I'm still reading/listening to white conservative evangelicals talk about the Gospel, the literal Good News and trying to make sense of what they're saying. Rarely to never do I get answers, so just posting an attempt again at understanding.
So (I'm asking)... the GOOD news is that
1. your god is an impatient, irrational and unjust tyrant (Not that they're saying that, but if he were a king who acted this way, he'd be considered an impatient and unjust and irrational tyrant, as we'll see),
2. who created an imperfect humanity,
3. KNOWING that we were imperfect
4. and who then demands perfection to be in his company, to enter heaven
5. and when we are not perfect (ie, how your god created us, in your theory), that god thinks we deserve an eternity of torture and is willing to send us there
6. UNLESS we repent (and do it in just the right way, not being mistaken on how to do it, even though we're imperfect and prone to being mistaken - see point 2)
7. and THIS god (who would not be called loving or perfect if he were a human parent or ruler) has provided ONE possible bit of good news - that there MUST be a blood sacrifice to "pay" for our sin-debt... this god of yours is wholly impotent and incapable of forgiving sin outside of this perfect blood sacrifice and a repentance done in roughly just the right way
8. and thus, the "good news" is that IF you accept this blood sacrifice offered in our place (by this god's own son, no less!), you can be saved!
9. AND YET, if you are sincerely mistaken in your views about homosexuality or the penal substitutionary atonement or the inerrancy of the Bible and some other undesignated list of rules/tenets you must understand roughly correctly... all of that MIGHT be a sign that your "repentance" didn't quite "take" right or that you were never saved in the first place? That you repented wrongly?
Is that a fair rendering of what you're calling good news?
If so, do you realize that this version of "good news" goes entirely* un-preached by Jesus during his years on earth in any of the sermons he preached? That seems odd, doesn't it?
[*certainly not directly]
Also, there will be some VAST majority who will not understand this good news - or maybe never hear it! - or who will get the details wrong in a sufficient manner that any repentance they do (in good faith), won't be sufficient to save them, nor will your god's "grace," which is less grace and more of a cosmic blood payment business deal, is that right?
And that for that VAST majority of humanity, this god of yours will let them suffer unimaginably an eternity for some temporal "sins" or "crimes" they committed - most of those sins almost certainly of the relatively minor sort that wouldn't even merit a prison sentence with human justice. Certainly not a life imprisonment penalty, never mind an eternity of torture.
Do you understand how that doesn't seem to be good news at all, to many?
91 comments:
And he's stuck in a translation of an ancient language that Jesus didn't even speak printed out in red ink and bound by thread between leather covers.
The good news the world needs: don't mix two seeds for your shirt; don't touch a woman on her period; don't let her speak; only the strongest can eat meat sacrificed to other gods; and really, if you want to make salvation certain, don't have sex... you can do it! St Paul did!
A link to whom you're reading and/or listening would've been helpful, to see just how badly you're corrupting what's been said.
And why the racist crap? Do you truly believe only "white" evangelicals speak about the faith in the manner you're corrupting?
I can't wait to get to each point, though perhaps it wouldn't hurt to see the alternative you have in mind for each. Well...it would hurt us who read it, but I was referring to the effect it would have on you to provide that info.
Of course, I still have to correct your corruption of my words in an earlier post below. That's coming, too. Will you have the courage to accept my submission, or can I expect that you'll just delete everything when you find you're schooled again?
These questions arose because of a post by Stan recently. But these are questions I've had forever that always go unanswered.
Here...
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2021/04/suppressing-truth.html?m=1
I had a very similar conversation with the three of you all about this 2 years ago. I spelled out the questions to be answered and put it in evangelical-friendly language. Still no answers... No direct answers to the questions being asked.
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2019/09/good-news-for-poor.html?m=1
And here are the questions put more evangelical-typical language...
1. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is utterly sinful and depraved. Do you not believe that?
2. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is deserving of an eternity of torture for being depraved and utterly sinful. Do you not believe that?
3. Many conservative evangelicals believe that even babies and children are so sinful that they, too, deserve to be tortured for eternity. Do you not believe that?
4. You have said that you don't think Jesus expressed much concern especially for poor people (I don't have the quote handy, but could find it if you don't recall). Do you not believe what you said? Or did you misspeak earlier?
5. Many conservative evangelicals believe that God has an "elect few" - those whom God has specifically CHOSEN to be saved - who will be saved. So, all those others, poor and rich alike - will be condemned to an eternity of torture. Do you not believe this?
6. In what sense was Jesus' Gospel "good news for the poor and marginalized..."? Because quite frankly, I have a hard time picking out much of modern conservative evangelicalism that sounds like good news for the poor and marginalized.
7. Or do you think it WASN'T specifically good news for the poor and marginalized, as Jesus said? If so, why did Jesus put it that way? (And Isaiah before him?)
Just a quick note, I looked at your link from your 2019 post and find that I did indeed answer the questions listed above without equivocation. So to say they've gone unanswered is not at all true in any sense of the word "true". Your current post lists questions that are slightly different, but typical of atheists with regard to what is truly the clear teachings of Scripture over which they wet themselves. I'll be taking the time to address them with the same directness so typical of all my responses a little later.
Dan, do you notice how consistently Marshal defends his anachronistic belief in idols with references to orifices?
Question 1 that I asked...
"1. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is utterly sinful and depraved. Do you not believe that?"
You responded...
"Scripture clearly teaches that we are all stained by Adam's sin. There is nothing in this world that is not since Christ ascended. I recently read a piece from R.C. Sproul (I believe) regarding the difference between "utterly" and "totally" depraved. YOU use "utterly" in relation to sinful. I don't want to get into a debate about semantics with regard to it, but his position is that the former refers to something that is beyond changing, while the latter simply speaks to a more general condition. Whatever. My position is in alignment with Scripture that states we are all of a sin nature and that nature is what separates us from God."
Sooo... DO YOU BELIEVE that all of humanity is utterly sinful and depraved?
What you answered was this question:
Is all of humanity stained by Adam's sin?
You gave an answer to THAT vague metaphorical question which sort of HINTS that you think that all of humanity is utterly sinful and depraved, but not clearly so.
I can give you HALF credit for that answer, but since I'm not sure what your actual answer is to THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED, I can't say that you answered the question, because you literally did not.
You appear to want to make a distinction between "utterly" and "totally" depraved (and I have NO idea what distinction that is. Are you saying that you're guessing that there's a significant difference between the two terms?
Or, is your answer, NO, I do not believe we are utterly (or, if you prefer, totally) sinful... I think we have a sin nature, but NOT "totally/utterly sinful..."?
I don't know what your answer is. But I'll allow that you gave it a try.
Again, 1/2 credit.
Likewise, you indeed gave it a try on question 2...
DAN:
"2. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is deserving of an eternity of torture for being depraved and utterly sinful. Do you not believe that?"
Marshal:
"This, too, is consistent with Scripture as far as we are all deserving of death as a result of our sin nature. You seem to like to use extreme terms when doing so serves to separate you from what to you seems to be an extremely harsh judgement of God...as if He just couldn't be so strict in His sense of justice. Thus, I believe that we are all deserving of death...whatever that means to God."
Okay, but does that mean NO, I do NOT think it means we deserve an eternity of torture due to our sin nature (which probably does not mean we're utterly sinful/depraved... or maybe it does???)?
Or are you saying you don't KNOW what Hell is like, but if God wants to see us tortured for an eternity due to our "sin nature..." you're okay with it?
As to your suggestion that I'M the one using extreme terms, YOU CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALS are the ones saying - who've been preaching for decades if not centuries - that hell is a real place of eternal torment, likened to being eaten alive by fire but never dying, just burning for an eternity... You recognize that my saying "tortured for an eternity" is not an unfair characterization of "they'll face fire and brimstone for all eternity, separated from God, yes?
Given your vague response, are you suggesting that MAYBE you have room for thinking that "hell" won't be an eternity of torture, likened to being burned alive forever... it will be something less like torture? Maybe separation, but not actual physical torture?
I don't know, because you didn't answer directly.
But kudos for trying. Craig and Stan never/rarely do on these sorts of questions.
My question...
"3. Many conservative evangelicals believe that even babies and children are so sinful that they, too, deserve to be tortured for eternity. Do you not believe that?"
Your response:
The problem here...aside from your intentional hyperbolic representation of the belief...is the difference between what is deserved (and why) versus what God actually has planned for those who have not reached that point in life where they are responsible for themselves.
There is no one who is not stained by Adam's sin.
Thus, it is not that babies and children are "so sinful"...as if they are willful in their sinfulness...but simply that they are no less deserving of death.
Whether or not God has an actual intention to make them suffer eternally is an entirely different subject. "Deserving" and "sentenced to that which one deserves" are two different things."
?
Set aside your vague pass on "eternal torment" still not being answered, you APPEAR to be saying that
NO, babies are NOT willful sinners (good for you on that... although, geez!)
BUT, babies (being "stained" by sin) ARE deserving of death (eternal torment or just a one time Dead and Done?)
and, while unstated, it APPEARS you are saying that people who are not willful sinners ARE, nonetheless and due to no fault of their own, "stained by sin" and thus, deserving of death (eternal torment? I don't know, you haven't clearly answered).
You see, Marshal, you're RESPONDING to the questions asked, but not ANSWERING the questions asked. You're toying around with some ideas similar to what I've asked, but not answering the questions that were actually asked. Indeed, your responses LEAVE the original questions not directly answered AND they raise other questions.
(Seriously, HOW psychologically unhealthy is it that you can believe that someone can have committed no intentional/willful crimes AND YET, "be deserving of death..." - however you're defining that!? Do you see how that sounds sick?)
I'll give you a chance to more clearly answered the questions that have been asked, but hopefully that lets you see why I didn't give you credit for trying.
Another question your non-answers raise, "stained by Adam's sin" is metaphorical imagery. There is no ring or grass-stain or dark spot left behind on a non-physical soul... WHAT SPECIFICALLY does being "stained by Adam's sin" mean to you?
I know the typical (one typical) evangelical answer is, "It means we have a sin nature... a proclivity to sin... given a chance, we will make errors in judgment and choose to do something wrong..." And that's all fair and rational as far as it goes. I don't know anyone who claims that there exist Perfect People who never do wrong, given the option.
But how is HAVING THAT NATURE, in and of itself, deserving of death?
Are you saying that "You are an imperfect person, therefore, you deserve to die? To be in torment for an eternity, even if you never acted on your imperfection?"
You know that this is not rational, right? Nor is it biblical (unless you interpret some passages in an irrational manner and ignore other passages).
A baby being "stained by Adam's sin..."? But the Bible rationally teaches, "The son shall not pay for the father's sin!" Because OF COURSE NOT. The suggestion is irrational and unjust.
So merely being born imperfect (ie, with a "sin nature") does not mean you should be punished because "Adam passed on his sin nature to his descendants" (for those who take such passages literally). The Bible contradicts that with the reasonable teaching about the father's sin.
So, you'll have to try to answer that mess, as well.
Oh, one last thing: The purpose of my questions ("do you not believe that?") was to affirm that I was understanding traditional evangelical beliefs correctly. Thus, IF I'm characterizing evangelical beliefs incorrectly in my comments, how so? What am I getting wrong?
"You gave an answer to THAT vague metaphorical question which sort of HINTS that you think that all of humanity is utterly sinful and depraved, but not clearly so."
I gave an answer that did two things:
1. It stated my position in no uncertain terms, and
2. It clarified what the common belief is of those who use the term "depraved" as put forth by Sproul or someone like him. The point here is that you're too vested in using terms you believe are most disparaging of the characters of those who abide Scripture with more reasoned devotion than what you demonstrate. The fact that after I've presented the difference between "utterly" and "totally", you nonetheless choose to use "utterly", which isn't to my mind an accurate assessment of what most evangelicals or conservative Christians believe.
Thus, to put it in hopefully simple enough terms for you, I believe all are born into sin which thus requires some means to be redeemed in order to spend eternity in God's presence.
"I'm not sure what your actual answer is to THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED, I can't say that you answered the question, because you literally did not."
The question is bullshit because of the leading manner in which it was asked. It can't be answered either way as such and because it's a bullshit question, I was required to "clean it up" in order for it to be an honest question about my position. By doing so I was then able to provide the answer you were looking for without appearing to buy into your graceless premise. Thus, the question is perfectly answered. Nothing less than full credit, therefore, is justified.
"You appear to want to make a distinction between "utterly" and "totally" depraved (and I have NO idea what distinction that is."
This suggests you don't read comments beyond looking for answers you demand rather than understanding you pretend to request. But the distinction was in the answer I gave so there's no truth to the claim you have no idea what it might be.
More coming now...
"Okay, but does that mean NO, I do NOT think it means we deserve an eternity of torture due to our sin nature (which probably does not mean we're utterly sinful/depraved... or maybe it does???)?"
This is a question on which I do not believe Scripture provides a solid, distinctive and unmistakable answer and thus I don't wade into such water expecting anything more definitive than counting the possibilities. This apprehension is detailed in this piece by John Stott that I sternly recommend you read. In it, you'll see how Scripture almost seems to point in different directions on the topic to the extent that two people can have solid evidence for opposing answers.
For my part, based on the major differences...eternal punishment/suffering vs annihilation... neither seems appealing to me personally, and Jesus' main teaching on the subject was "choose life". I tend to go with that and leave the nasty consequences to God.
"Or are you saying you don't KNOW what Hell is like, but if God wants to see us tortured for an eternity due to our "sin nature..." you're okay with it?"
I'm totally OK with anything God decides to do. He is, after all, the Supreme Being. He's not totally dim. Who are we to question? Who are we to judge HIM? It amazes me that you think you have such authority. Sure, you simply don't believe it's possible that one could, in your words, suffer eternal torture because we were not redeemed. To you, who apparently can tell God a thing or two about justice, that just doesn't seem cool for God to do such a thing. I'm simply not that presumptuous.
I'd also point out that we know that God most certainly does NOT "want" to see us come to any end that is not salvation. We know this because Scripture tells us so:
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)
But its His Creation. His rules, whatever they are and however unable I am to understand them.
But all this has been given you before in previous discussions on the topic. It's simply a topic on which I cannot be any more direct than I've been before or am now. Again, I don't bother with it given my purpose, and my recommendation to others, is to choose life. Failing that would mean something hellish or worse and whatever that is, we're all born headed in that direction.
Almost done...more coming now...
"You see, Marshal, you're RESPONDING to the questions asked, but not ANSWERING the questions asked. You're toying around with some ideas similar to what I've asked, but not answering the questions that were actually asked. Indeed, your responses LEAVE the original questions not directly answered AND they raise other questions."
The problem is there is no definitive evidence in Scripture to answer one way or the other. Because of that I don't spend much time agonizing over what the answer might truly be. Again, I focus on Him and being with Him for as long as He'll let me be with Him. But here's a better question:
What if God was just the way you don't want Him to be on this point? What if He indeed banished all who are stained by Adam's sin but never redeemed, regardless of who they are or how they found themselves under such sentence, to even eternal torture? Gosh that would suck, wouldn't it? Where does that leave us? We have two choices: Life or death/eternal punishment. Choose Him or reject Him. Guess which one I'm going with... Go ahead...Guess. And guess what I would recommend to everyone else. Go ahead. Guess.
"(Seriously, HOW psychologically unhealthy is it that you can believe that someone can have committed no intentional/willful crimes AND YET, "be deserving of death..." - however you're defining that!? Do you see how that sounds sick?)"
Perhaps, for one who hasn't prayerfully and seriously studied Scripture...or for one who only claims to. But given how from my study I know that I can't know God's mind, for it's nothing like ours, I can easily accept that there are things that don't make sense that are nonetheless true or possibly so, regardless of what I might wish with regard to the topic on the table. Again, God's Creation...God's rules. I neither have to like or understand them and in the end my goal remains the same.
"I'll give you a chance to more clearly answered the questions that have been asked, but hopefully that lets you see why I didn't give you credit for trying."
To paraphrase Yoda, I didn't try...I did and still you won't give me credit. In the meantime, you've NEVER provided any Scriptural evidence to overwhelm that which supports even the worst characterization of that which you reject, much less provide an alternative possibility that is beyond any doubt.
"Another question your non-answers raise, "stained by Adam's sin" is metaphorical imagery. There is no ring or grass-stain or dark spot left behind on a non-physical soul... WHAT SPECIFICALLY does being "stained by Adam's sin" mean to you?"
Can you point to an visible stain on YOUR invisible soul from any sin you've committed? What's clearly visible to God is whether or not I am saved by faith in Christ. That's all that matters. Your question is childishly insulting and the concept is basic Biblical teaching of which any person who claims to have prayerfully and seriously studied should be well aware.
Gotta go...will finish later.
Marshal... "The question is bullshit because of the leading manner in which it was asked."
No, THIS ANSWER is bullshit. OF COURSE, you can answer the question one way or the other.
DO you think that all of humanity is utterly sinful and depraved.?
You could answer:
"No. I think humans are 'stained by Adam's sin...' BUT NOT 'utterly sinful and depraved...'" AND THEN explain what that means.
You could answer, "No. I find "utterly sinful to not be the right word. I think TOTALLY sinful is a better description..." and then explain what you mean by that.
You could say, "Yes, I think we are sinful AND I think I would call it totally, not utterly sinful, but yes, I think we are fully, utterly sinful..."
ALL of these are answers to the question that is not leading.
And keep in mind: The specific question is, "Am I misunderstanding you?" (or, DO you NOT think...") and you could answer "Yes, you're misunderstanding because while I/we think humanity is TOTALLY sinful, they are not UTTERLY sinful..." and explain what in the hell the difference is.
ALL of this can be done to answer the question put to you. It's NOT leading. I'm asking you if I'm understanding you correctly. The answer is either yes, no or roughly yes, with these corrections/clarifications...
Marshal... "The point here is that you're too vested in using terms you believe are most disparaging of the characters..."
I'm sorry, are you REALLY saying that you think me ASKING if you think humanity is utterly sinful is disparaging, but if I'd said TOTALLY sinful, that would have been correct and fine?
WHAT's THE DIFFERENCE?
Marshal... "Thus, to put it in hopefully simple enough terms for you, I believe all are born into sin "
BUT THAT's NOT the question I'm asking. I'm not asking "Do you believe all humanity is born into sin." I'm asking if you think humanity is utterly sinful (OR totally, I'm fine with either term as I don't think there's a significant difference).
As to your Sproul (or whoever) thing, here's what you said...
" don't want to get into a debate about semantics with regard to it, but his position is that the former refers to something that is beyond changing, while the latter simply speaks to a more general condition. "
Sproul MAY THINK that, but that's not the definition of the word. Utterly does not demand that and, of the two, "utterly sinful" is the most biblical, as the phrase appears twice in the Bible, in the NT. "Totally sinful" does not.
But it's all nonsense, I think most people would use the terms relatively interchangeably AND REGARDLESS, you were free to answer, as already noted, "Yes, I agree that humanity is sinful... I'd clarify to say that I think we're totally sinful, though, not utterly sinful... which I'm defining to mean we are sinful BUT could change..." or however you wanted, the point is, YOU COULD have answered the question that was asked. And you still can.
Marshal: DO YOU THINK THAT HUMANITY IS TOTALLY SINFUL (I'll use the word you think you prefer, with the allowance that you're defining that a particular word in a manner unique to you and Sproul.)?
I think the answer to that question is Yes. Is that correct?
Lord, Lord!
If so, then AM I UNDERSTANDING YOUR POSITION CORRECTLY?
(And I'll note here, to save time, that I WAS understanding your position correctly, as you are defining MY term in a way that I was not defining it. I'm fine with your definition of Totally, even though it's not necessarily English or biblical.)
Conversation really doesn't have to be this hard!
I had said...
"Okay, but does that mean NO, I do NOT think it means we deserve an eternity of torture due to our sin nature (which probably does not mean we're utterly sinful/depraved... or maybe it does???)?"
And Marshal answered...
This is a question on which I do not believe Scripture provides a solid, distinctive and unmistakable answer and thus I don't wade into such water expecting anything more definitive than counting the possibilities.
Now, THAT is an answer to the question. I'm FINE with that answer. It's an answer to the question that was asked.
See how easy it can be?
I am always fine with vague, "I don't really know..." answers and appreciate that kind of honesty.
Marshal...
"I'm totally OK with anything God decides to do. He is, after all, the Supreme Being. He's not totally dim. Who are we to question? Who are we to judge HIM?"
So, do you recognize that this might be the argument of an extremist religionist (Muslim, Mormom, Christian, whoever...)?
"Well, if God wants me to kill the infidels, who am I to judge HIM?"
"Well, if God wants me to forcibly wed a woman captured from the enemy, who am I to judge HIM?"
We have a God-given brain to use and make rational moral decisions. IF we are following a god who teaches irrational oppression and deviant harm, WE NEED TO JUDGE whether that's a good god to follow.
IF you are believing in a god who whimsically decides to punish babies or children or adults for an eternity for being mistaken and imperfect -and for an eternity of torture, at that! - maybe we've misunderstood the True God and have embraced a god not worthy of following.
And why is that? Because if our human understanding of Justice is that far wrong and we have no concept of Justice (because "god's" justice is irrational and not just...) MAYBE we've embraced the wrong god and MAYBE that's going to lead us to bad conclusions and immoral atrocities, even.
We have a brain for a reason.
The point is less about judging God and more about judging OUR HUMAN UNDERSTANDING of God. And if we're conflating our human understanding of god TO God, and THEN refusing to question that human understanding of god because, "Hey, it's god! Who am I to question..." we've conflated our understanding to a petty little tyrant god. That's a dangerous path to go down.
Am I being clear? That is, do you understand this quite reasonable concern I'm raising? If not, think about it. Re-read what I've written. Ask questions if you are still not understanding.
"No, THIS ANSWER is bullshit."
Well then it goes together great with the bullshit question to which it was a response!
"DO you think that all of humanity is utterly sinful and depraved.?"
Asked and answered.
"You could answer:
"No. I think humans are 'stained by Adam's sin...' BUT NOT 'utterly sinful and depraved...'" AND THEN explain what that means."
First of all, I answered directly what my position is. I also responded to the use of the word "utterly". Prior to my answer, it's use can be written off as a mistake. Now after my answer, it's intentional and thus leading.
"And keep in mind: The specific question is, "Am I misunderstanding you?""
I could not have been more specific, direct and unequivocal in explaining my position. How there could still be a lack of understanding is clearly a fault in you. I tried not to condescend with really small words. Maybe that was the wrong play.
"Sproul MAY THINK that, but that's not the definition of the word. Utterly does not demand that and, of the two, "utterly sinful" is the most biblical, as the phrase appears twice in the Bible, in the NT. "Totally sinful" does not."
But I hoped to avoid getting hung up on the words themselves in relating supporting info that should've simply provided context for the discussion. Clearly picking nits is unavoidable for you.
"But it's all nonsense, I think most people would use the terms relatively interchangeably AND REGARDLESS, you were free to answer, as already noted, "Yes, I agree that humanity is sinful... I'd clarify to say that I think we're totally sinful, though, not utterly sinful... which I'm defining to mean we are sinful BUT could change..." or however you wanted, the point is, YOU COULD have answered the question that was asked. And you still can."
You really didn't f**king read my response, did you? You're now telling me I could've done what I did. Perfect.
"Marshal: DO YOU THINK THAT HUMANITY IS TOTALLY SINFUL (I'll use the word you think you prefer, with the allowance that you're defining that a particular word in a manner unique to you and Sproul.)?
I think the answer to that question is Yes. Is that correct?"
My answer was and still is: because Adam sinned, all who came after him are stained by his sin and thus have a sin nature making them needful of redemption. If you wish to use the terms "utterly" or "totally" depraved or sinful, then it's you who have to do the defining.
As an aside, I can't find either term in any version of Scripture. So it's dogma drawn from an understanding of Scripture, regardless of whether or not those exact words are in there, which doesn't appear to be the case. But consider this: If our best works are as filthy rags to God, how much worse our sinful works? Likely utter depravity? I'll just stick with sin nature and know that's bad enough and not something we should let stand unattended.
"Conversation really doesn't have to be this hard!"
Why do you insist on making it so?
"Now, THAT is an answer to the question."
As are all my answers to your questions.
"I'm FINE with that answer. It's an answer to the question that was asked."
As are all my answers to your questions. When you're "not fine" is when your questions suck.
"So, do you recognize that this might be the argument of an extremist religionist (Muslim, Mormom, Christian, whoever...)?"
You give this response often. Why do you think it's relevant? Consider that a standard question for every time you ask a question like this in the future...which you undoubtedly will. At present, you're not speaking with an "extremist 'religionist'"...whatever the hell that is...so why is it relevant?
""Well, if God wants me to kill the infidels, who am I to judge HIM?"
"Well, if God wants me to forcibly wed a woman captured from the enemy, who am I to judge HIM?""
Ah, I see. So because some wackjob wants to pervert Scripture in order to rationalize evil action, you think that means my position on God's right to do things His way is somehow irrational? Sounds like an irrational suggestion to me.
But assuming one who says such things are not "wanting" to pervert Scripture to rationalize their choices, you're simply questioning their devotion to what they believe in such a way that implies you think you have the authority to question God's right to do things His way. Good luck with that.
More to the point here, you're attempt to make that connection fails in that we're not talking about what I do or might do. We're simply talking about what God chooses to do with His Creation. That's totally distinct from perverting Scripture to rationalize behavior. I chalk it up your famous inability to formulate intelligent analogies.
"IF we are following a god who teaches irrational oppression and deviant harm, WE NEED TO JUDGE whether that's a good god to follow."
As I said before, even if that's the case, good luck with your rejection of Him. I'll continue to choose life on His terms.
"IF you are believing in a god who whimsically decides to punish babies or children or adults for an eternity for being mistaken and imperfect -and for an eternity of torture, at that! - maybe we've misunderstood the True God and have embraced a god not worthy of following."
As I said before, even if that's the case, good luck with your rejection of Him. You're still facing either an eternity of "torture" or annihilation rather than eternal life.
"And why is that? Because if our human understanding of Justice is that far wrong and we have no concept of Justice (because "god's" justice is irrational and not just...) MAYBE we've embraced the wrong god and MAYBE that's going to lead us to bad conclusions and immoral atrocities, even."
You are judging God by YOUR understanding of justice and ignoring the far more likely fact that you simply aren't capable of understanding everything He does. Given your track record, you have no grounds for daring to presume you could be.
Far worse, I'd say you have a very human understanding...and a very LEFTIST human understanding at that...of the seriousness of sin. In the meantime, I feel far safer assuming it's no small thing and should be avoided at all costs and whatever it takes to wash me of that stain is something in which I'm desperately interested.
"We have a brain for a reason."
Uh...nah...that one's too easy.
"The point is less about judging God and more about judging OUR HUMAN UNDERSTANDING of God. And if we're conflating our human understanding of god TO God, and THEN refusing to question that human understanding of god because, "Hey, it's god! Who am I to question..." we've conflated our understanding to a petty little tyrant god. That's a dangerous path to go down."
Well, that's nowhere near an accurate representation of what's happening in this discussion. At least not with my responses to your questions. What's more, I've seen nothing in all the years we've been going at it that suggests in the slightest that you ever question your own understanding. That's especially true since none of it has changed in all that time despite solid arguments from Scripture that blow crater-sized holes in it...including comments I've made now. The bottom line is that I trust God regardless of whether or not I understand Him. You clearly do not, even when your worst fears about Him are confirmed or might be.
Notice how Marshal took out the "god given" from the brain? So he could ignore and divert? Such is his gutter religion.
Okay, given Marshal's responses, let me amend what I said about the traditional evangelical opinion...
1. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is sinful and some go so far as to call it "totally depraved."
Am I correct that this is what the traditional conservative evangelical theory is?
2. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is deserving of an eternity of torment for the "crime" of having a "sin nature." What that torment looks like is unknown. SOME believe eternal torment, AS IF one were thrown into a fire for eternity. Others might call it just a separation from God for all eternity. Most think it will be quite hellish/awful... torturous, even.
Am I correct that this is what the traditional conservative evangelical theory is?
3. Many conservative evangelicals believe that even babies and children have a "sin nature" and that they, too, deserve to be tormented for eternity. That is, even though they may not willfully sin, their crime in having a "sin nature" (ie, they are imperfect and will make mistakes) is so unbearable to god that it deserves an eternity of torment/separation from that god (again, whatever that looks like).
Am I correct that this is what the traditional conservative evangelical theory is?
I'll stop with just those three. ALL these things are what I've been saying all along. You have been nitpicking/being semantic about the words I've been using, but this IS what I've been saying all along.
As to my use of "torment" or "torture" to describe hell, you DO recognize that many traditional evangelicals have described Hell for years to be as bad as or WORSE than being burnt alive for eternity...?
You DO understand, don't you, that this could be reasonably be described as torturous? Even torturous to a vile and evil extent?
After parsing your indirect responses, I BELIEVE that I'm correctly describing your position and doing so in a way that you find acceptable.
Am I correct?
If I'm correct, a simple "Yes, that's a reasonably fair description of my/our position" would suffice.
As to the content of this human theory about their god, here's the problem.
You want to imagine that a perfect, loving and just god would...
A. Create an imperfect humanity, knowing they are imperfect and prone to make errors/sin.
B. Then deem being imperfect/sinful to be wrong
C. BUT, not only wrong, but a vile and great crime against god...
D. AND that this crime of being imperfect/having a "sin nature" is fairly and rationally viewed as SO wrong, SO bad that a reasonable and "just" punishment for it would be some sort of eternal separation from all things that are good - what some might even call an eternity of torment and "bad..." even "horribly bad..." so much so that it might be compared to being burned alive for an eternity.
Now, setting aside your opinions about this, are you able to understand how, for many of us, this seems monstrously irrational and unjust?
Looking at it from another angle...
Marshal is imaging
a perfectly loving and just god
but perfectly loving and just, for this god means creating imperfect people
and then punishing them for being imperfect
and not only punishing them for being imperfect, but
punishing them in such a way that their punishment
FAR and grotesquely exceeds the crime
and Marshal explains this crazy discrepancy by suggesting that OUR understanding of loving and just are wrong and that we just can't understand this god for whom such behavior IS just and loving... even if a parent or a governor behaved in such a way, we'd call them monsters...
It's because our understanding of justice and love are SO FAR wrong
Marshal would say.
Am I correct?
Now, given that understanding... We could guess/form at least two hypotheses:
1. Marshal is correct and humans have no grasp whatsoever of what perfect love and justice are and that's why such grotesque behavior seems wrong to us
OR
2. Marshal is just wrong. We DO have a reasonable grasp on justice and love and it IS wrong to punish someone in a manner that is crazy disproportionate to any crimes they may have committed.
I'd just ask: Which is more likely?
Also, I'd ask Marshal if he'd agree that if a parent punished their child for a lifetime chained up in jail cell in the basement of their house with nothing but bread and water to keep them alive and NO interaction with the parents or other humans the rest of their life... and that the "crimes" the child committed were lying to the parents 100 times, breaking 20 vases and plates, taking a pencil that didn't belong to them, hitting their brother 35 times, stealing 100 pieces of candy from the local grocery and smoking 20 cigarettes all before they turned 18...
Given that scenario, would you call those parents monstrously unjust for that punishment? Mind you: There was no overt torture and they were kept from starving and they're caught on fire or anything like that. Just separation for their whole life for that 18 years worth of kids "crimes..."
Are those parents evil monsters? Can you agree to that?
Re: your comment on April 11, 2021 at 7:38 AM
Before I respond, I would submit that I find it curious how often you feel the need to speak of what other, unnamed and unknown people believe as if it matters to what either of us believe and why. Said another way, I'm far more interested in how you support your beliefs, understandings and interpretations, than to conflate that with alleged beliefs of "progressive 'Christians'" in general. I may hear something said of this segment of Christendom and then question you as to whether or not you believe the same. Here, you seem to simply want me to confirm what "conservative" or "white evangelicals" believe, without any evidence the belief is as widely held as you suggest, that you've polled any of those you've bothered to confirm identify as either or that it makes a bit of difference to what I believe and why. I'm of the opinion, based on historical example, that consensus opinion is not sacrosanct and a mere single individual may be possessed of the actual truth on any given subject. Whether that's true or not is not the issue, but simply that it's possible, has happened to one degree or another and has happened enough to dissuade my reliance on consensus as a significant factor in developing my beliefs and positions. Said another way, if 97% of scientists jump off a cliff...
With that said, let us continue:
"1. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is sinful and some go so far as to call it "totally depraved."
Am I correct that this is what the traditional conservative evangelical theory is?"
I don't know. I know Calvinists like to use the term "total depravity" while other Christians simply say "sin nature". In either case, I would insist that at least in general terms, both are drawn from the clear teachings of Scripture.
"2. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is deserving of an eternity of torment for the "crime" of having a "sin nature." ...etc...
Am I correct that this is what the traditional conservative evangelical theory is?"
I don't know. (This will be my response so long as you ask questions that can only be answered by running a poll of those you regard as conservative evangelicals...which I won't be doing any time soon.) I would hesitate to ever respond in the affirmative so long as you use loaded language such as "for the 'crime' of having a 'sin nature'". Right away I would take that as something that is not true at all because of such language. I don't believe anyone frames it in such a way as it suggests intent the interpretation doesn't find.
I've also distinguished between the notion of eternal suffering versus annihilation. Which one is the correct "sentence" for the "crime" you reference is in question. Suffice it to say that I would suggest conservative evangelicals, as well as all honest Christians who study and understand Scripture acknowledge there are consequences to how one deals with the fact of one's sin nature. That Scripture tells us God desires that none should perish at the very least suggests the possibility that some will, and as there are clear conditions in relation to this desire, I'd say it's far more than mere possibility.
"3. Many conservative evangelicals believe that even babies and children have a "sin nature" and that they, too, deserve to be tormented for eternity...etc...
Am I correct that this is what the traditional conservative evangelical theory is?"
I don't know. Setting aside again your loaded language, the concept as I see it is that our sin nature is the starting point. That is, we all have it. Since we do, how does that impact our relationship with God and how is it resolved? More to your point, I would insist that yes, because of our sin nature, we are all deserving of death. But again, deserving a sentence and having that sentence mandated for us is two different things. We know that none of us can cleanse ourselves of the stain of sin. That's a fact. It doesn't mean that fact guarantees we won't be cleansed, made clean, redeemed or whatever term from Scripture you choose to use.
"You have been nitpicking/being semantic about the words I've been using, but this IS what I've been saying all along."
This is untrue. I've been trying to answer your questions despite the semantic games YOU constantly play to make the proper and easily understood teachings of Scripture sound like lunacy. You go out of your way to do this in discussions both religious and political and it's dishonest. I won't agree to your dishonest wording, answering questions one way or the other, without making necessary clarifications before doing so. NOT doing so results in untruthful answers...which it seems is what you're looking for in order to validate your own unsupportable positions.
"As to my use of "torment" or "torture" to describe hell, you DO recognize that many traditional evangelicals have described Hell for years to be as bad as or WORSE than being burnt alive for eternity...?"
I frankly don't give a rat's ass what "many traditional evangelicals" think, do or say in the context of discussions hoping to clarify what I believe compared to what you believe. How often do you see me relating what I've heard "most progressive Christians" say? Pretty much never. I only seek to get you to defend what YOU believe. Thus, to continue asking me if I "agree" that "most" whomever believes what is absolutely superfluous and a waste of both our time.
"You DO understand, don't you, that this could be reasonably be described as torturous? Even torturous to a vile and evil extent?"
To whom? To YOU? Is it you who is offended by the presence of sin or sinful people or God? Is God required to be only "so" offended because you don't think of sin as offensive as He? Who gets to decide what's tolerable behavior in your house? You or your kids? You or your neighbor? Yet you'll sit there and determine that God shouldn't have any authority to make such decisions in His house (Creation) because it doesn't wash with YOU? That's what you're doing when you dare bother to critique the harshness of the penalties He imposes for that which offends Him. Far better to concentrate on choosing life and encouraging the same from others, in which case the sentence for doing otherwise becomes moot.
Out of time.
Dan...
"Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is sinful and some go so far as to call it "totally depraved."
Am I correct that this is what the traditional conservative evangelical theory is?"
Marshal...
"I don't know. I know Calvinists like to use the term "total depravity" while other Christians simply say "sin nature". In either case, I would insist that at least in general terms, both are drawn from the clear teachings of Scripture."
Wait, you DO know. You JUST said the same thing that I said. I said that "many conservative evangelicals believe all of humanity is sinful and some go so far as to call it totally depraved..." then you repeated that. And of course, THAT IS THE REALITY. MANY conservatives DO believe we have a sin nature and some call it totally depraved. So MY ASSESSMENT of evangelical tradition on this is the same as yours.
Right?
Don't write ANYTHING else until you answer this basic question.
You all have been saying for years that I misunderstand and misstate the evangelical position. In THIS case, I am saying it exactly factually correct. Yes?
Why do you have such a problem in just directly answering a question put to you?
Marshal...
"(This will be my response so long as you ask questions that can only be answered by running a poll of those you regard as conservative evangelicals...which I won't be doing any time soon.)"
? I SAID "MANY."
I didn't say 75%. I didn't cite a specific number. In fact, in the real world, many evangelicals DO believe humans have a sin nature. MANY evangelicals do go so far as to call it totally depraved.
I 'm not asking about some specific number where you'd need a poll. Just generally speaking. AM I CORRECT OR NOT in my assessment that many conservative evangelicals woudl say that Humans have a sin nature and some go so far as to say we're totally depraved?
You can DO this.
Marshal...
" I would hesitate to ever respond in the affirmative so long as you use loaded language such as "for the 'crime' of having a 'sin nature'". Right away I would take that as something that is not true at all because of such language."
Suffering in torment (however you describe it) for an eternity is a "punishment" for having a sin nature. In our reality, life-time punishments (let alone ETERNAL punishments) are reserved for more serious crimes. That is why I use the word. I believe your pals Stan and Craig like to call our sin nature "cosmic treason," using a criminal word to define our sin.
There is nothing untowards about me using the word, "crime," in this situation.
But set that aside.
Are you saying that you think some "sin" or having a "sin nature" is SO awful and bad that it deserves an eternity of punishment... and it's not even rising to the level of a crime??!
Please answer.
Marshal...
" I would hesitate to ever respond in the affirmative so long as you use loaded language such as "for the 'crime' of having a 'sin nature'". Right away I would take that as something that is not true at all because of such language."
You consider "crime" a loaded word, but NOT "an eternal punishment..."????!
Marshal...
"Setting aside again your loaded language, the concept as I see it is that our sin nature is the starting point. "
????? !!
WHAT "loaded language..."?! YOU are the one saying that infants/babies have a sin nature and are deserving of eternal death. Is it because I used the word "torment..."
But YOU ALL are thinking that an eternity of hell fire, with weeping and gnashing of teeth is an apt (if not literal) description of hell/being separated from/punished by god...
You can't talk about penalties for "sin nature" being an eternity of eternal torment and THEN accuse others of using loaded language! You DO understand that, right?
That we react strongly to YOUR LANGUAGE is due to YOUR LANGUAGE.
Come on. This isn't difficult.
Marshal...
" I've been trying to answer your questions despite the semantic games YOU constantly play to make the proper and easily understood teachings of Scripture sound like lunacy."
NOT the "teachings of Scripture sound like lunacy."
YOUR TEACHINGS! YOUR teachings sound like lunacy. You see, the difference is, I do not conflate YOUR HUMAN TRADITIONS and teachings and interpretations with Scripture.
Your human teachings ARE lunatical. Your own words confirm it. You believe that babies having a "sin nature" equates to being deserving of eternal death (however you define it... BUT you SEEM like you're comfortable with comparing it to an eternity of burning forever and never dying!!! DO you RECOGNIZE how lunatic that sounds?
Dan...
"You see, the difference is, I do not conflate YOUR HUMAN TRADITIONS and teachings and interpretations with Scripture."
And the problem is, you have SO THOROUGHLY conflated your own human teachings and traditions and interpretations with Scripture, that you think they are one in the same. Am I mistaken?
That is, You think that YOUR WORDS (on this topic) DO represent Scripture literally, which you also think represents what God wants literally... and thus, you can't understand how anyone would oppose God... even though we're literally NOT opposing God, we're disagreeing with you.
"So MY ASSESSMENT of evangelical tradition on this is the same as yours.
Right?"
It doesn't seem so. I said "Calvinists" then ."Christians" YOU keep saying "conservative evangelicals". Are all Christians conservative, conservative evangelical or Calvinist? Are all Calvinists conservative? I don't know. That's why I used the terms I chose and thus, why we're not saying the same thing, or more precisely, why I can't agree with your premise with regard to conservative evangelical.
"Why do you have such a problem in just directly answering a question put to you?"
Clearly and demonstrably, I don't. Wish I
could say the same for you. Sadly, I can't.
"? I SAID "MANY."
I didn't say 75%. I didn't cite a specific number."
Doesn't matter. You know what matters far less? Whether or not I agree with what YOU say some unknown quantity if unnamed Christians of any persuasion assert. What a complete unnecessary and irrelevant waste if time!
"Are you saying that you think some "sin" or having a "sin nature" is SO awful and bad that it deserves an eternity of punishment... and it's not even rising to the level of a crime??!
Please answer."
No. I'm not saying anything regarding either how egregious any specific sin is, how egregious us one's sin nature or what the appropriate consequence for either. Here's where you usually try to insist I haven't answered directly without saying how.
"You consider "crime" a loaded word, but NOT "an eternal punishment..."????!"
Yes. Particularly as applied to one's state as opposed to an intentional act. You said, for the "crime" of having a sin nature. Inappropriate.
"WHAT "loaded language..."?! YOU are the one saying that infants/babies have a sin nature and are deserving of eternal death."
No. I said "all have a sin nature and are deserving of death". I say that because Scripture says it. You wish to ask "infants, to?" Obviously infants would be included among "all". So what I say isn't "loaded" or "hyperbolic" language if it's simply what Scripture teaches. Unlike you, I try never to put a personal spin on what Scripture says.
To use the same words Scripture uses is not "loaded language". But you paraphrase and choose your words for added effect to make your point, to more greatly disparage or praise and in doing so try to force answers out of me that make me complicit in some falsehood or inaccuracy. I'm not going to agree to such in responding to such questions. So I respond in a manner that better reflects reality and what I truly believe...not your version of it.
With regard to eternal punishment...which is a common view suggested by Scripture in many ways...that's not loaded language if that's what's taught.
"NOT the "teachings of Scripture sound like lunacy."
YOUR TEACHINGS! YOUR teachings sound like lunacy. You see, the difference is, I do not conflate YOUR HUMAN TRADITIONS and teachings and interpretations with Scripture."
Unlike you, Dan, I present actual verses, chapters, passages etc. when stating my positions and beliefs. Thus, to say "MY" teachings is nonsense. If you think what I present means something other than what the words Biblical authors/translators used means, you need to provide some actual evidence which better explains them. You don't. You never do. You simply want those like myself to defer to YOUR reasoning, which isn't something you've given me reason to believe is a good idea. Indeed, you demand YOUR traditions and teachings and interpretations be conflated with Scripture sans any Scriptural evidence to convince anyone that one should.
"Your human teachings ARE lunatical. Your own words confirm it. You believe that babies having a "sin nature" equates to being deserving of eternal death."
That's not a human teaching, Dan. That is, unless the humans about whom you're referring are Biblical authors and Epistle writers. We all are born with a sin nature.
"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." -Romans 5:12 "For the wages of sin is death..." -Romans 6:23 "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." -1 Corinthians 15:21-22
I'm just repeating what Scripture says. Feel free to show men where Scripture says the opposite.
In the meantime, remember there's a difference between deserving a punishment and being punished for what one deserves. You seem to have trouble with this distinction.
"BUT you SEEM like you're comfortable with comparing it to an eternity of burning forever and never dying!!! DO you RECOGNIZE how lunatic that sounds?"
First, I'm certain I mentioned two schools of thought regarding punishment. It's either eternal suffering of some kind, or it's annihilation...as in, no loner existing. In the human realm, death is usually permanent... as in "eternal". In the spiritual realm, it may or may not be the same. One can use Scripture to make either case. I personally don't much care which, as I like to believe I'm saved.
As to how "lunatic" that sounds, take it up with the Judge of Creation. OR, make sure you do nothing that puts you in that group separated from the saved, and preach the same to others.
"And the problem is, you have SO THOROUGHLY conflated your own human teachings and traditions and interpretations with Scripture, that you think they are one in the same. Am I mistaken?"
Utterly. Or, totally.
"That is, You think that YOUR WORDS (on this topic) DO represent Scripture literally, which you also think represents what God wants literally... and thus, you can't understand how anyone would oppose God... even though we're literally NOT opposing God, we're disagreeing with you."
What you're doing here is conflating your wild representation of my positions with my actual positions. In any case, I don't use "my" words...I use the words from Scripture. When I use "my" words, I'm simply using the closest paraphrasing that never corrupts the actual words from Scripture. As far as you disliking what I say and therefore demonstrating opposition to God by doing so, the charge could not be made (at least not as easily) if you would take the time to back up your alternative view with actual Scripture, and NOT your paraphrasing that is not even close to the text.
Marshal... "I'm just repeating what Scripture says."
The thing is, you're NOT not just saying what the text in those particular places says... you're citing those particular passages and THEN adding, "These verses should be taken literally to mean that all humans have a sin nature AND that sin nature - ie, being imperfect - deserves death which many of my colleagues consider be eternal torment..."
You see come and many other reasonable people would read those vs and cyclically they are figurative, metaphorical, hyperbolic imagery, not to be taken literally.
And saying that the language is figurative IS an interpretation of the passages. And saying it is literal IS an interpretation of those passages.
All interpretation of text begins with identifying the genre and styles and language being used. No one reads everything flatly and takes everything literally. Nor should we.
So, can you admit that there's a difference between "just repeating what Scripture says" and "I'm reading these particular texts AND I'm telling you that they should be taken literally AND I'm defining what parts should be taken literally and what parts should NOT be taken literally..."?
Please answer this before saying anything else.
Also, look at the scripture you cited...
"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man,
and death through sin,
and so death spread to all men because all sinned."
"For the wages of sin is death..."
"For as by a man came death,
by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, so
also in Christ shall all be made alive."
Just look at that last one as an example.
"For as in Adam all die..."
That is literally true, as far as it goes. Everyone DOES die. No problem taking that literally. Then...
"also in Christ shall ALL be made alive..."
So, you are USING this verse as a "proof" that the punishment (treatment? result?) of having a "sin nature" is death (or everlasting torment as probably most conservative evangelicals put it - and do you really doubt that?) which this verse is not really talking about. But what it DOES say is that "in Christ ALL shall be made alive..."
But you don't take that literally, do you? You don't think that ALL shall be physically made alive, even the dead, right? NOR do you think that ALL who have died will be "made alive" as in NOT being punished with death, do you?
You might REASON your way to say, "Ah, but it says IN CHRIST, so what it MEANS is that those who are 'in Christ' are saved..." and then you would offer what it is you think "in Christ" means.
In other words, these passages are NOT literally saying "the punishment for having a sin nature is eternal death or eternal punishment for all of eternity..." they're talking about "sin entering the world" and the result being "death..." But WHAT does that mean?
Look at the first passage you quoted...
"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man,
and death through sin,
and so death spread to all men because all sinned."
What does "came into the world..." mean? Like there was an earth floating around and then, "sin" came into being as an entity hanging around, jumping on people's souls as soon as they were born? And "death through sin..." Are you suggesting the literal, When people die, that's literally because that person sinned... NOT because of Cancer or a car wreck or old age, but sin killed them literally?
You're NOT interpreting these VERY figurative words literally, you're interpreting them and adding what YOU THINK they mean AND you're adding that any other verses that might touch on the topic are less valid than YOUR interpretation of these three passages?
You are completely interpreting and spinning these passages, adding meaning that isn't literally there.
Do you recognize that?
"So, can you admit that there's a difference between "just repeating what Scripture says" and "I'm reading these particular texts AND I'm telling you that they should be taken literally AND I'm defining what parts should be taken literally and what parts should NOT be taken literally..."?"
I can, but it wouldn't be an accurate representation of what I'm saying, so what difference would it make?
"You see come and many other reasonable people would read those vs and cyclically they are figurative, metaphorical, hyperbolic imagery, not to be taken literally."
Lots of what seem to be typos here making your exact meaning difficult to decipher, but it seems as if you're once again saying that what makes one "reasonable" is agreement with you or disagreement with me. I could agree that reasonable people ignorant of Scripture might regard those verses in that way. But that doesn't make taking them that way reasonable.
"And saying that the language is figurative IS an interpretation of the passages. And saying it is literal IS an interpretation of those passages."
I'd say it's more a judgement than an interpretation. Regardless, if it's figurative, what it is the meaning of which the text is a figurative rendering?
"All interpretation of text begins with identifying the genre and styles and language being used. No one reads everything flatly and takes everything literally."
Sez you, and as such the argument is not compelling. Seems to me interpretations begin with learning what the words say, and then later deciding if the message is to be taken literally or figuratively, along with a argument as to why. Preferably with evidence.
"So, you are USING this verse as a "proof" that the punishment (treatment? result?) of having a "sin nature" is death..."
I'm using those verses as examples of evidence supporting the premise that having a sin nature leaves one deserving of death. The one particular verse you separate from the other three isn't the one on which I'd hang my hat, which is why I didn't cite it exclusively as the best example or the "proof".
In the meantime, the purpose of your deceitful isolation of that single verse is not lost on me.
"which this verse is not really talking about."
The verse speaks to Adam being the reason we die. It establishes an essential element of the overall argument. It doesn't have to be the be-all/end-all argument in and of itself.
"But what it DOES say is that "in Christ ALL shall be made alive..."
But you don't take that literally, do you? "
Yes. Yes, I do.
"You don't think that ALL shall be physically made alive, even the dead, right?"
Yes. Yes, I do. Certain true believers in Christ will be. But a case can be made that even non-believers as well, for the time it takes for them to be judged. I don't know getting deeper in the weeds on that point is necessary right now.
"In other words, these passages are NOT literally saying "the punishment for having a sin nature is eternal death or eternal punishment for all of eternity..." they're talking about "sin entering the world" and the result being "death..." But WHAT does that mean?"
So, you want me to answer the question yet again? This whole thing is the result of my having already done that. So now might be a good time to provide your position on what it means with the compelling evidence from Scripture to back it up. Can I expect that any time soon, or are you just going to keep asking me to say the same thing over and over again?
"What does "came into the world..." mean?"
Jeez. It means it wasn't in the world and then it was.
"Are you suggesting the literal, When people die, that's literally because that person sinned."
Stupid question given I've stated Scriptural teaching already. Before Adam sinned, there was no death. Adam sinned, and his sin impacted Creation which includes all his descendants. People die because of sin, not because they sin. Disease is a manifested consequence of sin, just as is death itself.
"You're NOT interpreting these VERY figurative words literally..."
If you're going to assert the words are metaphorical, figurative or anything other than words to be taken literally, you're going to need to do more than merely make the assertion. You don't have the authority or the scholastic background to do so. Make an argument. Provide evidence...and at this point I'd take anything and go from there.
"...you're interpreting them and adding what YOU THINK they mean..."
You say this a lot without ever providing a more compelling alternative...or even a crappy alternative. You just say I'm wrong. In other words, your typical "Nyuh uh" default position. Got anything better?
"...AND you're adding that any other verses that might touch on the topic are less valid than YOUR interpretation of these three passages"
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say with this. I haven't suggested anything of the kind given no other possibly conflicting verses to consider have been offered by you.
Marshal... "I can, but it wouldn't be an accurate representation of what I'm saying..."
Once again, conflating YOUR HUMAN opinions with God's Word. I am surprised you don't get struck by lightning.
I'm done. You're so confused and delusional, I don't have the time to help you.
Fact is: You ARE interpreting the words, you're not taking them literally. Just because you THINK that how you choose to interpret it is the same as God's Word does not mean that's reality.
It's not.
And still no case is made for an alternative explanation or why mine might be incorrect.
Why do you continue to pretend?
I've done that before and the answers are rather obvious, if one is not married to a particular set of human traditions.
1. JESUS NEVER PREACHED your Gospel.
2. Other than one throw-away line where Jesus used the word "ransom," Jesus never preached about your traditions.
3. Jesus preached extensively and his teachings are recorded and his teachings about "good news" specifically are mentioned repeatedly. AND JESUS NEVER PREACHED your traditions.
That's huge. What you all are doing (in your human tradition) is taking some teachings of Paul's and subverting Jesus' words to Paul's. As a Christian, I strive to understand the Bible THROUGH THE LENS of Jesus' teachings. If there appears to be a conflict of understanding, I (and those in my human tradition) go to the words of Jesus first and foremost to help us understand the rest of the Bible.
You all do the opposite. You strive to understand Jesus through the words of just about everyone else in the Bible.
All of that is primarily, first and foremost above and beyond all else, the problem I have with your human theories. When you read the words of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus and what Jesus had to say about "good news," your human theory is just not there. Period.
More...
Now, when we look at JESUS (you know, your Lord and Savior) and his teachings, we see (as I have shown repeatedly) that he BEGINS his ministry quoting Isaiah and saying that he'd come to preach GOOD NEWS! And it's important that this term, in the original language, means just what it sounds like... it's not some weird arcane religious term... it just means Good News!
I just got a great job!
Hey, that's good news! Congratulations!
And I'm engaged to be married!
Great news! Congratulations!
And we found a fantastic place to live!
Huzzah! Great news!
Like that. The biblical word for Good News just means good news, like we think of good news.
Jesus came, he said, to preach good news (hooray!) to the poor, release for the captive (Yah!), healing for the sick (yippee!) and the Day when Things are set right, the Day of Jubilee, when things are set right for the poor! That's GOOD NEWS that's understandable!
Later, when John asked him if he were "the One," Jesus replied by saying, "tell John how I'm healing the sick AND preaching Good News to the poor!
Yippee!
Mary, upon learning about being pregnant, sang a song about God tearing down the rich oppressors and making things right for the poor and marginalized. Great news! (for the poor).
Jesus repeatedly issued warnings for the rich and oppressors and a message of Welcome to My Dinner Table to the poor and marginalized and again, this is Great News for the poor, the starving, the strangers, those living on the margins! GREAT News!
And people like you read it when I point this repeated, clear, literal Gospel out and are confused.
"But, you mean your idea of good news is socialism? And that the rich are excluded?"
No, that's not what I said at all.
As I've pointed out, when the rich man came to Jesus wanting to accept the good news, Jesus said, "Great! Repent... and give away your great wealth, then come, join us!" It was Great Good News for the rich man, too! You see, his great wealth was a hindrance to him, it was a hell for him. Think of the rich man, pockets full of heavy gold, who falls in the river and starts to sink from the weight of that gold-god. "Let it Go! Be FREE! You CAN be saved, just let it go!!"
That's great news for the rich person willing to let it go.
The rich are indeed also welcome, but it remains good news for the poor.
But how is this "good news," you all ask? Jesus didn't solve poverty while he was here. Jesus said we'd never "fix" poverty. If the Gospel is only good news for the poor, then it's a failed gospel, people like you have told me.
But it's not. It's a Way of Grace. AS that Way of Grace is embraced, AS we welcome the least of these to the Realm of God, to our dinner tables, AS we share with one another, in grace, AS we seek release for those imprisoned (including the rich, imprisoned by their wealth), AS we welcome the stranger, the foreigner, the ill and mentally ill... as we all sit down together at the Welcome Table, that is Grace, that is Heaven and it's happening, here and now.
The good news of God is breaking out all the time in many pockets throughout the world.
And it has nothing to do with appeasing an angry little god, one that is impotent to forgive without a blood sacrifice.
That sort of paganistic blood rituality is the message of the old school brutalist pagans (with apologies to the other, more natural and loving pagans out there), but it's not Jesus' Good News. Not at all.
You can tell by the way he never preached it.
So, there's a story of two sorts of Good News.
For one, the "good news" is that you're a sick, idiot sinner, dead to your sin and your imperfections, your "sin nature" means that you will die and go to hell for an eternity of torment. The "good news" in this story is that this god is an angry god who created us imperfect, but who is sickened by our imperfections and our "sin nature," and SO sickened, that this impotent god can't even bear to forgive us for it... not without some sort of business transaction. This weakling and miserly god can ONLY forgive us IF it gets a blood sacrifice and, in this story, the "good news" is this god was willing to kill its own son to have a blood sacrifice to pay for the sin of some small portion of humanity who understands this story in the right way and repents in the right way. Others who truly want to be saved and who are truly sorry for their sins... but who don't understand this "blood payment" theory, can't be saved and that's most of humanity.
"good news..." Some small portion of humanity might be saved by a blood sacrifice if this god deigns to give them the right understanding. And not a bit of it about the poor or marginalized.
In direct contrast to Jesus' teachings.
The other story IS Good News.
The poor, the marginalized, the imprisoned, the strangers and ALL the rest of us are WELCOMED by a loving and perfect God. Welcome to literally come and share and eat. To have Enough, in this way of common, common sense Grace. This Good News begins, here and now.
Forgiveness is given freely, just as makes sense, and there is no business transaction needed, no literal-figurative magic "blood payment" that must first come to be forgiven and saved.
Repent, loved one, and join us at this Welcome Table in this Realm of God's Grace.
What a lovely story.
And it has the advantage of being biblical, practical, rational and consistent with Jesus' actual teachings.
You're funny. I've one more day of work and then will have time to dissect this mess of yours and straighten you out about what I've been saying (not your twisted misrepresentation) and what Scripture says (not your twisted misrepresentation). In the meantime, I'll just note that you offered not one verse that supports your position, not one verse that stands as evidence that you're understanding properly what Scripture is saying...what Jesus is saying...and certainly nothing that supports the claim that my position is not true.
? I regularly offer all the words of Jesus, how many do I need to offer?
Can you see the color, red?
I have come to preach good news to the poor IS scripture, you know that, right?
Marshal... "In the meantime, I'll just note that you offered not one verse that supports your position...
Reality...
Dan:
"when we look at JESUS (you know, your Lord and Savior) and his teachings, we see (as I have shown repeatedly) that he BEGINS his ministry quoting Isaiah and saying that he'd come to preach GOOD NEWS!"
"Later, when John asked him if he were "the One," Jesus replied by saying, "tell John how I'm healing the sick AND preaching Good News to the poor!"
"Mary, upon learning about being pregnant, sang a song about God tearing down the rich oppressors and making things right for the poor and marginalized."
"As I've pointed out, when the rich man came to Jesus wanting to accept the good news, Jesus said, "Great! Repent... and give away your great wealth, then come, join us!"
"AS we welcome the least of these to the Realm of God, to our dinner tables"
"The poor, the marginalized, the imprisoned, the strangers and ALL the rest of us are WELCOMED by a loving and perfect God."
There are references to at least six passages - MULTIPLE verses - from the Bible. Paraphrased, to be sure, but they are clearly references to scripture.
Marshal says one thing. Reality says something else.
I see. So when I produce actual verses (with their sources) in support of my position, you question my "interpretation" and understanding of those verses, alleging I'm injecting meaning of my own into them.
In the meantime, you present paraphrase of verses here, without sourcing, and pretend you've not injected meaning of your own to insist no other understanding is possible, much less superior to yours, simply because.
I provide evidence in explaining the logic and reason behind my understanding (and more is on the way), while you simply...well...do nothing but reject what you dislike and petulantly demand agreement for what you won't or can't defend.
Said another way, I'm making a claim and defending it, while you're just making a claim.
1. I was giving you credit for being familiar with the Bible and recognizing these common passages. Plus, all the times I've actually written/copy/pasted these verses in, I thought it would be clear to you.
Are you saying you DON'T recognize at least the first four passages?
2. Yes, I absolutely question your hunches about your interpretations of the texts you cite, especially when they literally don't say what you think they say. What of it?
3. You said I have not offered you one verse that supports my position. In fact, I've quoted many verses over the years and right here.
4. I PROVIDE/have provided my explanations for my interpretations.
When Jesus said that he came to preach good news to the poor, to the sick, to the marginalized... CLEARLY from the text, he is speaking about actual poor and sick people. CLEARLY from the crowds of people we saw come to him and his repeated emphasis on the poor and sick and otherwise marginalized, Jesus was speaking of the literal poor and marginalized.
Indeed, this is as it's been commonly interpreted even amongst traditional, conservative teachers. Wesley, Matthew Henry, Barnes, etc... very few would seek to "spiritualize" this or make it some figurative other meaning than the actual written word. To do so would be to bastardize maybe a quarter of Jesus' teachings!
When Mary sang her magnificat, it was shot and clear, not hard to understand...
"God has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
God has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
God has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty."
This poor girl/young woman is speaking of the hope for the Messiah to come to free the poor and marginalized from their troubles. Who do you think she is speaking of when she says the hungry will be fed and the rich sent away?
Do you have ANY reason to make this language figurative?
Do you truly disagree?
There's nothing hard to understand about these clear passages and I've explained why we should take them at face value time and again. Primarily because we have NO reason to do so and it would strip the meaning from the text and context to do so.
In my case, I'm taking the reasonable literal interpretation from these passages because there is no reason not to take them literally.
In your case, when you cite things like even babies have a sin nature and deserve death, along with all of humanity because of it... and cite verses that are CLEARLY figurative in nature, you take them literally because of tradition, not because of the text. You're NOT defending why babies "deserve" death because they have a "sin nature." You're saying that's what you believe because the text is there, but that's circular.
In other words, we have no reason not to take Jesus' rich/poor verses literally, they make sense, taken literally.
But to say "even babies have a sin nature and deserve death" makes NO sense. WHY is "having a sin nature" (ie, being an imperfect human) WORTHY of death? You have never explained that in a rational manner.
You may have said something like, "Because the Bible says god can't tolerate ANY sin/god can't be in the presence of sin, therefore, even children and babies with a sin nature can't be in god's presence..." but that's just you repeating that you take such verses literally. It's not a rational explanation/answer to WHY does having a sin nature/being an imperfect human make one deserving of death - eternal death/separation from god?
So, that's the question you need to answer in a rational manner. It's not sufficient to say, "It's in the Bible and so we should take it literally..."
WHY does having a sin nature/being an imperfect human make one deserving of death - eternal death/separation from god?
And let me help by explaining more...
It might be one thing to say that a person who has killed and raped and burned down churches and synagogues might reasonably receive a lifetime punishment... and if you're built that way, maybe an eternal punishment.
But most of us never kill, rape, abuse, commit arson, destroy, and otherwise engage in these objectively "big" sins.
And while it's true, we all sin (at least the ones who are able to make that choice to do wrong - it would be crazy to say that at least newborns commit sins), most of us sin by lying, getting wrongly angry, harshly critical, gossip, take a pencil that isn't theirs, speed in their car... reasonably considered "smaller" sins. Some sins have a greater negative impact than others.
That's why in our penal system, we have graduated punishments. It would be obscene to punish someone with life in jail for telling a lie about their age, for instance. It would be a travesty against justice to give such a huge punishment to such a small crime.
Do you agree?
So, if you can agree to that (assuming you're not a crazy person), then on what basis would a person with "small sins" rationally be considered worthy of an eternal punishment?
Do you see how that's crazy? Unjust?
Dan, I don't think you have thought through your relationship to scripture. You are arguing both for its principal authority - but cannot stipulate the basis for it - and for its secondary authority - but will not extricate yourself from it.
Marshal has shackled himself to a book, or, rather, the radical protestant interpretation of a book - which is why he is anachronistically tied to Calvin and Calvin's heirs. But this allows him to argue with the hermetic but high level of consistency of a 500 year old tradition that interprets with rationalistic logic, often trite, but which then defends itself by repressing any consciousness of doing interpretation even as it goes right along. This, of course, leaves him with a faith in traditionalism, the dead faith of the living, and no faith in Christian tradition, the living faith of the dead.
In the face of Marshal's offense at most things of modernity, you will not budge him. He is not engaged in either a living spirituality not the modern world practice of reason and critique. Which is why he will never let consciousness of his brutality rise to awareness. He is dyed-in-the-wool dead whiteness.
But you, Dan, are straddling. You clearly claim that Christ is alive and god is active in the now: such that the Holy Spirit guides our searching knowledge via both scripture and experience. So, you go back in the book and lift out the signs and statements that serve your modern Christian - by which I mean, guided by spiritually sensitivity and reason - theological commitments... with the reasonable humble admission that you may get it wrong but that such a life is a life under god in living faith. But you proceed as if Scripture is still the primary authority, an authority that can argue against itself. And that is a contradiction that Marshal can forever exploit. You're not being honest. You're not allowed to be honest if you want to argue with Marshal. Because Marshal cannot recognize what is true: scripture is not the primary authority. Or, if he does, he does what you do: ok, god is the primary authority, but, since god cannot be here, god lets scripture do the talking.
Your only consistent argument is one that Methodists have always had trouble with: god moves the heart to respond to scripture, but not all of it, only the parts that are moving. Well... that begs many questions. Which begin to interrogate the real, basic questions: how does the authority of scripture arise?
Your only argument to Marshal, the only one that addresses his faith in dead traditionalism, the only argument a Christian can make because it is the ruling tenet of faith that a Christian must live by, is that god is living. Christ is alive and loves us, the father is acting and loves us, and the Holy Spirit moves where it wills and loves us. Scripture's authority comes by serving us, as god wills and the body of Christ understands, by continually teaching us this truth. From the truth of a living god and the body of Christ entering god's life - the sacred - by sacramental worship, scripture takes its authority to speak. From the same truth, we grow into greater truth, which is greater love, in time and space. Scripture follows by speaking not in timelessness - we do not live with god in timelessness. Scripture serves life as it is: within that sacred time and space.
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."
I will add that if god is living, then obvious to sanity no book can contain god; no book can express the full truth of god; no book itself living. Not even scripture. Scripture in itself is not even sufficient, for if scripture were sufficient in and of itself, all scripture would be all convincing. Obvious to sanity that no scripture has done so. Scripture is enlivened by something outside of itself.
And so it will be objected that god has the power to to make scripture live. True. But clearly the Christian god did not intend for human beings to live by scripture alone, not even primarily.
If god is living, then the Holy Spirit is living. And the Word of god did not say that the disciples would have scripture as their guide. Jesus, as I noted above, says he has many more things to say but that the disciples could not bear them. Later, they would have the Spirit as a guide into all truth.
Thus it was, when the apostles - Christ's chosen ones - the ones who had spent years with the Word of god, were astonished and even resistant when the Spirit revealed to the church that Gentiles were inlcuded in faith.
Scripture didn't help them. Not even the *incarnated *fulfillment of *scripture could help them.
Only the living Spirit could. And only the living Spirit still does.
Which then means that when the Holy Spirit does come to Marshal, Marshal rejects the living Spirit in favor of a dead traditionalism. Which is tragic, and a hell to live in.
Scripture has contradictions; is anachronistic; will, in and of itself, not serve faith.
16th century protestantism puts scripture back together by contriving a contradictorily extra-and-post biblical apparatus of justifications claiming that only the Bible is truth and truth can only be guided by the Bible.
Christian faith puts scripture at the service of the living god and the body of Christ within the volubility of the Holy Spirit.
Sorry, should have written Methodism and not Methodists.
Feodor... "But you, Dan, are straddling."
If Iunderstand you correctly, I get Where your coming from. My intent, however, is not to straddle.
My intent is to show that even for the dead literalist, the text does not insist upon what they think it insists upon. I don't think a woodenly literal, give or take, approach supports their conclusions which is why I refer to the scriptures in that manner.
I grew up in a literalist conservative tradition and I made my way out of that tradition BY taking The Bible literally and seeing that the conclusions didn't make sense.
The problem we have with Marshal, Craig, Stan, the fake bagpiper and the other goons is not over scripture.
We disagree that god can live in a book. And we doubly disagree that the book precedes in authority god the Holy Spirit and the Spirit’s life in the body of Christ.
When you and I talk as Christians about present issues we are calling on the Spirit and our capacities fir spiritual reason to guide our thinking. We read scripture as one of the sacraments by which the Spirit comes alive in us. By God’s grace in that practice we grow slowly beyond our short comings in time and space, of which our faith is always a limitation but growing less so, hopefully perfecting ourselves, as Christ promises.
When the goons talk present issues they slavishly talk bible speak - which they need to hear because bible speak is the only thing they call faith - while interpreting what they read by their traditionalist identities - which they need to deny. Thus, their tortured, endlessly replicated brutalizing conclusions.
Marshal is not a dead literalist. He's a dead traditionalist. He can acknowledge that not everything is literal or can be taken literally. But his acknowledgment comes with a disclaimer that he cannot be made aware of: from Calvin: the non literal is there to test our faith in a life lived literally by scripture; such passages can only be handled in secret by the very mature, a chosen council, say.
We say that not everything is literal and gets beyond our ability to interpret with maximum clarity. We say that that is how it should be... in fact, we say, that is how everything that is scriptural witness by cultures 3000, 2400, and 2000 years old necessarily is: interpreted with fluid confidence. This is a scandal to the goons. They cannot take life without law: they cannot take spiritual life. Thus has protestantism made them.
We say god is alive: all is well.
Dan, it is not the case that we know things that the goons do not know. It is that we know things that the goons cannot allow themselves to know. They are goons because they are committed to not knowing. Their faith lies in a traditionalism: if it is wrong, their dead faith is made aware to them. They cannot let that happen.
Not all radical protestants are like this. Not all radical protestantism have so consciously committed themselves to the tradition. You and I are both such cases. We wanted to know: something bothered our spirits about the faith we grew up in and we dimly perceived there was something hidden. We wanted to know. Because we believed in something beyond the tradition we inherited.
... "such passages can only be handled in secret by the very mature, a chosen council, say."
This is why Marshal can take his theological cues from trained helicopter engineers who have had no theological training nor, indeed, theological respect: they have secret holy knowledge.
Same thing with trusting a plumber to be senator. Or a real estate shyster/serial adulterer to be President. God has given them secret holy knowledge.
That it seems to just look like more or less veiled white supremacy cannot be argued with. It is secret holy knowledge given by god. We can even literally find Trump-like characters used by god in the bible. The sharper goons say that as a way to defend supporting Trump without approving of him. Marshal and Glenn, rougher cuts than the nice, white, politesse Stan or the anti-septic Pilate that Craig is, fully embrace Trump.
Re: Your comment from April 13, 2021 at 2:36 PM
"1. I was giving you credit for being familiar with the Bible and recognizing these common passages."
I'd much prefer dealing with actual and direct quotes from Scripture than your paraphrasing. The latter isn't at all equal to the former and as such is subject to your own biased interpretations. When we're debating the words of Scripture, it's best only the words of Scripture be used.
"2. Yes, I absolutely question your hunches about your interpretations of the texts you cite, especially when they literally don't say what you think they say. What of it?"
What either of us thinks a verse or passage means is the point of contention between us. What they "literally" say is the debate and if my "hunch" is wrong, prove it. It isn't wrong simply because you say so.
"3. You said I have not offered you one verse that supports my position. In fact, I've quoted many verses over the years and right here."
The verses you offer are no more than more verses which are saying the same thing. The question remains regarding whether or not the meaning is what you say or is it what I say it is. But this isn't how it works. The "position" in question is what those verses are really saying to us. Thus, the verses you choose to support your position should provide reasons to support the position about the meaning of the original verse in question, not merely say the same thing. For example, my position that the "poor" to whom Christ was bringing the Good News are not the materially poor. I support this by referring to Matthew 5:3. Another verse I can use to support this is Luke 12:22-23.
"4. I PROVIDE/have provided my explanations for my interpretations."
You provide assertions...not so much explanations for why your interpretations demonstrate you understand. Case in point:
"When Jesus said that he came to preach good news to the poor, to the sick, to the marginalized... CLEARLY from the text, he is speaking about actual poor and sick people."
Where does Scripture say this? How is made "clear" in any subsequent verse?
"CLEARLY from the crowds of people we saw come to him and his repeated emphasis on the poor and sick and otherwise marginalized, Jesus was speaking of the literal poor and marginalized."
I'm unaware of any verse that provides a description of the status of the crowds that would form to hear what He had to say. You would suggest that only the destitute were interested. Where does Scripture say this?
You also conflate every mention of poverty to mean the same thing every time. This is the point of contention here. When Christ speaks of consideration for the poor, that's not the same as when He speaks of one's spiritual condition as "poor". At one time He'll speak of one and at another the other. This is true of Scripture in general, from the OT through the NT.
"Indeed, this is as it's been commonly interpreted even amongst traditional, conservative teachers. Wesley, Matthew Henry, Barnes, etc... very few would seek to "spiritualize" this or make it some figurative other meaning than the actual written word. To do so would be to bastardize maybe a quarter of Jesus' teachings!"
It appears you're no more understanding of traditional thought as anything else. I won't say I'm a scholar on all of the traditional teachers, but I have some familiarity with Matthew Henry, referencing him often. Here's a snippet from him referring to the Magnificat:
"She knew herself to be a sinner who needed a Saviour, and that she could no otherwise rejoice in God than as interested in his salvation through the promised Messiah. Those who see their need of Christ, and are desirous of righteousness and life in him, he fills with good things, with the best things; and they are abundantly satisfied with the blessings he gives. He will satisfy the desires of the poor in spirit who long for spiritual blessings, while the self-sufficient shall be sent empty away." (from https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/1-46.htm)
There's another at that same site wherein the theologian, Alexander MacLaren, speaks of the spiritual:
"The next pair represent the antithesis as being that of social degree, and in it there may be traced a glance at ‘Herod the King’ and the depressed line of David, to which the singer belonged, while the meaning must not be confined to that. The third pair represent the same opposites under the guise of poverty and riches. Mary is not to be credited with purely spiritual views in these contrasts, nor to be discredited with purely material ones. She, no doubt, thought of her own oppressed nation as mainly meant by the hungry and lowly; but like all pious souls in Israel, she must have felt that the lowliness and hunger which Messiah was to ennoble and satisfy, meant a condition of spirit conscious of weakness and sin, and eagerly desiring a higher good and food than earth could give. So much she had learned from many a psalm and prophet.
So here we have two teachers "bastardizing" Scripture.
"Primarily because we have NO reason to do so and it would strip the meaning from the text and context to do so."
We have plenty, the most obvious being the lack of evidence that Christ materially enriched any poor person, or altered their financial condition in any way. We also have the fact of multiple episodes featuring people of status (tax collector, Roman soldier, etc.) being blessed by some form of response from Christ to their situations. Thus, again, it is the meaning of the text which is contention between us, and you're doing little more than merely asserting your position regarding it.
Here is a very detailed analysis of "the poor" which you need to study. I'm sure you're write it off to a "hunch" of the far-more-educated-than-you author. (I'm told we should listen to "experts".)
"But to say "even babies have a sin nature and deserve death" makes NO sense. WHY is "having a sin nature" (ie, being an imperfect human) WORTHY of death? You have never explained that in a rational manner."
Nonsense. I've explained it in great detail numerous times. You simply reject it without any rational counter-argument. To do so now, I will simply offer this essay which references many verses and passages that affirm my position and confirm the reality regarding sin nature and it's just consequence. Thus, it answers in great detail "WHY does having a sin nature/being an imperfect human make one deserving of death - eternal death/separation from god?"
You're welcome.
Re: Your comment from April 13, 2021 at 5:11 PM
In this comment, you once again conflate your response to sins or crimes with God's. Again, who are you to dictate to God to what degree He should be offended by sin? Setting aside how ludicrous it is to set one's focus on any punishment for any crime...civil or spiritual...rather than on right behavior, where do you get off presuming to judge God's disgust of sinfulness? It seems to me whichever the punishment...eternal suffering or annihilation...the severity of it should provide some insight as to just how much God hates sin. It should inform us of the seriousness of avoiding sin at all costs and more importantly, to come to Jesus and accept Him as Savior. Jesus Himself spends less time speaking of the details of hell and/or punishment for sin, and instead puts His emphasis on choosing life.
By ignoring these things...by suggesting the reality is "irrational", worrying "do you know how crazy it sounds", clearly puts you in among the haughty and arrogant. Accepting the consequences are so dire, one is more desperate in the knowledge and reality that one is indeed without recourse apart from Christ. Understanding the consequences leaves one poor in spirit, knowing that only Christ can protect me from having to pay the price.
I suspect your rejection of these realities is directly tied to your support and enabling of bad behaviors. You'd risk the salvation of those you believe regard you well because of your enabling, rather than risk their regard for you in order to insure their salvation.
And so, we see that you "take literally" that which supports your ideology by doing so, and the same is true for that which you insist should be taken figuratively. You have a poor understanding of what it means to take Scripture literally.
Jesus was born poor, in a barn, laid in a feeding trough. When he was taken to the temple for a blessing, they could only offer a pair of turtle doves or pigeons: the offering allowed very poor families. Jesus identified as poor, remained poor his whole life: no bed, no place for his head.
Jesus was poor. God came as a poor man. A poor man took our sins away that god may be glorified and the poor raised up.
He said so himself, which Marshall cannot remember. Probably because he spits on the Holy Spirit.
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me.
He has sent me to preach good news to the poor,
to proclaim release to the prisoners
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to liberate the oppressed,
and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
Dan said...
"When Jesus said that he came to preach good news to the poor, to the sick, to the marginalized... CLEARLY from the text, he is speaking about actual poor and sick people."
Marshal responded...
Where does Scripture say this? How is made "clear" in any subsequent verse?
1. It LITERALLY SAYS, "[The Spirit of the Lord] has anointed me to
proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim
freedom for the prisoners and
recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
The text LITERALLY says good news to the poor.
It LITERALLY says that in the context of other marginalized people (imprisoned, sick, oppressed).
It says this literally in the context of a Jesus (according to the literalists) who goes around healing the literal sick. You want to retain THAT bit of literalism but ignore the rest.
It literally says this in the context of the Sermon on the Plain where Jesus says
Blessed are you who are poor... woe to you who are rich
Blessed are you who hunger now... woe to you who are well-fed
etc
...where it makes no sense if you make it figurative.
It literally says this in the context of John the Baptist asking if Jesus were "the One" and Jesus responds "tell John how I'm healing the sick (which presumably you take literally) and preaching good news to the poor... (which it sounds like you want to switch gears and suddenly start taking it figuratively MID-SENTENCE!)
Jesus' WHOLE ministry is to the poor, the marginalized, the impoverished. When Jesus drove out the moneychangers, he did it in response to them cheating the poor by forcing them to buy "approved doves" which were the sacrifice the POOR had to give.
We have NO reason to spiritualize or make figurative these literal words. YOU have no reason to do so. Traditionally, Christians have not sought to make these words figurative (or... half the time... as in, "Well, he LITERALLY healed the sick, but when he said preaching to the poor, he was speaking figuratively...")
Look, I'm fine that some theologians/commentators might say, "Well, it's literal... BUT it can also be taken figuratively..." that's not the same as beheading these teachings by making them figurative when you don't like the implications.
Stop spitting on Jesus' words like that, trying to emasculate the power of the one you call your lord. Quit trying to make him bow down to your whims and opinions.
You have no reason to take them figuratively.
Marshal...
"the most obvious being the lack of evidence that Christ materially enriched any poor person, or altered their financial condition in any way."
? WTF? What happens when someone who has been unable to work is suddenly healed? Does their ability to work and pay their own way NOT improve? Are they NOT going to be materially enriched?
What happens when the masses are fed, as Jesus literally did in your belief? Are they not materially enriched? What happens when the church/Jesus' followers are told to take care of the orphans, the widows, the strangers, the oppressed? Are their lives NOT enriched?
MAYBE in your circles, Jesus' teachings about standing in solidarity with the least of these has no impact in the lives of people because YOU DON'T TAKE IT LITERALLY. But in Jesus' circles, in the early church, in the church today, people's lives WERE materially enriched by this way of Grace where all are welcome to the LITERAL table and special emphasis is placed upon letting "the last" go "first." Literally.
IF your church is failing to follow Jesus' teachings and failing to side with the least of these in ways that improves their lives, that's on you. NOT on Jesus, nor his church, nor the early believers found in the Bible.
"The text LITERALLY says good news to the poor. "
Yes. That's what the text says. The question is whether or not Christ is referring to the materially poor, the spiritually poor or as some "experts" suggest, both. But let's back up and look at my response:
"Where does Scripture say this? How is made "clear" in any subsequent verse?"
Now look at your comment to which I was responding:
"CLEARLY from the text, he is speaking about actual poor and sick people."
If you're going to make me remind you of your own words, this will take a lot of time.
"...where it makes no sense if you make it figurative."
It makes no sense to YOU, but just quite a bit to those who aren't socialists. Christ's actual miracles are symbolic of the spiritual poverty, hunger, thirst and captivity suffered by many.
"Jesus' WHOLE ministry is to the poor, the marginalized, the impoverished."
Jesus' WHOLE ministry is to all people regardless of the size of their bank account. Wealthy people can be spiritually poor, hungering for something greater than themselves...wealthy people can understand they are lost without Christ. Talk about not making sense!! To suggest that Christ was focused on only one class of people according to something as worthless to Him as economics!
"Traditionally, Christians have not sought to make these words figurative (or... half the time... as in, "Well, he LITERALLY healed the sick, but when he said preaching to the poor, he was speaking figuratively...") "
But I'm not saying that. Not at all. You insist on conflating every mention of the term "the poor" as meaning the same thing...the materially poor. This is not at all true. He LITERALLY preached to the poor, as well as the better than poor, but He LITERALLY brought Good News to the spiritually poor...as was his "mission".
"Look, I'm fine that some theologians/commentators might say, "Well, it's literal... BUT it can also be taken figuratively..." "
And who would those be? None that I've offered. You can tell by the actual excerpts from their writings I presented.
"Stop spitting on Jesus' words like that, trying to emasculate the power of the one you call your lord. Quit trying to make him bow down to your whims and opinions."
That's funny coming from you.
"You have no reason to take them figuratively."
But I'm not. I'm taking them literally as they were meant to be taken. What follows is yet another excellent analysis of the verse in question:
https://missionexus.org/the-poor-a-case-of-mistaken-identity/
"? WTF? What happens when someone who has been unable to work is suddenly healed? etc."
Now your desperation is showing. So they can work. Are they then no longer in a state of material poverty, or simply just less impoverished and how can you or anyone make the case?
"What happens when the church/Jesus' followers are told to take care of the orphans, the widows, the strangers, the oppressed? Are their lives NOT enriched?"
But according to you, His followers were all poor. How well can they support orphans, widows, strangers and/or the oppressed, if they're the poor...or themselves orphans, widows, strangers or the oppressed? You're making yourself more and more foolish simply because you insist that Christ was proclaiming the Good News only to the poor, rather than the poor in spirit. In the meantime, I can accept the truth and still know that Christ was supporting the physically poor, crippled, widowed, etc., and preaching that all who follow Him should do as well...including the non-poor.
"IF your church is failing to follow Jesus' teachings and failing to side with the least of these in ways that improves their lives, that's on you. NOT on Jesus, nor his church, nor the early believers found in the Bible."
So because I speak the truth about Christ proclaiming the Good News to the poor in spirit, and that He was blessing the poor in spirit, to you that somehow means that I reject Christ's teachings regarding the caring for the less fortunate. I can't see how those two very disparate things are in any way tied together, but you seem to need to believe they are. Weird.
By “prisoners” set free, Marshal’s helicopter engineers think that may well refer to those imprisoned in a doughnut addiction.
The blind include those who cannot do algebra 1 on the board.
The oppressed are probably those who work a 60-hour work week just as much as those who are refused a place in the firm because of whatever “perceived” or more likely made up prejudice... which may not be a prejudice at all, really, but a smart manager who knows how to build a team and sees how Lamar just isn’t the right fit for the whole.
To Marshal's point, though, "imprisoned" doughnut addicts, "blind" math students, and "oppressed" workloads do need good news just as much as the next person. Maybe more so. Maybe more than actually poor people. They get all the attention. And after all, Jesus was overworked to death.
Marshal...
"according to you, His followers were all poor. How well can they support orphans, widows, strangers and/or the oppressed, if they're the poor...or themselves orphans, widows, strangers or the oppressed?"
I have not said that all his followers were poor. We know that's not the case. I have said that from the beginning, he clearly had a ministry specifically and literally to the poor and marginalised... From Mary's magnificat to the 1st day of his ministry until the end, there was a consistent and clear message of good news specifically to the poor.
HOW does this way of siding with, sharing and, watching out for the poor work in the real world?
Imperfectly, with fits and starts.
But it's better than the alternative. Just look at the early church the shared all things in common, that set up a deacon body specifically to watch out for the needs of the poor and help coordinate things so that Enough was had for all.
This good news of Enough, with Grace is found throughout the pages of The Bible and throughout history. Which can't also be said about your blood-sacrifice-god theory.
There you go again conflating what His mission was with the Christian duty to the "least of these". Focus on that mission and defend your position as I have, with actual facts rather than your socialistic ideology. And keep in mind, when you finally act as one who is truly concerned with truth, you'll still be able to support charitable endeavors as I do. There's no conflict between my position on the topic at hand and Christian duty.
"Just look at the early church the shared all things in common..."
Irrelevant with regard to what was meant by "the poor" in either the Magnificat or Lk 4:17-19 or Isa 61:1.
"This good news of Enough, with Grace is found throughout the pages of The Bible and throughout history."
Like where, exactly? I'll wait here while you don't produce any evidence for this claim of what the "Good News" is.
"Which can't also be said about your blood-sacrifice-god theory."
"I" have no such theory. Scripture, however, teaches Christ is "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. John 1:29, 36.
Marshal... "There you go again conflating what His mission was with the Christian duty to the "least of these". Focus on that mission and defend your position as I have, with actual facts rather than your socialistic ideology."
Jesus BEGAN his ministry... his FIRST words recorded as an adult to the people of his time, were an answer to the question, "WHY are you here, Jesus?"
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because God has anointed me
To proclaim good news to the poor.
God has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Those were Jesus' words as he began his ministry.
Now, the question would be, WHY would you opt to not take those words literally?
Or, WHY would you say the first line explaining why he'd come (to preach good news to the poor) should NOT be taken literally and the second line (proclaim liberty for captives) should ALSO not be taken literally, but the third line (heal the sick) SHOULD be taken literally, then back to NOT literal for the fourth and fifth lines (set the oppressed free and proclaim the year of Jubilee)?
Especially given the text and context of the rest of Jesus' sermons/teachings?
Jesus TOLD us why he'd come when he began his ministry. Why are you taking 4/5 of it non-literally?
That IS the actual fact, the literal text where Jesus explains why he'd come. That's reality. "I HAVE COME..." to say that you have to have a perfect blood sacrifice to appease an angry god who is impotent to forgive your sins otherwise... That is literally NOT what Jesus said.
Do you recognize that reality?
Marshal... ""There you go again conflating what His mission was with the Christian duty to the "least of these". Focus on that mission and defend your position as I have"
In other words, I HAVE done that precisely. I've done it by citing JESUS' OWN explanation as to why he'd come and noting we have NO REASON to not take them literally given JESUS' OWN other repeated teachings about poverty and wealth, the powerful and the oppressed.
Here, you can find commentary after commentary stretching back centuries where they affirm the teaching of Jesus about WHY he'd come (to preach Good News to the poor, according to Jesus) that Jesus was, indeed, speaking of actual poverty.
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/luke/4-18.html#verse-acc
John Calvin, John Wesley... it's hard to find a serious traditional theologian who didn't/doesn't affirm the literal poor interpretation. To be sure, they may also include "Those who are poor... AND the poor in spirit..." but they don't try to deny the endless clear references clearly to the literally poor in Jesus' teachings.
So now you're defining "serious traditional theologians" as those, at least in your mind, come to the same conclusion as you. Got it. Typical. Now that I've presented the words of one YOU mentioned, which do not conform to what you demand in order for the man to qualify as a "serious" theologian, you kick him off your list.
More later
Just took a moment to review your link. Got as far as Calvin for now. Clarke and Calvin definitely affirm my position, so thanks for the help. I'll be checking all presented in the link and we'll see how many more do as well.
I wasn't saying that all the commentary spoke of a literal poverty, but a good number, do.
Albert Barnes...
"By the “poor” are meant
all those who are destitute of the comforts of this life, and
who therefore may be more readily disposed to seek treasures in heaven;
all those who are sensible of their sins, or are poor in spirit Matthew 5:3; and
all the “miserable” and the afflicted, Isaiah 58:7.
Our Saviour gave it as one proof that he was the Messiah, or was from God,
that he preached to “the poor,” Matthew 11:5.
The Pharisees and Sadducees despised the poor;
ancient philosophers neglected them;
but the gospel seeks to bless them..."
And I'm not sure that Calvin "affirms" your position. Calvin...
"To the poor - The prophet shows what would be the state of the Church before the manifestation of the Gospel, and what is the condition of all of us without Christ.
Those persons to whom God promises restoration
are called poor, and broken, and captives, and blind, and bruised
The body of the people was oppressed by so many miseries,
that these descriptions applied to every one of its members.
Yet there were many who, amidst their poverty, blindness, slavery, and death,
flattered themselves, or were insensible to their condition."
That reads like to me he's affirming that the people hearing these words - "the body of the people" - for them, these literal descriptions applied to every one of them.
Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Brian Bell...
"This is the story of our Savior's life, death and resurrection.
He came looking for us in the sick, the maimed, the lame,
the bruised, the broken hearted, the wretched wanderer,
the poor and forgotten, the prisoner,
and the lonely rich."
Cornelius a Lapide...
" This day is fulfilled in your hearing this prophecy of Isaiah,
while you hear me preaching to you and
to the rest of the poor of Galilee
the year of full remission, [Jubilee]
and I am prepared to do"
More...
Chuck Smith...
"And in that same hour many came to Jesus who
were blind and lame, the poor.
And He healed them. He restored their sight.
And He said to those disciples of John,
"Go back and tell John what you"ve seen.
How the blind receive their sight, the lame are walking,
and to the meek the gospel is being preached."
And Jesus, rather than answering directly, "Go back and tell John,
"Yes, I am the one you"re looking for.""
Rather than His own testimony, in essence He was saying,
"My works testify of who I am."
Darby...
"He preaches everywhere among the people.
He casts out the enemy,
He removes sufferings, and
proclaims the goodness of God to the poor."
"Expositors Dictionary..."
"He proclaims a social Gospel,
a Gospel that deals with circumstances,
a Gospel that deals with the outside conditions of a man"s life.
He says that He preaches the Gospel to the poor, and
that Christianity is hope to poverty;
this is the first note that Christ sounds.
Now, there can be no mistake whatever
as to what poverty means in the common judgment of the world.
Poverty is degradation and dependence;
to be poor is to be at the mercy of the world.
What has Christ to say to that?
In what way does He preach the Gospel to the poor?
In this way, that Christianity utterly rejects
this human view of poverty.
It is a Gospel to the poor, again,
because it arches over every poor man the
illimitable firmament, and
opens to him the doors of an everlasting life."
More...
John Gill...
"in Isaiah it is, "to the meek";
which design the same persons, and mean such as are poor in spirit,
and are sensible of their spiritual poverty;
have low and humble thoughts of themselves, and
of their own righteousness;
and seek to Christ for durable riches and true righteousness,
and frankly acknowledge that all they have and are,
is owing to the grace of God: and
generally speaking,
these are the poor of this world,
and poor in their intellectuals..."
...and on and on it goes. Some do not mention much of it, because it's a given! Of course, when Jesus said Poor he meant POOR. He meant healing the actual SICK after all.
You're just speaking to an outsider's view of Jesus' words if you're trying to make these words purely figurative. You're just mistaken.
Now, unless and until you have some PROOF that these words don't MEAN what they clearly say, I think we've heard enough from you.
You saying, "I think he always meant 'the poor IN SPIRIT, not the literally poor" is just you affirming your own godship (in your own mind)... as if, because you think it, it must be.
Here's someone speaking to Calvin's position on poverty and the Gospel and I don't think it helps your suggestion that Calvin "affirms" your hunch...
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/223471
And this, from Calvin...
"God takes a more special care of the poor than of others, since they are most exposed to injuries and violence..."
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-calvin-had-good-news-for-the-poor/
""God takes a more special care of the poor than of others, since they are most exposed to injuries and violence...""
And like so much you've offered, this in no way contradicts my position regarding who the "poor" are when discussing "Bring good news to the poor" or "Blessed are the poor". It in no way supports YOUR position that the poor in those verses are the materially poor. Not in the least.
More later.
Poor doesn’t mean what you think it means, Dan. When it comes to material goods, Marshal is a relativist. Poor could mean a rich owner whose employees voted for to Unionize. He’s heartbroken.
Jesus cares for the heartbroken.
"In Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian Cohort, as it was called. 2 He was a devout man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and prayed constantly to God. One afternoon at about three o’clock he had a vision in which he clearly saw an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius.” He stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” He answered, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God."
1. Cornelius was not a Jew.
2. Cornelius had not heard of Jesus.
3. Cornelius believed in god, as did his household.
4. Cornelius gave to the poor and prayed.
God sent an angel to tell him that his prayers and alms are a memorial to god.
"He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. Then he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven.:
5. Scripture is contravened by god.
"Now while Peter was greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen, suddenly the men sent by Cornelius appeared. They were asking for Simon’s house and were standing by the gate. They called out to ask whether Simon, who was called Peter, was staying there. While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Look, three men are searching for you. Now get up, go down, and go with them without hesitation; for I have sent them.”
6. God did not send the apostle Peter to Cornelius. God claims that he directed Cornelius and Cornelius men to the apostle. Because, "They answered, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man."
"The following day they came to Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. On Peter’s arrival Cornelius met him, and falling at his feet, worshiped him. But Peter made him get up, saying, “Stand up; I am only a mortal.” And as he talked with him, he went in and found that many had assembled; and he said to them, “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection. Now may I ask why you sent for me?"
"Then Peter began to speak to them: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."
7. God has Peter breaking the Law.
8. God, Peter says, "has shown me" that god can call us, and will call us to those we think cannot have true faith and do not deserve god.
9. God does not show, and we cannot show, partiality. To everyone god shows peace, and we must show peace too. To all our brothers and sisters who are not bent on crime or brutality: to our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters, to our non-binary community, to all our black and brown brothers and sisters - ALL - to our muslim brothers and sisters, buddhist brothers and sisters, etc.
10. We must show the peace and inclusion of god to everyone, just as god has shown us through Cornelius: “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.”
___
"The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. Now the apostles and the believers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also accepted the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him, saying, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” Then Peter began to explain it to them, step by step... I replied, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ But a second time the voice answered from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ This happened three times; then everything was pulled up again to heaven... The Spirit told me to go with them and not to make a distinction between them and us...
... And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”
11. The apostles and the Christians in Jersusalem - the VERY ONES who knew Jesus, who walked with him for years, who carried out his ministry across the Galilee and Judea WHILE HE WAS ON EARTH - FAILED to anticipate the breadth of god's love and acceptance. They had the WORD but STILL got it wrong and were shocked by what god did... after Jesus had ascended.
12. We are not worthy to judge anyone. No one who does good in the world is profane. God the Holy Spirit moves like the wind. We were not baptized with a book. We were baptized with the Holy Spirit, blessed with a new capacity to see the holy in everyone: that we are not exceptional; God so loves the whole world.
___
THIS is the good news, Dan, that you and I have come to know by the grace of god and the working of the Holy Spirit.
Stan and Craig and Marshal and the fake bagpiper and all the many thousands of goons across America believe in a book, not a living god: even as the book testifies that is only a testimony of the living, true, good, beautiful One.
Stan just yesterday reaffirmed his trust in a book over the Holy Spirit. He rejects the message of god in the story of Cornelius.
But WE are the children of Cornelius. We are not Jews. The Ethiopian Eunuch was a Jew. But Cornelius was an Italian in the Roman guard, not a Syrian as were most of the Roman troops throughout Palestine, but a special cohort from Italy. Cornelius was a Gentile. And the Christians who lived and slept and worked with Jesus could not imagine god would extend grace.
Stan and Craig and Marshal and the many thousands of goons ignore scripture - ignore their god - because this passage reveals to us that god cannot be contained in a book, that god's love cannot be contained in law or scripture or by those who were closest to the Son of God. A faith that cannot be ruled by strict law is anathema to them. A faith that cannot be built on the decaying sands of a book threatens their fragile identity. They reject and reject and repeatedly reject the life of the Spirit.
Thanks be to god, Dan, that you and I were blessed with the sensitivity to reject idols. Thanks be to god that the Holy Spirit directs the loving world and Christ's church to not call profane anyone who does good and cares for their family and others.
Thank god for such good news, good news that is stronger than law, greater by far than any book, able to transform the brutalities of people around the world like Stan and Craig and Marshal and the fake bagpiper and the many thousands of goons like them.
Post a Comment