is subjective as well."
And so are your interpretations of the Bible. What of it?
Just because some opinions are subjective or not objectively provable (what constitutes unjust harm? What is the right moral position about gay folk marrying, going to war, etc?) does not mean that they can't be REASONABLY agreed upon.
So, tell me this: You KNOW, right, that by definition, YOUR HUNCHES about what the Bible has to say about gay folk marrying or going to war or driving gas vehicles or having an abortion or about anything ARE SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE conclusions about these moral questions... You know that, right? You understand that reality?
1. Put another way, the vast majority of rational adults in the world can AGREE that they don't want someone to pluck their eye out or cut their hand off or enslave them, right?
2. And these same reasonable people would agree that it would be MORALLY WRONG to cause them these harms (and others) without just cause, right?
3. And, given the global agreement in nearly all religions and belief systems (outside of religion) of the idea of the Golden Rule - we ought not do to others what we don't want them to do to us/do unto others as we'd have them do to us - is nearly universally agreed upon, right?
3a. Or, at the very least, YOU HAVE NO DATA to demonstrate that this isn't nearly universally accepted, right?
4. Given that agreement, then we CAN SEE that it is extremely reasonable to expect that we can agree upon NOT causing harm to others unjustly and that it's just not that damn hard in many, many cases and in broad strokes - AS LONG AS we don't try to make exceptions for ourselves, right?
Marshal and Dan exchanged...
Marshal: "You've just admitted the influence of Scripture and thus you've made my case. You can't judge morality without Scripture."
Dan: "SAYS WHO?"
Marshal: Says you. "It is the bible's teachings that lead me to believe what I believe."
That I WAS led to my beliefs about morality via the Bible does not mean that EVERYONE was. You KNOW, right, that Dan does not equal Everyone?
Also, just because I DID get to my moral position largely due to the Bible, doesn't mean that I could not have ALSO found my way to my moral positions ABSENT the Bible. I'm quite confident that I would have, NOT because I'm special but because most people do, historically speaking.
So, your answer is literally mistaken and not valid, rationally or biblically.
Last chance:
WHO SAYS that ALL people can only find morality through the Bible... that ALL people "can't judge morality without Scripture..."?
The Bible doesn't say that. God has not told you that. Reason does not dictate that. So on WHOSE authority would you make such an overtly nonsensical claim?
Marshal, I have your comments but have deleted them because you still are not answering questions and you are making stupidly false, unsupported (because they ARE false) claims. As I have time, I'll deal with them.
Let's just deal with one question at a time. I'm being quite patient, but I don't have all the time or patience in the world. Answer or move on.
Dan said...
"WHO SAYS that ALL people can only find morality through the Bible... that ALL people "can't judge morality without Scripture..."?"
Marshal responded, without answering...
I don't have a list.
My point, as I made clear, is WITH WHAT AUTHORITY would you make that claim. I don't want a list of people who agree with you. You're making a claim that is, on the face of it, false. I'm giving you a chance to prove it authoritatively, BUT you have to have an authoritative source.
Marshal continued...
I've no doubt non-Christians, fake progressive Christians and atheists would disagree with me. I'm not at all concerned about that, beyond the fact they are not saved.
Irrelevant and not an answer to the question.
Marshal...
my position is that God,
through Scripture as it's God's revelation to us of His will,
is our source for understanding morality.
Okay, fine. WHERE HAS GOD TOLD YOU THIS, that people "can't judge morality without Scripture..."?
Answer THAT question.
[Of course, the reality is that GOD HAS NOT TOLD YOU THIS, but here's your chance.]
From there, Marshal dodged one point after another by providing stupidly false and unsupported claims...
"The Bible doesn't say that."
It kinda does.
"God has not told you that."
He really does.
"Reason does not dictate that."
So, yeah, it does.
"So on WHOSE authority would you make such an overtly nonsensical claim?"
I don't make nonsensical claims. YOU, however, have nonsensical objections to the legitimate claims I make.
These are not answers to the question. You have PRECISELY ONE CHANCE to answer THIS question and answer it directly. IF you're going to claim special guidance from God, you WILL have to support it.
Empty claims will be deleted.
Saying, "Well, I read it in the Bible and it's 'obvious' that it's saying what I'M saying..." without support is an empty claim and it will be deleted.
Admitting you can't answer it is fine, it would be honest, at least. Admitting a mistake and apologizing for misstating reality would be fine.
But giving unsupported false claims will be deleted.
Nothing else, JUST this one question.
Also...
Marshal...
"my position is that God,
through Scripture as it's God's revelation to us of His will,
is our source for understanding morality."
Are you saying that the Bible is our SOLE source for understanding morality? Our primary source for understanding morality? If either of those, where is your source to prove that? Or is that your hunch?
If you're saying that it is an established fact that The Bible is our sole or primary source for understanding morality, you'll have to support that with something authoritative. Something more authoritative than, "that's what I think."
Again this is all very very very subjective. What you offer so far is incredibly especially only your opinion, and one that you can't prove.
You understand that?
"my position is that God,
through Scripture as it's God's revelation to us of His will,
is our source for understanding morality."
Marshal supplants Christ with a book.
Because he doesn’t know the living Christ.
Marshal opted to just not answers again and so was deleted. His response was, in part...
"you don't regard God as the source of morality...that morality flows from God because it is God's character...that if we're to be proper reflections of Him, to be a true image of Him, then we must model Him to the best of our ability."
I would just ask him (in questions that he won't answer because that's not what he does)
1. Did God TELL you that God is the "source of morality?"
I would answer that, No, God has not told Marshal this and if he says God did, then Marshal is a delusional liar.
2. Does the BIBLE ever say that God is the source of morality?
The answer is literally no. Those words and that concept are not in the Bible. If it were, Marshal could have provided it, but it's literally not there. So, Marshal did what all Trump-like bullies do: He just made the claim authoritatively, AS IF Marshal were speaking for God or even speaking for the Bible.
As to "modeling God," I'm all for that. And IF God is perfect, THEN modeling God would be one way to help understand morality. But that's a different premise than saying that God or the Bible says that God is the SOURCE of morality. That's literally an empty false claim.
3. Are you just using YOUR reason to make that leap... that modeling God seems like a good idea for understanding morality and the Bible contains stories about God, so we can get a better idea of morality from reading about God?
Then that is you using YOUR REASON to form a SUBJECTIVE and UNPROVEN/UNPROVABLE hunch. And it's certainly not the same as saying authoritatively that "the Bible" is the "source of morality." NOR is it the same as saying "One can't judge morality without the Bible."
Reality is, man. Embrace it.
IF you want to make a subjective and unproven/unprovable claim that "THIS IS WHAT I, MARSHAL, personally believe..." then say THAT. But don't make claims that are stupidly and clearly false on the face of it.
That is not a way to model God and by YOUR reasoning, that is immoral.
Marshal also said... "I'm not going to play your game about something which, for anyone claiming to be a Christian, is not even debatable. I haven't been affirming this with the mere claim of "that's what I think". I don't "think" it. I know it because it is what Scripture teaches...about itself...about God"
A. It's NOT a game. These are reasonable questions. IF there is ONE SOURCE or a PERFECTLY RELIABLE source for morality, it would HELP if you could provide it. But merely making stupidly false empty claims doesn't do anything other than establish your disconnect from reality.
B. It IS debatable. IF YOU are going to make a claim, you can't merely say "And MY WORDS ARE NOT DEBATABLE! LISTEN TO MARSHAL, HE HAS SPOKEN!!" You have to, you know, actually SUPPORT your words. Empty claims are just empty claims.
C. It's what Scripture teaches? WHERE?
What Scripture teaches is that "God's Law is written in OUR HEARTS."
Romans 2, for instance:
"Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know God's law
when they instinctively obey it,
even without having heard it.
They demonstrate that
God’s law is written in their hearts,
for their own conscience and thoughts either
accuse them or tell them they are doing right."
There is not a corresponding passage that says, "The ONLY way to understand morality is through the Bible" or "...through scripture..."
It's just not there. You made it up.
EVEN IF it were there, you'd have to do something to demonstrate that it should be taken literally and that it's not figurative language and in what sense it's not figurative.
For instance, with the Romans passage, it's a clearly figurative expression... there are no "laws" LITERALLY written on pagan (or other) hearts. The point he's making is that people know instinctively to some degree right and wrong, good and bad.
That doesn't change no matter how many stupidly false empty claims you make.
I didn't finish my thought...
For instance, with the Romans passage, it's a clearly figurative expression... there are no "laws" LITERALLY written on pagan (or other) hearts. The point he's making is that people know instinctively to some degree right and wrong, good and bad.
We can SEE this in the reality that people universally abhor/avoid/recognize the wrongness of murder, theft, abuse, etc. Even people (as Paul notes) who do not "know 'God's written law.'" That is, it's true NOT because there is a line in the Bible that states it. It's otherwise verifiable and demonstrable.
Marshal, answer the questions put to you or move on. And really, just move on. I already said I was giving you ONE MORE chance and you opted to dodge and evade and make stupidly false claims. Just move on.
Without data and any rational support, you lose. You just do.
It's what Scripture teaches? WHERE?
What Scripture teaches is that "God's Law is written in OUR HEARTS."
Romans 2, for instance:
"Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know God's law
when they instinctively obey it,
even without having heard it.
They demonstrate that
God’s law is written in their hearts,
for their own conscience and thoughts either
accuse them or tell them they are doing right."
There is not a corresponding passage that says, "The ONLY way to understand morality is through the Bible" or "...through scripture..."
It's just not there. You made it up.
EVEN IF it were there, you'd have to do something to demonstrate that it should be taken literally and that it's not figurative language and in what sense it's not figurative.
"1. Did God TELL you that God is the "source of morality?"
Yes. In Scripture we learn that God created the heavens and the earth. That's "Scripture talk" for "He created everything". Thus, there is no morality without Him...thus, He created morality...thus, God is the source of morality.
"I would answer that, No, God has not told Marshal this and if he says God did, then Marshal is a delusional liar."
That's because you're not a real Christian and don't like what morality truly looks like. Thus, to reject the concept of God as the source of morality means you can make morality whatever you need it to be to continue enabling corruptness and sinfulness as you are wont to do.
"2. Does the BIBLE ever say that God is the source of morality?"
If God created all things, which the BIBLE says He has, then that would naturally mean He is the source of all things, and that would have to include morality as well. And to further drive this point home, the BIBLE describes Him handing down the law to Moses, which includes moral behavior. But you reject Scripture, so...
"The answer is literally no."
You're lying again.
"Those words and that concept are not in the Bible."
And this is the crux of your deceitfulness about Scripture. You demand that specific words be explicitly and specifically present in Scripture in just the way you demand it be, or else the truth is not true at all. But again, that's just you lying again.
"He just made the claim authoritatively, AS IF Marshal were speaking for God or even speaking for the Bible."
Well, if speaking the truth about what Scripture says is "speaking for God", then I cop to it. Indeed, I'm quite happy to be able to relate what Scripture so plainly teaches, even if I have to dumb it down for those like yourself, who nonetheless will still reject it because you're not really a Christian. In the meantime, you don't do jack squat to present an alternative "interpretation" for which you could support using Scripture...which is why you reject Scripture as the ultimate source of morality. It's easier than supporting your anti-Christian versions of what Scripture teaches.
"As to "modeling God," I'm all for that."
You should try doing it now and then. It would make your claim of being a Christian more convincing.
"But that's a different premise than saying that God or the Bible says that God is the SOURCE of morality."
Nice straw man. I never said anything like that.
"3. Are you just using YOUR reason to make that leap... that modeling God seems like a good idea for understanding morality and the Bible contains stories about God, so we can get a better idea of morality from reading about God?"
I never said anything like that.
"NOR is it the same as saying "One can't judge morality without the Bible.""
But one can't. What you're doing is simply using your personal preference for behaviors you don't like and calling that morality. It doesn't matter how many people don't like those behaviors. Morality isn't a matter of consensus opinion, because that opinion is subject to change. But God doesn't change and neither does the morality that flows from His Holy Being.
You want to insist that what makes something immoral is that someone is harmed, or that something is moral because someone is helped. Neither of those are true measures of morality. That's just your made up crap. But then, you worship worldliness and crave the approval of the world. Christians don't.
Marshal...
""1. Did God TELL you that God is the "source of morality?"
Yes. In Scripture we learn that God created the heavens and the earth. That's "Scripture talk" for "He created everything". Thus, there is no morality without Him...thus, He created morality...thus, God is the source of morality."
No. The answer is literally NO. GOD HAS NEVER TOLD YOU YOUR MADE UP SHIT PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS. God has NOT spoken to Marshal on this matter.
God has NEVER once audibly spoken to you on this topic, has God?
THE ANSWER IS NO.
Going from there, you are conflating "I read a line in the Bible AND I THINK THAT MEANS... that God created morality and that God has said the Bible is THE SOURCE for morality" from that, to, "THEREFORE, GOD HAS TOLD ME."
Those things are not the same.
God has literally not told you the Bible is THE SOURCE for morality, and the bible hasn't told you this.
Marshal then dealt with this by saying... "And this is the crux of your deceitfulness about Scripture. You demand that specific words be explicitly and specifically present in Scripture in just the way you demand it be"
No. I literally am not doing that. God never demanded that slavery is always immoral, and yet, I get that from the Bible and from using my God-given brain. I think it is extremely biblical and Godly to consider slavery an affront to God and humanity, always, even if the Bible never says that.
For instance.
So, I literally am NOT saying that the words have to be literally there. I'm saying what I've always said... That the IDEA has to be there.
The IDEA that "scripture is THE SOURCE for understanding morality" is not in the bible. It's just not. It's literally not. YOU are reading that INTO the Bible, but it's literally not there. You haven't even tried pointing to some place that made you make that leap.
You're just factually wrong, Marshal. I don't know how to help you understand the difference between subjective opinion and objectively provable fact, but it IS an objectively provable fact that those words aren't there and that IF you read that INTO the Bible, that is literally YOUR subjective and unproven opinion.
I'm letting this response from you stand, but just so that it's abundantly clear that you are not answering the questions that are asked of you and that you have no answers but your own ridiculous opinions which you are conflating to God's Word.
Shame on you. Move on. If you can't answer directly and honestly and factually, just go on. You're done on this post.
Marshal... " In Scripture we learn that God created the heavens and the earth. That's "Scripture talk" for "He created everything". Thus, there is no morality without Him...thus, He created morality...thus, God is the source of morality."
Using Marshal's "reasoning" here, then by that thinking, IF God created everything, THEN God created rape and evil and eating babies for lunch. Because it exists, then it must be God's creation.
Don't be ridiculous.
Marshal... "hus, there is no morality without Him...thus, He created morality"
PROVE IT. This is just a Trumpian sort of empty claim with NOTHING to support it.
The Bible doesn't say this and reason does not support this. And you're not even TRYING to support it other than saying, Well, I think it... That's not what I'm asking for.
Here's yet another way of looking at it... IF there were no God and that were proven somehow, there still would be mountains, oceans, streams, grass, trees... etc, everything that is here IS here. And notions of morality are, as well.
Now, some believers (Christian and otherwise) believe that God created everything, literally shaping or causing into being mountains, oceans, etc. And we can easily imagine that, figuratively. At the same time, tectonic plates formed mountains, pushing them up. Erosion, wind and water and other natural forces created valleys and canyons. We can see that reality. Now, did God CAUSE this world to be this way, intending to have tectonic plates push mountains up? I don't know, could be. God has not told me nor you that. The Bible doesn't tell us that. What we DO know is that observably, these terrain features happened because of natural forces of the earth.
Likewise, we do not KNOW, authoritatively, demonstrably, objectively provably, that God "created" morality OR if morality is simply the Golden Rule - a force of human nature, if you will. God has not told us this, not in the Bible nor audibly.
What we DO know is observably, people tend to acknowledge not causing harm and the Golden Rule way of living, even if we live it imperfectly.
You have not demonstrated otherwise with you simple-minded declarations.
Marshal continues to make unsupported in stupidly false claims. Therefore they were deleted. If you want to comment here Marshal, you MUST provide support for your claims. Empty unsupported claims merely because you say so don't mean jack shit. Repeat that to yourself until it sinks in.
Marshal said, in now-deleted comments...
" If God didn't, then you couldn't be here speculating in this way and making a fool of yourself in the process. You're weak attempts are self-defeating!"
This is an example. It's an unsupported claim. If you can do so, prove your claim. If not, admit it.
Dan said... "I don't know, could be. God has not told me nor you that. The Bible doesn't tell us that."
Marshal responded... "...yes it does. It's the very first sentence of Scripture. If you ever read Scripture, you'd know this."
The first line is, in the beginning God-created the heavens and the Earth. But is that figuratively or literally? If literally, then prove it.
I'll let you answer this one line of questions, Marshal. Or give you a chance to.
Do you think that God literally shaped mountains and dug out oceans? Do you think God blinked like a genie and made the oceans and mountains appear?
Do you think that on day 0 of the universe, there was nothing and on day 1, there was darkness and light? And on Day 2, the Earth appeared with the sky above, but nothing else? That on day 3, God willed mountains and oceans into being, pretty much as they are? And then on day 4, God created a Sun and moon and all the stars?
Or do you think there was a big Bang and from that everything was created, given natural drivers/processes?
Do you really think the Earth was created before the Sun in the moon and the stars, as described in Genesis?
Also, if God can will or wish the universe into being just like that, why take 6 days to do it? Why not just do it all at once?
Also, do you think the days in Genesis are literal 24 hour days? Or do you think the word days may be figurative? If so, on what basis do you assume figurative on the word days but not the whole story? And in either case, where is your proof? How do you objectively demonstrate your hunch to be factual?
Empty, unsupported claims are meaningless and will be deleted.
Marshal, Gen 1 says what it says, but does it MEAN what it literally says, that God created the universe in six literal days? Or is it figurative?
Likewise, Deuteronomy 21 says what it says...
"When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive,
suppose you see among the captives
a beautiful woman whom you desire
and want to marry,
and so you bring her home to your house:
she shall shave her head,
pare her nails,
discard her captive’s garb,
and shall remain in your house a full month,
mourning for her father and mother;
after that you may
go in to her and be her husband,
and she shall be your wife.
But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her..."
It says what it says. But does that mean Literally what it says? That we can capture an enemy woman who we think is beautiful, we can kill her parents, shave her head, trim her nails, give her a month to mourn, and then rape her/forcibly wed her against her will?
Does that mean what it literally says or do we need to use our heads to interpret it a bit understand it? To understand, that no, Of course we shouldn't. It is a great evil to kidnap and forcibly wed/rape a woman?
The point being that just because there's A-line in The Bible does not make that line a literal truth. It could be figurative. It could be specific to a culture or circumstance. We need to use our brains to interpret.
Of course.
And so, the mere existence of the line in Genesis saying, "in the beginning, God created..." is NOT objective evidence that God invented or created morality.
Of course.
Marshal, is it the case that you don't understand the problem with your comments and how they're literally not being supported with anything other than unsupported, empty claim from your? Do not understand that that is what is happening?
No. The problem is you support nothing while demanding your opponents support everything, even that which doesn't in reality require it.
Another problem is you extremely poor comprehension skills, which may actually be just another way you lie. For example:
"And so, the mere existence of the line in Genesis saying, "in the beginning, God created..." is NOT objective evidence that God invented or created morality."
If God created everything...and Christians believe that is the case...then He is responsible for what constitutes morality. How could it possibly be any different? You again want to assert that without God...or without referencing Him...we still have morality. This is untrue. Without God, we have only that which humans choose to regard as moral or immoral behaviors. That is, we see a behavior we find pleasing and assign to it a place on our list of moral behaviors. We do this without regard to what God finds pleasing (and by "we", I mean corrupt, self-serving humans like you and those you defend). But again, this isn't "morality". This is just what's fashionable, and tomorrow...especially as evidenced by leftists like you...it may not be.
But with God, morality is fixed because He doesn't change. What pleases HIM is moral and what displeases Him is not. So to once again refer back to your original question which you long ago have learned is moronic, it's not a question of whether or not I can determine morality without God, but whether or not I will have the arrogance and self-worship necessary to put my own whims above that of God's will. So long as God's will is so easy to determine thanks to having been revealed to us through Scripture, why would I even try to work out what is or isn't moral without Him? What Christian does otherwise? Answer: Fake Christians like you.
Dan... "And so, the mere existence of the line in Genesis saying, "in the beginning, God created..." is NOT objective evidence that God invented or created morality."
Marshal responded, trying again unsuccessfully...
"If God created everything...and Christians believe that is the case...then He is responsible for what constitutes morality. How could it possibly be any different?"
That does not follow rationally or biblically-speaking. "If God created everything, then God created rape and evil..."
Do you believe that? Since "God created everything," then, by your reasoning, ANYTHING in this world that exists is because God "created it..." But I don't believe that, and I don't think you believe that line of reasoning, if we include rape or evil.
Last chance, answer this ONE question and nothing else or you're done with your empty claims.
Do you believe God created evil?
God didn't literally "create" tenderness. God didn't create softness. God didn't create courseness... these are conditions of the world that are inherent in a world. Same for morality.
Beyond that, since you can't objectively prove God created everything, this is STILL an unsupported claim.
Remember, ONLY answer the one question and then I'll evaluate whether or not to engage with you further on this post.
No.
OK, so if God-created everything, including intangible ideas like morality, why didn't God also create evil? Just answer that question.
Because He's Holy and Good.
Okay, so God LITERALLY did NOT create "everything..." and the Bible literally does not say that God created "morality." That is YOUR HUNCH, not a line OR AN IDEA found in the Bible. You are reasoning that out, it is YOUR SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION using your subjective reasoning.
Understand?
God did NOT create every idea/notion/circumstance... not according to Marshal. God didn't "create" evil or rape or murder. God didn't create nuclear bombs or the idea of nuclear energy or solar power, not as found in the Bible. You might use your REASON to make that supposition, but it's not found in the Bible.
Understand the difference between your subjective INTERPRETATIONS and insisting "Yes, the Bible definitively objectively proves this?
And Marshal, I am sure you're gonna want to instinctively answer, "Yes The Bible DOES objectively prove my claim!" But you need to understand objective and subjective.
What if I say I'm over 6' tall and weigh under 150 pounds, that is a fat claim. In anyone can measure me in way me and verify if that is true or not. It doesn't matter if the person doing the way is conservative or liberal, man or woman, Etc. It is a claim that is objective Lee provable it doesn't matter what opinions one might have.
And so, if your proof that The Bible does teach factually precisely what you are saying, you could show the proof to anyone regardless of their opinion and they would have to agree. It would be objectively provable. Your claim is not. It is a subjective opinion. Do you understand that?
Marshal has a problem with language. As we all do when we are talking about a god. No language can express the nature or being of a god. It can only aproximate.
Marshal says god is "Holy and Good."
In language, Marshal is saying god fits the categories of holy and good. God behaves in ways that fulfill the categories. Marshal is too ignorant to know that he has made the categories a priori to god: they precede god as standards and Marshal finds god is behaving in such a way as to meet the standard. By faith, Marshal believes that god will always meet the standard. So, god could not have created evil. God will be perfect in meeting the standard.
Problem #1: Marshal has categories morally setting the stage for god to act out. The categories frame a god. God is not absolute. God keeps faith with categories; god does not define the categories.
___
So, where do the categories come from, these categories more conceptually absolute than god?
This! is the question you are asking Dan and which Marshal cannot answer. He does not realize that he begs the question because he has put categories prior to god.
So, Marshal says the Bible. Marshal tells us that the Bible tells us so: THAT! god is meeting the standard. Marshal is too ignorant, again, to realize that by language he has put the Bible in the place of judging god. How do we know god is holy and good? Read the Bible, that's the record, the witness, the judge, the decider.
Problem #2: Marshal has put the Bible as the document of authenticity over a god. God is not absolute. God must be attested to by the Bible; god is contained by a book written in human language.
___
The only solution for those of us who have faith in a divine being is to submit (islam: submission; from sal'm" which. literally means peace) to the reality that language, written or spoken, is incapable of delivering the absolute presence of a god; incapable of delivering an absolute description of a god; incapable of delivering an absolute definition of a god.
Therefore, what is the source of our understanding of god?, of our understanding of the good?, of our understanding of the beautiful?, of our understanding of the true? How do we know god? How do we know the beautiful, the good, the true
We don't know. We believe.
Our only source is faith. Not a book. Not a certainty. Not words written down, not our speech, not our reasoning. Sola faith. Living faith, though, not dead dogma.
But does god have a source for us? What is god's source for us? God's source is grace. Grace is the life of god as we experience god. And grace is the condition that all the cosmos exists in: time and space exist in grace.
How does god communicate god's own life - grace - to us created beings? Language fails. Feeling fails. Thought fails. Will fails.
What is god's source FOR us?!
The presence of the Spirit. Which is a mystery.
___
Marshal and the goons are not strong enough to live in mystery by faith.
So they make up things to take the place of a god that cannot reassure them because god is not contained by us or in our language. They make up categories defined by a book and their own dead dogma to stand in for god. And because such things cannot stand up and wall off a living, moving cosmos and world.... they turn the anxiety of realizing their existential fragility into rage and brutality toward all others.
"Okay, so God LITERALLY did NOT create "everything..." "
Yes. God literally DID create everything. Everything He created existed before evil came into being by Adam's choice to disobey God. Before that, there was only "the knowledge" of evil which existed...not evil itself. But you go ahead and play your semantic games rather than acknowledge your error...again.
"Understand the difference between your subjective INTERPRETATIONS and insisting "Yes, the Bible definitively objectively proves this?""
I understand the straw man with which you seek to replace my actual premise. It's really special how much effort you put in to reject the truth of Scripture as the source of morality.
"But you need to understand objective and subjective."
You need to understand there's no confusion on my part regarding the difference between the two simply because you need there to be confusion on my part in order for you to continue being wrong. Scripture is the source for moral understanding.
"And so, if your proof that The Bible does teach factually precisely what you are saying, you could show the proof to anyone regardless of their opinion and they would have to agree."
Not so. When I take up this discussion with atheists, I will make my case in a different manner. When dealing with one who claims to be Christian (and clearly, it's only a claim with you) I expect the evidence of Scripture should be enough, as it's trustworthy (that is, to actual Christians...not necessarily to those like yourself who only claim to be Christian).
If an actual Christian disagrees with what I say, the actual Christian would also use Scripture to make the opposing case, rather than to simply and dishonestly dismiss or reject Scripture to do so...as you are so wont to do.
Scripture as the source of moral understanding is objective regardless of the struggles of comprehension of the weak-minded "of the world" individuals such as yourself. The "'harm' as indicator" method you prefer, on the other hand, is totally and completely subjective and based on the whims and opinions of totally and completely unreliable intellects like yourself. Upon whom should a poor rube like myself rely...the never changing Will of my Heavenly Father as revealed to me through Scripture, or the ever changing opinions of whomever presumes to dictate what "harm" is at any given moment? The Christian defers to God.
Marshal... "If an actual Christian disagrees with what I say, the actual Christian would also use Scripture to make the opposing case"
Okay, without a SUPPORTED ANSWER with some OBJECTIVE SOURCE beyond, "it's what I think" and "it's what all 'good' Christian's think..." answer this...
We're talking about THE MEANING of Genesis 1. We don't disagree that the words in Genesis 1 say what they say. They literally say that, of course, and no one disagrees.
Now, YOU are saying that WHEN Gen 1 says "God created the heavens and the earth" that this IMPLIES (perforce implies? Insists?) that this MUST MEAN that God "created" morality.
Support that claim with some objective, clearly irrefutable data.
Support it or admit you can't.
There's not another Scripture I can point to. We're not disagreeing on the words, we're disagreeing on YOUR INTERPRETATION.
Beyond that, I have pointed to other Scripture. The Bible literally says in multiple ways and places I've already cited that "even pagans can understand morality." Even without the Bible and we can see that, objectively.
You are looking at "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and then you are ADDING to it that this "means" (to you) that God thus created morality. Support that claim.
This claim of yours is absent from the Bible, entirely. All I can do is point to EVERY WORD in the Bible and say, "Your claim is not supported biblically." Your claim is an INTERPRETATION, not "the bible."
If you can't support it objectively demonstrably clearly, then admit you can't. Don't tell me again that you REALLLLLLY think that is what Genesis must mean. That's not proof. I don't give a shit what you REALLLLLY think. I'm asking for you to prove it objectively or admit you can't.
Anything else will be deleted.
What Marshal calls "Christian" is only the limited historical occurrence of radical, agrarian American protestantism.
St. Paul says the Word is near us, on our heart and in our mouth.
St. Paul did not mean a book. He did not mean anything translated into English. He did not mean the NT.
Marshal rejects these verses from Romans.
I am an actual Christian who vehemently disagrees with Marshal says and, as an actual Christian, I just used scripture to oppose him. NT scripture no less.
Marshal has to stay silent and act like he hasn't see this because he has zero faith or reason to stand on in response. Only irrational spit.
"Okay, without a SUPPORTED ANSWER with some OBJECTIVE SOURCE beyond, "it's what I think"..."
You say this as if it's what I provide. I guess you can't help lying.
"Support that claim with some objective, clearly irrefutable data."
God is perfect and holy:
Psalm 25:8
Psalm 18:25-26
Psalm 92:15
Mark 10:18/Luke 18:19
Matthew 5:48
Leviticus 19:2
Leviticus 11:44-45
Deuteronomy 32:4
Romans 12:2
Psalm 19:7-11
Ezekiel 18:25
Psalm 147:5
What God created was good and perfect:
Gen 1:31
And we also know that morality comes from Him:
Psalm 119:9, 160
And of course we are made in God's image:
Gen 1:26
And what is God's image if not good. To be true to Him, our job is to be a reflection Him . Morality is an objective reflection of God’s character, because He is holy. And of course He told us what is moral.
Micah 6:8.
"Beyond that, I have pointed to other Scripture. The Bible literally says in multiple ways and places I've already cited that "even pagans can understand morality.""
You've cited one place and that place speaks to pagans who act in Christian ways, not all pagans. In a wonderful bit of irony, you cite that which points to Christian ways...God's ways, again making Him the source of morality. And once again, you would not know of any pagans having God's law written on their hearts of the Bible didn't tell you through the writings of Paul, only found in the Bible.
Know that I appreciate your help making my case for the truth.
So there. You have the proof you demanded, and now you'll no doubt delete it without any contradictory proofs of your own. Because embrace grace or some such.
Marshal, these are verses that YOU SAY support your conclusion that we can't understand morality without scripture. Just because YOU point to verses and say that YOU think the support your claim does not support your claim objectively. It's all YOUR interpretation. YOUR personal interpretation. YOUR personal human interpretation. It is not objective proof.
It's just not.
Put another way, by whose authority are you declaring your personal human interpretations and what you're reading into these passages are objectively factually true?
You are appealing to your own interpretation as proof. That is the definition of subjective.
Good luck in life.
1. Marshal has categories morally setting the stage for god to act out. The categories frame a god. God is not absolute. God keeps faith with categories; god does not define the categories.
- because -
2. Marshal has put the Bible as the document of authenticity over a god. God is not absolute. God must be attested to by the Bible; god is contained by a book written in human language.
- Marshall is trapped by a book he believes is greater than a god.
Marshal cited Micah 6:8 to "support" his hunch that we can't understand morality without the Bible...
"God has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."
There is nothing in there about "the Bible" or Scripture, more generally. "God has shown us..." the passage literally says... and it does NOT restrict that claim to "in Scripture." It just doesn't, literally doesn't.
This passage does not support your claim, nor do the others. They just don't. You are READING INTO THEM your personal human interpretations, the passages don't insist on it and they certainly don't objectively prove it.
Marshal again makes multiple UNSUPPORTED claims (in now deleted comments) saying, among other unsupported claims...
"All the verses I presented lead to the inevitable conclusion that God "created" morality."
SAYS WHO? BASED ON WHOSE AUTHORITY?
You keep saying "all 'real' Christians" or notions like this, but who died and made you God to make blasphemous, unsupported stupidly false bullshit claims like that? YOU ARE NOT GOD. YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR GOD.
You are, indeed, a Pharisee of the sort that Jesus constantly rebuked.
Stop acting like you're a god. Your diapers aren't big enough.
Holy shit.
“The Law had already been handed down and you'll need some serious evidence to suggest it wasn't referring to that. And where do we find the Laws of God these days, Dan? In the Bible.”
The Law as found in the Torah (Law): Don’t touch a pig. Don’t touch a woman during her “impurity.” Don’t wear clothes woven of two plants. Upon death the slave and the wife go to the next brother.
Marshal should be living here in Williamsburg with the Lubavitcher Hasidim with payout curls hanging below his ears: Leviticus 19:27. Law that was “handed down.”
Marshal will object that these laws were not the ten commandments carved in stone. But with such a claim he will deny how ancient Israel lived under the "Law handed down" and what diasporic Jews have believed up to this morning: the Torah, the Law, are the first five books of both our bibles.
Which also means that Marshal will deny god's own behavior related to ancient Israel living under the "Law as handed down" which is conveyed in the entirety of the OT. God, as portrayed, exacted punishment on occasion when the Jews began to turn away from the "Law handed down." Circumcision is not on the two tablets. God punished Israel when circumcision was not attended to.
So Marshal, at the very least, carries an 19th century agrarian protestant *interpretation of the whole thing. And where did he begin to learn *interpretation? The New Testament. The New Testament is a whole reworking of god's relationship to the human race.
But, since Marshal, as 19th century agrarian protestants do, denies all of Christian history after the close of the back leather cover, learns Christian interpretation very poorly. He will speak out of both sides of his mouth about the "Law handed down": because the NT Jesus - portrayed by different writers - speaks out of both sides of his mouth: he has kept every jot and tittle of the Law (Marshal should have hair curls over his ears and not keep a women in the house when she is on her period) but (Paul) Jesus has fulfilled the Law to liberate us from it (don't even have to worry about meat sacrificed to other gods).
Marshal cannot reconcile these things because in his mind he can only handle one two-thousand-year old change... despite the fact that he lives out so many thousands more he needs to be unconscious of. (The NT never mentions the church using musical instruments.)
If the "Law handed down" does not change, then how does he explain his own denial of the Law "handed down" as Israel and god agreed for three thousand years? Why does he wear clothes of two different plants or not of any plants at all? Why does he, 90% disapprove of slavery?
But if the "Law handed down by” God does change, then we must believe that God has the authority to change it. And has changed it. And if we believe that god has the authority to change it and has changed it, then we also have to believe that god has the authority to change it AT ANY TIME. The "Law handed down” are not eternal.
A Christian reality we need to live into. Which we do by faith: a faith in the Holy Spirit to guide us. It's a mystery.
Marshal doesn’t have such courage. He's a fragile white man holding on to the past. Very shallow faith.
Stan believes, like I do, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the living Redeemer of all creation.
Stan believes that a living, divine cosmic redeemer can be contained within a book because that's the only place he goes to find a living god. This is where we part ways.
All of creation communicates god but cannot communicate the fullness of god. The birds and trees, the tectonic activity of earth and its orbit around the sun, the galaxies, spiral and elliptical and irregular. I believe all these things are god breathed because god is a living god and Christ is the Son of god.
But, wait, there's more: before the Bible tells us much of anything beyond what I've just written, scripture tells us that human beings are god breathed. It is god's breath that makes us alive. Otherwise we are clay. And since Christians believe that human beings are made just a little lower than god (Hebrew) or just a little lower than the angels (Greek Septuagint), then we ourselves communicate god's being and life but not the fullness of god.
Our ability to build community, to grow in love, to reason, to manage all of created resources, even our own socio-psychology, for better comfort, more spiritual lives, stronger bonds of unity... we profoundly communicate god.
So, among the god-breahted things of creation, what isn't? Nothing.
What is fallible? Everything.
Nothing can communicate the fullness of god nor of the Son nor of the Holy Spirit.
To expect a book written in ancient languages by many different people in different cultures to be perfect in conveying a living god is as ridiculous as saying a tree can, or a bird, or the constellation Andromeda, or Simone Biles. All come close.
By our own, best-acheived-among-creation constitution as the image and likeness of god - there is no other, not a tawny frog mouthed owl or the gospel of Matthew - we alone can have a relationship with a living god.
Stan just has a modern European invention, easily bent and stained and burned, bound in leather, printed by machines with two colors of ink.
2 Timothy 3:17 uses the word, ἄρτιος. God breathed scripture makes us ἄρτιος, adequate (NRSV), thoroughly equipped (NIV). If all of scripture is so god breathed that Stan thinks it is infallible, well... it does fail to make us perfect. Just adequate, equipped. Clearly that is our fault. But if it is our fault, then Stan cannot be all that confident that his four hundred year old European protestant idea about a book that cannot talk about itself yet but only the Hebrew scriptures... really holds water.
Maybe, then, he goes with the KJV here, ἄρτιος as "perfect." Maybe Stan thinks he's perfect. Which would explain why he only needs a paper Jesus and not the living Christ.
In other words, the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.
But, being a good 16th century Genevan, Stan needs to deny that and turn it around.
Post a Comment