Stan, on his blog, lamented with Craig recently how "they..." those "others" who call themselves Christian but who refuse to agree with his wisdom and human traditions - how they never even try to give reasonable responses to explain why they disagree with Stan and his human traditions.
The post was "Who Says?" and was written in response to my regular question to him (and he may have been writing with other people in mind who disagree with him, but there were so many near-direct quotes from me that he was clearly referencing conversations we've had.
And when I say, conversations, I mean where I've written to him explaining an alternative view and which he rarely responds to and never directly responds to anymore. At best, we may occasionally see Stan say something like, "Dan tells me..." (and then proceeds to say something that I haven't said, because he has, again, failed to understand what I was actually saying... but that's another post).
With conservatives, I regularly push back when they say that we can "know" that this position or that position is the "right one" because The Bible. By which, they mean, that THEY READ the Bible and THEY INTERPRET the Bible to be saying something that agrees with their particular human traditions. When they say, "But we know that God opposes gay people getting married..." I will regularly ask, "Says who?" Because God has not said that. Ever. Literally.
Who says is a reasonable question to answer, but Stan and Craig, etc, really hate it. They often will try to mock it by comparing it to the "devil" saying, "Did God really say...?" to "Eve" in the Creation story. The difference that they never seem to get is we are not questioning God. We're questioning them.
Beyond that, a rational, powerful and secure God can handle us asking questions, one would assume if one doesn't have a rather boxed in and limited view of God.
In this post, Stan concludes with what he says is the difference between people like him and people like me, saying...
Which brings us down to the fundamental difference. It is not merely a different understanding of the nature of sin. It is a different source of truth. I am not following some "set of human traditions." My source is the words of Scripture. My authority is the Father in the Old Testament and the Son in the Gospels and the Holy Spirit as the One who inspired the Scriptures as a whole, since the Scriptures, as a whole, maintain this position. I don't begin with "consensus" or "everyone understands ..."
And here, I would respond with, Says who? He clearly is following a set of human traditions. His source are the words of Scripture as he and those who agree with him interpret them. And THAT is the actual difference between he and I. And just because he doesn't agree with my conclusions (any more than I do his) doesn't mean I don't also read Scripture (and use my reason, as he does) to make conclusions.
By way of example, he offers his human opinions and interpretations of Matthew 18 that includes the verses about "plucking out your eye if it offends you, cut off your hand if it offends you... it's better to enter heaven maimed than be cast into a fiery hell for ever..." Stan concludes we can KNOW that there is an eternal punishment for all sinners (except for the "saved") because Jesus said so. And he cites this passage.
In the comments, Craig lamented...
A while back I raised a question something like, "If our reward for doing good (ie minimizing our typical sins) is eternal, and that eternal reward is "fair", then why wouldn't eternal punishment be "fair" also?". I never really got much of an answer for that either.
And Stan responded...
It feels like I rarely get reasoned answers to questions like that. But maybe that's just me.
[chuckle, chuckle...] those guys sure think they have them liberals on the ropes... They can't even answer their questions.
Except, I do. I did. I have and I regularly do answer these sorts of questions.
Here is my response to Stan's Matthew 18 "Jesus said there was eternal fiery hell for sinners" idea. It was the third or so time I'd answered it just in this post.
+++++++++
Instead of complaining that you "rarely get reasoned answers" - why not share the answers you HAVE received and have a reasoned discussion about the matter?
ETERNAL FIRE: in the context of the Matthew 18 passage, we see Jesus using what appear to be several clearly hyperbolic phrases to make a point. I suspect that most Christians agree that Jesus wasn't literally calling for plucking out our eyes or cutting off our hands.
Agreed?
Likewise, even amongst traditional conservative Christians, there is a fair amount of doubt about whether or not passages like this are suggesting a literally fiery hell/punishment. So, even conservatives treat many of these verses in Matthew 18 figuratively.
Agreed?
Do you think "hell" is a literal eternal fire or do you think the "fire" part might be figurative?
In the case of literal bodily mutilation, I suspect that most of Christianity does not think this is a literal command. The point being, then, a hyperbolic reminder to watch out for the trapping and harmful nature of sin.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4569/did-jesus-teach-people-to-literally-pluck-their-eye-out-and-cut-their-hand-off
Agreed?
Why then, when we see Jesus flip over to a mention of "eternal fire" as torture/punishment for at least some sin*, do we think it might be literal promise as opposed to hyperbolic emphasis, as is more rational and (at least some of us think) a natural, simple direct understanding of the text? Isn't a hyperbolic explanation of ALL of these examples the very clearest, simplest, most obvious interpretation?
Further, when Jesus used these seemingly clearly hyperbolic language, it is in the context of "one these little ones" this seems to many of us to be clearly connected with the on-going themes of justice for and siding the "least of these," the poor and marginalized to whom Jesus said he'd come to preach good news and release and Jubilee. This concern for the poor and marginalized to whom Jesus literally said he'd come to preach good news is in contrast with the Pharisees and rich and powerful whom Jesus regularly butted heads with. This passage clearly SEEMS IN KEEPING with this concern... it's yet another warning to powerful oppressors and those who cause harm to the poor and marginalized.
Is that not reasonable and biblical, even if you may not agree with it?
* In THAT clear context, Jesus gives this strong warning. This passage is literally not saying "Any sin will cause you to be thrown into hellfire forever, if you don't repent just right..."
Do you agree that it literally isn't a blanket warning for any and all sins to cause one to be "sent to" a "fiery hell" forever?
Now... EVEN IF you don't ultimately agree with my reasoning, how is that NOT a direct and clear reasoned response to the question of "eternal fire" as mentioned in Matthew 18? How is that not both reasoned and biblical?
++++++
Of course, Stan didn't answer, as he rarely does the actual questions I ask him. And so, I've posted it here, just to be clear that Stan et al ARE getting reasoned responses, in spite of their protests.
132 comments:
And to Craig's question...
"A while back I raised a question something like, "If our reward for doing good (ie minimizing our typical sins) is eternal, and that eternal reward is "fair", then why wouldn't eternal punishment be "fair" also?". I never really got much of an answer for that either."
Of course, he has. The problem with an eternal punishment for typical sins and errors of humanity is that an eternity of torment for relatively minor typical crimes would be an affront to Justice. That IS the explanation for why it isn't "fair" to punish someone for an eternity for, for instance, stealing a cookie.
On the other hand, forgiving someone "for doing good" is not an affront to Justice.
Beyond which, I'm not arguing we get an eternal reward "for doing good..." and Craig is not making that argument either, so he's arguing against a strawman fallacy, rather than anything I've said.
And these answers have been regularly given to these conservative fellas and, ironically, THEY never deal with the questions put to them when these questions are answered.
Strange. I'm really trying to communicate, but it seems so very hard to get past these walls.
Dan, you know why I don't engage. You made yourself odious on my blog a long time ago by violating the rules of friendly discussion and, when confronted about it, refused to acknowledge it. (Oh, you apologized. Something like, "I'm sorry you took it so badly." Not an attempt to reconcile or reopen communications.) But, that's okay. It's just part of the false assumptions and lies you've offered about me above. You complain about me when you see that from me. Hypocrisy doesn't look good on you.
This is a question. I understand you believe that Jesus was not speaking literally. Okay. I understand you believe that Jesus was using hyperbole. Okay. I also understand that you believe that any real "hell" or "eternal fire" would be unjust and that far more people will be in heaven than the "few" that the traditional perspective (using Jesus's words) allows. So here's my question. Taking "cut it off" and "eternal fire" and "hell" and such as hyperbole, understanding that it shouldn't be understood in a woodenly literal sense, what does it mean? What does Jesus mean when He refers to "cut it off," "eternal fire," and "eternal hell" kinds of things? Because, as far as I can tell, anything remotely close (which hyperbole would require) would be wrong. I mean, if He referred to extremes like that and actually meant benign things, it wouldn't be very reasonable of Him. (That question -- what does it mean? -- is the question I rarely see answered. What I normally see is, "It doesn't mean what you said it meant.")
? I answered that. I said...
"The point being, then, a hyperbolic reminder to watch out for the trapping and harmful nature of sin."
In other/additional words: it's a way of emphasizing the seriousness of abusing the least of these, the "little ones" Jesus was referencing. It's a way of saying that God is on the side of the oppressed and there will be hell to pay for harming them.
But saying, "There are EXTREMELY SERIOUS consequences for your sin" does not mean or equal "You will be burned alive for all of eternity." Nonetheless, it's talking of the serious consequences of causing harm.
A mother who says, "Don't you touch that stove or I'll slap your face off!" is NOT saying she'd literally slap the child's face off. Neither is it saying even that the mother would punish that child. It's just a hyperbolic phrase to emphasize the danger.
Does that make sense? If not, why not?
Stan... "That question -- what does it mean? -- is the question I rarely see answered."
But I literally answered it. Again:
The point being, then, a hyperbolic reminder to watch out for the trapping and harmful nature of sin.
Why is that not an appropriate use of hyperbole in your mind? Why are you not even seeing that as an answer? Did you miss it?
Here are some examples of hyperbole...
"I slept like a rock last night."
Which has NOTHING to do with the imagery of a rock. It's only about sleeping heavily. It's about the deepness of his sleep.
"I'm drowning in paperwork."
Which has NOTHING to do with actually drowning or dying in any way. It's just emphasizing the load of paperwork.
"If your hand offends you, cut it off..."
Has NOTHING to do with literally cutting off your hand. It's a way of emphasizing the seriousness of the sin in question (in this case, causing harm to "these little ones...").
Now that I've answered your question again and in great detail, how about answering mine?
You DO agree that cutting off one's hand is a hyperbolic statement, but in no way suggests actually maiming someone, right?
Then why is "cast into eternal fire" to emphasize the seriousness of sin but NOT to suggest anything as unjust as an eternal torture?
You say, " I understand you believe that Jesus was not speaking literally."
My question to you - one of them - was YOU ALSO don't think Jesus was speaking literally when it comes to chopping off hands, right? You may not have even think Jesus was speaking literally when he talked about eternal "fire..." that the fire is literal, right? Or at least, you recognize that Christians of good faith can disagree on that point, right?
Thank you for trying to address things, but you've only asked more questions that I've already answered and not answered the questions I have for you. These are reasonable questions, please consider answering them.
If Stan has not yet torn out an eye then we must conclude one of three things: 1. Stan is perfect - which he himself often denies; 2. he doesn't really flatly, literally believe scripture and the words of Jesus despite his making this the sine qua non of Christian faith; 3. he, in fact, modernized his interpretation of scripture and only really believes in hell for other people... which, if he were to come clean, would destroy his whole graven image of a written down God.
So, we can conclude, Dan, that you are wrong to say Stan reads scripture and "uses" his reason. He does not use his reason.
Which is exactly why he must move to cancel you (while decrying "cancel culture" he wields it) with his excuse that you, Dan, have "made yourself odious on my blog a long time ago by violating the rules of friendly discussion."
This is the same whiny-like reaction of white clergy to Dr MLK: "slow down, you're moving too fast; people need time." To which Dr King responded that black people have been beaten and killed at whim for 500 years; how long does it take a white man to adjust to humanity and Christian love?
He is lost in the position of an anachronistic denier of history, which is only time under god as we experience it. He cannot think of Christ and the Holy Spirit (whom he infers was done and retired when the NT was closed in the 3rd century) as timeless. God is book bound to him. And such a ludicrous idea can only be held if one has that supreme inner machinery of whiteness: the ability to repress sense and decency if it means straight white men must live in community with all others as equals.
He has swarms of desperately lost white people to blend in with. And they all will have hell to pay for their willful brutalities.
Stan... "But, that's okay. It's just part of the false assumptions and lies you've offered about me above."
I do not believe you can point to a single lie I offered about you. If you can, I'd gladly apologize, but I don't think you can.
Stan... "You made yourself odious on my blog a long time ago by violating the rules of friendly discussion and, when confronted about it, refused to acknowledge it."
At this point, I have no idea why I'm not allowed on your blog. I'm generally quite pleasant and respectful. Sometimes, when confronted with false claims, I respond strongly and I know I've used language that is harsher than you prefer, but it's not like you've been friendly in your discussions with and about me. As I regularly point out, you routinely say, "Dan said..." and then say things I haven't said. That isn't friendly discussion. And when corrected, you haven't owned up to the false representation. Again, not friendly.
Stan... "you know why I don't engage. You made yourself odious on my blog a long time ago by violating the rules of friendly discussion"
And yet, you refer to my words and ideas at least occasionally. And if not my words and ideas, the words and ideas of people who think as I do.
And yet, when you do, you frequently get it wrong or misstate what we actually believe. In this case, you literally said we don't answer your question when we/I literally do and did answer your question.
So, even if you don't want to post my comments, I still write them occasionally because you still read them occasionally. And thus, I comment in a friendly and good faith effort to communicate the views of those you disagree with and who disagree with you. I do so because I believe in communication and trying to understand the Other point of view. Especially when your side offers distorted versions of what we believe.
And WHY do I continue to communicate? Because I DO believe that, somewhere deep inside you, you truly care about truth and reason and justice. So, even if you don't want to post my comments, you COULD still deal with the view from the other side when they correct you about something you've misrepresented.
You could, for instance, say on your blog, "Well, I guess that they DO sometimes answer these questions. It could be that I just didn't understand the answer to be a direct and clear answer, but they say they are trying and I have no reason to doubt that." or something to clear up your misstatements. And WHY would you do that? Because you are a good person who wants to do the right thing and who doesn't want to misrepresent others.
Is that a fair assessment?
Stan... "I mean, if He referred to extremes like that and actually meant benign things, it wouldn't be very reasonable of Him. (That question -- what does it mean? -- is the question I rarely see answered."
And so, just to go above and beyond in an effort to clarify my answer for you...
When I ANSWER your question, "What does it mean to cut off one's hand to avoid the fires of hell...?" by saying, "It means that the consequences of wrong-doing are serious and to be avoided by NOT doing the wrong in the first place..."
I'm saying IT MEANS THAT SIN HAS SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES and REPERCUSSIONS. AVOID SINNING.
Noting that sin has serious consequences is not a "benign thing..." Saying "by saying cut off your hand so that you don't end up burning in hell MEANS that we should sin and that it's all good and fine..." THAT would be nonsensical as hyperbole, but not noting that sin has serious consequences.
It doesn't mean "Cut off your hand" and it doesn't mean "if you commit one sin you will be burned alive forever in a literal fiery torture for all of eternity."
It means avoid doing wrong because there are hellish consequences for all involved.
Is that an answer that you can recognize as a direct and clear answer?
What "serious" consequences? There are mentions of hell and eternal fires, but no mention of some limited sentence after which...what happens? And where does Scripture say any of what you would put forth as an alternative understanding? This is what you're missing. I don't think Stan was concerned with the "cut off your hand" part of the teaching. At the same time, it suggests the punishment for sin is so bad that it would indeed be better to cut off your hand than to have it available to perpetrate sinful behaviors. That's not hyperbole. That's a description of how bad both sin and the punishment for it is. Yet, the punishment...hell...eternal fire...is not hyperbole either, and less so than the cutting off of hands bit. It's the consequence of sin. Not any particular sin, but sin. And you offer nothing in the way of an alternative of which Scripture speaks to suggest that "eternal fire" is metaphor for something else. But metaphor for what?
And by the way, when He warned against causing little ones to sin, there was no reference to Pharisees anywhere, nor would it be required since the teaching was about corrupting children. You seem to think the only assholes in Christ's time were Pharisees and wealthy people. This is how childish and moronic your understanding is, and you can only cite passages and verses and treat them in the most superficial way. Consider:
The rich man and Lazarus. Do you think it matters how wealthy the rich man was for the point of the parable? Do you really think it's about a rich guy versus a poor guy? Do you really think there are no lower-middle class people who can be just as condescending and devoid of compassion as the rich man in this story? If you can answer "yes" to this last question, then the parable has nothing to do with wealth at all. Drawing that sharp distinction between the wealth of the rich man...and his life...and that of Lazarus...and his life... was no more than a way to really illustrate the chasm between those in need and the rest of us who should be ready and willing to help. Indeed, it didn't have to be a rich man in the story at all. It could have been another destitute, sore inflicted beggar who happened to have a crust of bread he could have shared, but didn't...out the same lack of concern for others. But because of your socialist bent, you need it to be about money.
(Note also in the parable there is no mention of when the rich man will have suffered enough for his sin.)
So, again, what are these "serious consequences" for sin of which you speak but never list, and where in Scripture can we find them?
Dan, I've written and deleted multiple responses to all you have to say here. Given Feodor's input without grace or fact, your long responses that leave little room for response, and the absolute certainty that what I say won't have the slightest impact on what you think, I've decided it's best I just leave you to your own opinions. (By the way, you got banned when you opted to falsely accuse me and my family of intentional deceit and malice. That was the end. When I called you on it, your response was, "I'm sorry you took it that way" which is not an admission OR an apology.)
I think my primary mistake has been to occasionally glance at what you've written before I delete it. I will remedy that to the best of my ability. I'll stop listening to you. You can stop talking to me.
And once again, I never intentionally attacked you or your family, And I'm not sure that I ever accuse you of intentional deceit or malice. However, you have quite regularly made false accusations just as an observable reality. If you ever want to point out some specific words I said that I could look at and respond to, then I can. But short of any specific data, I can't respond to charges that I don't know what they're talking about.
I hope you can see how that is reasonable.
And I'm sorry that you're not willing to defend your positions. I'm not entirely irrational or a monster. If you can make a case that is rational and moral and just, I will promise you that I will certainly absolutely change my views. But I won't be bullied into changing them. Again, I hope you can see that this is reasonable.
It saddens me that you won't answer reasonable questions - won't even try! - because how will we as fellow citizens of this planet and nation understand one another if we don't try to communicate. And especially when you all (not specifically you, but including you...) won't listen when we say, but I DID answer your question.
When that happens then the result is you all continue to poison the well of communication with the Others because you presume and pass on the gossip and slander that we are irrational and unwilling to listen.. and this when I'm clearly offering to listen and clarify when you don't understand what I've said.
And when you all pass that slander and misinformation to your families and conservative friends, it reinforces that "those people...." (liberals, atheists, BLM or CRT supporters, etc) can't be reasoned with... which spirals into even LESS interaction and attempt to find common ground.
I stand ready to communicate if and when you're willing. I hope you reconsider. Or, if not, I hope you stop talking about what Those People (liberals, BLM, etc) are saying.
Stan... "given... your long responses that leave little room for response."
I respond to misunderstandings you have had to clarify. And I regularly ask questions (agree?) AND if you don't agree, there is a perfect space for room to respond. Room to respond is regularly built into my clarifications... so I'm not seeing how it isn't.
Marshal thinks what he was taught in Sunday School is the extent of scripture. Marshal doesn't read.
Prayers for the dead, that they may ascend to heaven; different sins; Jesus paints a purgatory, not a hell; non Christians will be saved; God is the fire that consumes sin - there is no perpetual torment - and only heaven is retained.
"So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin-offering. In doing this he acted very well and honourably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin."
"I hope the Lord will be kind to all the family of Onesiphorus, because he has often been a comfort to me and has never been ashamed of my chains. On the contrary, as soon as he reached Rome, he searched hard for me and found me. May the Lord grant him to find the Lord's mercy on that Day. You know better than anyone else how much he helped me at Ephesus."
"Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Hint: gradations of sin.
"In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’" Hmmm, all in the same place - just not able to help."
"He answered him, 'In truth I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.'" Jesus can change fortunes when he wills.
"Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder WILL BE SAVED, but only as through fire."
"At that time his voice shook the earth; but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heaven.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of what is shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe; for indeed our God is a consuming fire." God is the fire. Not hell. And God will consume, not torment. Only Heaven will remain.
Stan thrills to the power of excommunication. He's THAT KIND of religionist.
Here's an example. I said...
"A mother who says, "Don't you touch that stove or I'll slap your face off!" is NOT saying she'd literally slap the child's face off. Neither is it saying even that the mother would punish that child. It's just a hyperbolic phrase to emphasize the danger.
Does that make sense? If not, why not?"
I explained my reasoning, gave an example and asked if my reasoning made sense and if not, why not?
There is the room for response. Polite, respectful and reasonable, leaving room for response by design.
What am I missing?
You're missing the reality that Stan does not reason with his god-imaging mind, as Aquinas would prefer he do. He reasons with his anachronistic theological biases.
He believes his contours of faith are synonymous with Christ. He believes he will always prevail. When he doesn't prevail, he turns his other face and claims that he shouldn't be engaging with those who could dirty him... so as to preserve his faith... which he believes will always prevail.
He cannot face the mirror, in other words. Expecting him to be decent will always fail on his inner, sharply fractured and scattered comprehension serving only the self he believes in .
Many, many months ago, Stan posted a link that he claims proved Princeton University provided research that abortion was always harmful.
In following it, I pointed out to him that his link led to an on-campus club of 6 undergrads who were heavily cutting and pasting from 30 year old textbooks.
Much more than never being able to apologize, he couldn't acknowledge the bare truth in front of him.
And started blocking me.
So very fragile in his wooden faith.
Craig, on Stan's blog, said...
"While I think that we would all agree that our sinful actions come from our sinful nature, and that when the scripture says that "no one" is good that it should be taken at face value."
But WHY? I get that you think that, but why should anybody take that seriously? It seems irrational, non-factual and unjust on the face of it. That's what we are saying.
If you're saying that no one is PERFECT or PERFECTLY good, no problem. We all can agree to that.
On the other hand. if you're trying to say no one is good... I know good people. YOU know good people. I suspect that you two guys are relatively good people.
So what rational criteria are you having for suggesting that no one is good? I would just point out that words have meanings. Good is not the same as perfect.
And don't point to The Bible as criteria. When The Bible says no one is good, the question is is this hyperbole or literal? You can't then lift that verse to prove that NO ONE is literal. That IS the question. You're begging the question, if you're doing that.
So define Good, as you are using it.
Another set of questions that won't get answered, while they complain that no one answers their questions, even when I answer them multiple times and point out that I've answered them.
Go figure.
The word in Romans 3 that is used for Righteous or Good (as in, "There is no one righteous, not one") is dikaios, which is translated: righteous, observing God's laws.
From Bible Study Tools: righteous, observing divine laws:
in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/dikaios.html
This begs the question of To what degree?
I think we all know people who are generally/often good or righteous, just observably. I know many people who don't engage in ANY serious crimes of harm such as murder, abuse, rape, arson, etc. Beyond that, they also don't generally deliberately lie, who are kind to others, who are honest, they take care of/watch out for their family and friends and they fight for the human rights of others (even strangers) to some degree or another. For the most part, this is how these people I know personally live their lives.
Now, I am absolutely certain that they've lied at times (although I don't know of any off hand) and they were certainly rude or disrespectful at times to their parents or teachers, who drove past the speed limit by 5 or even 10 mph... but what's notable about these minor misdeeds is that they are not typical behavior for these people I know. They are, by all observable evidence, genuinely decent people. NOT perfect, but good, as we generally understand good or righteous.
I wonder if these so-called "literalists" (who of course are not literally literalists) actually deny this or do they drop back to "Well, you don't know them and what they do in their secret lives!"? Or do they drop back to "But they're not perfect!"
That is, are they so cynical that they think everyone is literally actively either secretly or overtly bad, doing even apparently good stuff for evil reasons somehow... even though they have no proof of this? And they truly believe this is reality for all of humanity?
If so, I'd ask them to prove it. I don't think they can.
On the other hand, if they're dropping back to Good=PERFECT, then that's another set of problems.
If that is the case, then are they actually saying that EVEN IF you're a good person 99% of the time and in no circumstances are you actively engaging in the worst of evils... IF YOU'RE NOT TOTALLY PERFECT, you "deserve" to be punished for an eternity? And if that is the case, do they not see how this is an offense to Justice and reason?
I just can't get past this and I can't get anyone to address this problem or even acknowledge that it's a problem for the so-called literalists.
You’re dismantling Calvinism by the light of modernism: which is only the march of time.
Because they cannot abandon their faith - which is only in Calvinism, unfortunately, in a book-imprisoned god and an evil world, rather than the living god and a god created world - they have to reject the progress modern societies make in rolling back war and famine and poverty and lesser status for women and immigrants and all who are Othered as alien to human rights.
Stan said he would just quit comment on my words, then turns around and continues commenting on my "words" (ie, things I NEVER said...) From his blog...
Sigh.
Look at my words. NO ONE SAID "sin doesn't need punishment."
No one said it. That's not what I said. If you are talking about what people you disagree with are saying, THEY ARE NOT saying that.
Come on. Reason like adults, friends. Stop with the logical fallacies.
Saying typical sins are not justly punished by an eternity of torture is ONLY SAYING THAT.
Likewise, saying it is unjust to torture for an eternity for typical temporal sins is NOT saying anything at all about a "light sentence."
Can you acknowledge that?
You can't just ignore reality and when you just ignore that you are literally slandering and bearing false witness and creating strawman fallacies to knock down. Be better than this, Stan.
And speaking of re-defining words, will you finally acknowledge that this is precisely what you're doing when you say it's somehow "just" to torture someone for an eternity for typical temporal sins? That is NOT how Justice is defined. That would be a great and evil INjustice. Don't you recognize this?
You are literally flipping the definition of justice on its head, calling evil good and good, evil.
And speaking of redefining words...
Hyperbole: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
Saying, "You should cut off your hand instead of sin with it" IS hyperbole.
Do you agree or disagree?
(I'll assume you have both hands and eyes and you agree that Jesus literally used hyperbolic/figurative language in that verse.)
Given that, then why is it impossible that Jesus was also using hyperbole when he said "burn in hell..."?
Why couldn't "instead of burning in a fiery hell" be emphasizing how serious/dangerous sin is? How is that NOT hyperbole?
More questions for you to ignore instead of dealing with them like a rational adult.
Be better than this, Stan.
For what it's worth, I've always been quite clear that I don't now what happens after we die. No one does. We have no data on which to form an authoritative opinion. I don't know and haven't said what happens after we die and what an afterlife does and doesn't look like.
We don't know. None of us. As a point of observable reality. Full stop.
What I HAVE said is that Justice, as it is defined and understood, can NOT have a punishment disproportionate to the crime. If a crime is punished disproportionately, then it is no longer justice. That's part of the definition and understanding of Justice.
Given that, the suggestion that, "A person who commits 10,000 typical sins/mistakes/errors such as lies about how busy they are or stealing a pen or misrepresenting what someone has said, etc... that such a person SHOULD be punished by an eternity of torture..." THAT is not justice as it is typically understood. ANY government that put someone in prison for the rest of their lives (just the one lifetime) for these typical sins would be grossly unjust.
I don't know how God might deal with the typical sins of most of humanity, but I DO believe there are negative repercussions for those sins. Certainly here on earth and maybe after life. But I don't know what that looks like. Once again, NO ONE does, not authoritatively and objectively. But logically speaking, if one believes in a just God, then one can assume that such a God would not act in an unjust manner.
Not much time now, but an obvious question is:
What did Christ mean by "No is good but God", and what Scripture can you cite to support your answer?
It wasn’t a direct statement: i.e. not declamatory. Not that you’ll know what that means. Jesus was playing with the man. But because we have reasoning minds we can make claims, as believers in god, that god’s being, while only approximately experienced by us, is experienced as nothing but good. And because we conceive god as absolute good, God’s creation will reflect god’s goodness… which includes us.
We can do good because we are creatures created by a god we understand to be absolute good.
That we can be good and do good is witnessed in our experience of reality and the world. And testified by scripture, too, in many, many places.. because scripture is a reflection of writers’ experience of the created world. Just two:
“Good people pass away; the godly often die before their time. But no one seems to care or wonder why.
No one seems to understand that God is protecting them from the evil to come. For those who follow godly paths will rest in peace when they die.”
“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.”
Oops. One more, just for you, Marshal. “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great.”
You know what DEMS won’t say about the VA election? Say it was rigged. We don’t lie like that.
I will allow this question from Marshal to stand, at least for now, because it's a reasonable question. Also, in hopes that you will directly answer the questions put to you in a manner that is not delusional.
I was going to respond to your question, but Feodor has given a pretty good answer. Nonetheless, here's a bit more.
Yes, as Feodor rightly notes, Jesus was playing with this rich man who approached him thusly.
And when Jesus answered the rich man, he said,
"Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
Marshal, you appear to want to take this line from Jesus (No one is good but God) and suggest that Good means what we typically think of as good and Jesus said that no one IS good (but God).
I'd ask you then why you take the word "rich" and "poor" most times and take them in a NON-literal, figurative sense, even when it's clearly not textually suggesting figurative language. Do you take "rich" here in Jesus' claim to be metaphorically rich, or literally rich?
Further, as Feodor rightly notes, we SEE people in our every day lives who are observably good people, as Good is typically understood. And, as Feodor noted, we humans are EXPECTED to be good by God who created us in God's good image.
Are you saying you truly do not know ANY good people?
That may actually explain a lot (one way or the other). If somehow, you've managed to surround yourself by ONLY objectively bad people and if YOU, yourself, are objectively bad, then it's not surprising that you might assume everyone is bad like you.
I'd feel sad for you if this were the case (and it almost certainly isn't), but do you THINK it's the case that everyone you know - even the very best person you know - is an objectively bad person? If so, based on what?
And don't say "Mark 10..." because that's begging the question. A logical fallacy. Do you need me to explain why?
You have to have something else in mind to make the case that you and everyone around you are objectively not good people.
Marshal... "What did Christ mean by "No is good but God", and what Scripture can you cite to support your answer?"
Also, it's permissible, you know, to have reasons other than Scripture to make a case. If a flat-earther finds biblical verses that they think "demonstrate objectively" that the earth is flat, as God intended it... if the Creationist points to Bible verses that say the universe is only 6,000 years old... it's okay and rational to respond, "Nope. You're factually mistaken. We can physically SEE that the earth is not flat. We can objectively measure and explain scientifically how the universe can't possibly be only 6,000 years old AND we don't need a Bible verse to point out reality. Reality speaks for itself."
Do you recognize the rational (and indeed, biblical, for what it's worth) point being made there?
Marshal asked in a question I left earlier...
"What "serious" consequences? There are mentions of hell and eternal fires, but no mention of some limited sentence after which...what happens?"
We don't know the serious consequences of sin as a general reality.
If someone blocks immigrants coming in across a border seeking safety, we may know that SOME of the serious consequences are to the unwelcomed immigrants. They may be killed. They may be tortured. They may be raped. They may starve to death. There are all sorts of potential hellish consequences to that specific case.
And the "eternal consequences" to those on the Left (sheep and the goats), who did not welcome the stranger in? We don't know. We can't speak authoritatively about eternal realities because we have no data on which to form an authoritative opinion. Just as a point of reality. We KNOW that Jesus promised an eternal torment for them, but was Jesus speaking literally or figuratively? We don't know objectively. I DO know I wouldn't want to be one of those refusing to welcome the stranger or aid the poor.
Agreed?
Beyond that, we also know that there is some amount of internal torment and self-torture that comes to oppressors. Paul speaks of pouring hot coals over the head of the unjust oppressor. I believe that the soul is a real thing and that one can't continue to turn one's back on those in need without suffering some internal degradation of one's soul. To what degree does that happen? We can't say authoritatively about the generic person/oppressor. But we can note it as a likely reality. Except for maybe those who are truly sociopathic, with a complete inability to empathize with others. But then, that would be a sickness, wouldn't it (if one believes in mental health as a reality)?
Craig, on Stan's blog...
"I also couldn't get him [me, Dan] to agree that Hitler was deserving of eternal torment."
I'm quite sure I have answered. And there is only one objectively factual answer.
We do not know.
I do not know.
You do not know.
NONE of us authoritatively know if killing 6 million people is deserving of eternal torture. It is seriously evil, of course, Seriously evil. I would hope that there's some sort of appropriate Justice and I am certain that there is. But eternal torment? I just literally don't know.
That is the one factual answer that any of us can give. Any other guesses are just human speculation.
But carry that out. Let's assume that we found out somehow that Hitler WAS deserving of eternal torment for killing 6 million people. Are you saying that the grandmother out there who never killed anyone, who never physically harmed anyone, who lived a lifetime of regular typical sins... That SHE is deserving of the same punishment as Hitler??
Good God. You can't be serious, can you?
Think about it. You all keep saying that to not have hell is a rejection of Justice. But is not that Granny being punished the same as Hitler a tremendous violation of Justice, too? Come on!
If you truly think it is, say so out loud. Then we can take it from there. This is another reasonable question.
"Do you recognize the rational (and indeed, biblical, for what it's worth) point being made there?"
I recognize you're dodging again.
"We don't know the serious consequences of sin as a general reality."
And yet again you're dodging the question. Scripture, indeed Jesus Christ, references consequences for sin. You pretend we don't or can't know what they are so that you don't have to contend with exactly what Scripture, indeed Jesus Christ Himself, teaches on the subject.
And it's not a question of the earthly reaction to an equal and opposite action. We're talking about the penalty of sin in the spiritual, life everlasting sense, so stop with the crap. If you want to dismiss Scripture or what you wish to pretend are no better than "human tradition", borrow a pair of testicles and provide an alternative to what Scripture is saying. Pretend, at least, that you actually have a better "interpretation" of what is plainly stated in Scripture and spell out what it is and how Scripture supports your contention.
"Also, it's permissible, you know, to have reasons other than Scripture to make a case."
No. It's not. Not when the discussion is purely around what is presented in Scripture. Your quote above is more evidence that Scripture has no true value to you...that you think it is irrelevant to one's faith in some dude named Jesus or God. You're a fraud and a coward who hasn't the strength of your laughable convictions.
“And yet again you're dodging the question. Scripture…”
I gave Marshal scripture. He couldn’t deal with it.
He dodged. As he always does when scripture he doesn’t like comes back at him.
1. Feodor is correct. He GAVE you scriptural defense for our position.
That we can be good and do good is witnessed in our experience of reality and the world. And testified by scripture, too, in many, many places.. because scripture is a reflection of writers’ experience of the created world. Just two:
“GOOD people pass away; the godly often die before their time. But no one seems to care or wonder why..."
“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do GOOD to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."
If Jesus is telling us IN SCRIPTURE that we can DO GOOD and are expected by Jesus to DO GOOD, then Scripture tells us that there are people who do good. Literally in scripture. What did Jesus mean in THIS passage you cite, then?
Again, Feodor gave a rational answer: GIVEN that Jesus fully expects us to do good, then clearly he was not suggesting there are no good people.
And GIVEN that Jesus often pushes back against the rich and powerful and their questions, that IS at least an explanation - one that Feodor and I think is reasonable and biblical - JESUS WAS PLAYING WITH MAN. Having him on. Pushing back against the suggestion.
A further explanation is that SINCE JESUS LITERALLY BELIEVED and told us to Do Good, and thus, can't have meant this literally, perhaps here Jesus is speaking here to God's perfect nature over and against our imperfect nature.
But in this context, I think the more reasoned and biblical response is that Jesus was messing with the man and his question, making points for the rich, powerful and the Pharisees who always lurked around.
Is it the case that you all are reading and just incapable of understanding when a question has been answered? Was it not direct enough for you?
Do you understand that Jesus told us to Do Good? How do you explain THAT if there is "no one good" literally? That Jesus was toying with his followers... giving them a command that no one can heed? Setting us up for failure in some sick power play?
We answered your question. Answer mine or move on.
Marshal... "Also, it's permissible, you know, to have reasons other than Scripture to make a case."
No. It's not. Not when the discussion is purely around what is presented in Scripture."
This is what YOU think, but just because YOU THINK it in your head does not make it so. OF COURSE, we can answer questions about the Bible without citing biblical verses. Only in a bible idolator's head can questions ONLY be answered with a scriptural reference. We also have our God-given reasoning.
So, just because YOU want to limit responses to biblical questions to ONLY responding with a verse, devoid of any facts or human reasoning, does not make it reasonable.
In other words, if you want to play a game of rational discussion but only by your rules instead of the rules of reasonable discussion, you lose right up front.
Do you understand that we are under no obligation to jump through imaginary hoops of your own design?
Thus, in the case of the question of Good Humans, if the question is, "Are there any good human beings?" One need not ONLY find Bible verses to support one's position. There is also reality. IF I can point to Good humans in the real world, THEN the answer to Are there Good humans? is an objective Yes.
Do you understand?
At the very least, the anti-human crowd would have to explain how they're redefining Good to make any sense, since we can and do see Good people all the time.
What about this reality are you failing to understand?
Marshal... "yet again you're dodging the question. Scripture, indeed Jesus Christ, references consequences for sin. You pretend we don't or can't know what they are..."
We literally don't. How many dead people have you interviewed about the after life to have any data on this question?
Look, if you have some proof about what happens in the afterlife and what literal consequences of sin in general are or are, go ahead and share them. Present your data. But you can't and so you won't.
Earlier, Marshal asked...
"when He warned against causing little ones to sin,
there was no reference to Pharisees anywhere,
nor would it be required since
the teaching was about corrupting children."
The passage in question:
“If anyone causes one of these little ones -
those who believe in me -
to stumble, it would be better for them to have
a large millstone hung around their neck and
to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble!
Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!"
It was not about children - or at least not only about children. It was about causing Jesus' followers to stumble ("THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN ME"). And Jesus' followers were (amongst others) the poor, the marginalized, women, lepers, the oppressed. By and large, looking at the context of the whole Gospel story, his followers were the people that Jesus specifically said he'd come to preach to, the poor, the imprisoned, etc. The Pharisees and those in power feared him because he (Jesus) was popular amongst "the people," the general crowd of regular folks.
Do you understand and agree?
And I've been consistent to say that Jesus' conflicts were largely with the Pharisees AND the rich and powerful, like this rich man who called Jesus "good."
If we ignore the greater context of the flow of the literal gospel story as literally found in the four Gospels - the context of the conflict between Jesus (who made it clear that he was there on behalf of and for the "least of these..." those with whom Jesus literally identified - "when you fail to do it unto the least of these, you fail to do it to ME")... between this Jesus and the Pharisees, then one is going to miss the point of the Gospel story.
I think this is part of where the difference is between traditional conservatives, as I used to be, and the rest of us. You're not catching the literal context in the pages of the Gospels of this story between Jesus of the Poor and the Pharisees and rich and powerful.
I find that it helps to think of the Gospels as a story with a very clear plot and storyline, not as a set of rules or theological tenets. Reading it as a story, we see that there is a protagonist - this Wise Man who comes preaching specifically to the poor and marginalized and this Man (and his extended followers) have these series of conflicts with the Antagonists - the Pharisees and rich and powerful - that grow in intensity and anger and this story continually leads to an ultimate conflict... Jesus' arrest, trial and capitol punishment led by the antagonists who did what they needed to do to make this murder happen. And then, thanks be to God, the power of this Wise Man, this Man-God... the power of love and grace and justice... overcomes the power of darkness embodied by the Pharisees and the rich and powerful.
If you don't catch that greater plot in the Gospels, I think you run the risk of missing the point of the Gospels.
"There is also reality. IF I can point to Good humans in the real world, THEN the answer to Are there Good humans? is an objective Yes."
Possibly the ultimate "human tradition" is claim to anoint others as "good" as if your opinions for what constitutes "good" is what Christ/God means by the word, particularly in Christ's words, "No one but God". For example, I certainly don't regard YOU as good, given your many heresies and the corruption of others they cause. No amount of "good works" can overcome that to alter my opinion about you, no amount of insistence you are Christian.
But there is a concept which might make it clear to you. To regard the love of one's life as the most beautiful next to whom all are distant seconds. In the same way, nothing any mortal man can do can make him good because God is what "good" "looks like". Thus, we can certainly take literally what Christ put forth as literally true.
"Look, if you have some proof about what happens in the afterlife and what literal consequences of sin in general are or are, go ahead and share them. Present your data. But you can't and so you won't."
If the issue was to prove one has no life after death, that might be an intelligent thing to demand. But it's not. It's about what Scripture/Christ/God has said as revealed to us clearly in Scripture. And it is within those pages where we find the eternal consequences and there is no alternative within those pages to relieve you of taking those consequences literally. So your demand for proof from dead guys about what Christ has said about the issue is yet another dodge on your part. Why do you even pretend to be Christian?
More later...
Marshal... "Possibly the ultimate "human tradition" is claim to anoint others as "good" as if your opinions for what constitutes "good" is what Christ/God means by the word, particularly in Christ's words, "No one but God"."
So, are you saying that YOUR PARTICULAR HUMAN TRADITION that helps YOU form YOUR OPINION that Jesus meant literally" no human is good" as YOU interpret it calls into question YOUR opinion from YOUR human tradition?
Answer that before saying anything else.
Marshal... " In the same way, nothing any mortal man can do can make him good because God is what "good" "looks like"."
Yes, BUT THEN, God is also PERFECT. So, God is what PERFECTLY GOOD looks like.
Agreed?
But does that mean that all others who aren't perfectly good can't possibly still be good?
And if so, based on what? Your say so?
Answer these questions directly.
Do you see how it is irrational to compare a perfect being with an imperfect being and say, "If you're not perfect, you're not good..."?
If that's the case, why did Jesus tell us to do good, if it's something beyond us?
It's like if you were playing a toddler in a game of basketball and you kept scoring and scoring and screamed insanely at your toddler, "YOU'RE NO GOOD!"
It's not rational.
Marshal... "It's about what Scripture/Christ/God has said as revealed to us clearly in Scripture."
You keep saying things like this. Do you not understand the logical fallacy you're doing... the question begging?
"Scripture says X and I think it should be interpreted to mean X because it says X and I take it to mean X literally."
You're begging the question. No one is saying that there's not a line that says "No one is good." and no one is questioning "Do good." and no one is questioning that there is a line that says that humans are "created a little lower than God" (or a little lower than angels). Those texts are all literally there.
The point is, HOW DO WE INTERPRET such passages? If we're created in the image of God, just a little lower than God, with the ability and expectation to Do Good, then are we able to be Good humans? Reason would suggest Yes. BEYOND THAT, we can SEE humans that are good. So, reality suggests yes. Then what did Jesus mean by "no one is Good..."? Well, we've offered a couple of suggestions.
But for you to say, "I interpret the passage to mean LITERALLY no human is good and so, we KNOW that's right because it's the way I interpret it..." is rationally, logically and biblically meaningless.
I mean, WHO CARES if some man who is incapable of being good thinks that the verse means no one is good? It's sort of a self-defeating argument! That sounds precisely like what some man who is incapable of being good would say, but so what?
So, setting aside the opinions of a self-confessed "bad man" as how we should interpret passages from the Bible, the point remains: We have ZERO hard data about any potential post-life punishments or rewards. We don't factually, objectively know. Marshal has demonstrated this by his inability to provide any data which, of course, he can't.
You'd hope that he'd admit he has nothing, but as a self-confessed "bad man," I guess lying about it is to be expected.
Marshal deceived himself thinking he follows scripture. He confesses he doesn’t follow scripture. “For example, I certainly don't regard YOU as good, given your many heresies and the corruption of others they cause.”
Scripture: “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.”
Marshal, "what did Christ mean by "Love your neighbor", and what Scripture can you cite to support your answer?
The issue is what Christ said and how you can support your claim that He didn't mean what He said. Set aside your dodge of "human traditions" and focus on the verse and provide something substantive for why we shouldn't take it at face value, meaning what the words He used compel us to understand.
"We have ZERO hard data about any potential post-life punishments or rewards."
We don't need them as the issue revolves around what Christ says about it, not whether or not a human can prove what happens after death. That's a matter of faith, anyway, and aside from Scripture speaking of heaven and hell and life everlasting, we have no scientific means of proving it one way or the other. So cut the crap and focus on the actual issue of what Scripture says and how you propose to prove it doesn't mean what it says. Being a believer, I have no problem with the concept of everlasting reward and punishment, and that's due to what Scripture says. Stop dodging.
Answer the questions put to you, Marshal.
Taken literally, Jesus is telling the man not to call him good. Only god us good.
We, being readers of narrative, understand that what Jesus says cannot be left alone. We enter into the narrative which “knows” that we “know” as readers of it that Jesus is from god.
But none of that is in the single, isolated verse that Marshal wants to imprison the normal reader - and the narrative’s own consciousness - in.
Marshal is reading into it as anyone must.
He just has to hide that fact from himself. And act like scripture does not give us clues and other occasions that inform our whole reading.
Because Marshal reads like a 4 year old but has an unconscious that is far older, he has to deny what he does and denies what scripture itself does: say more than one thing about anything.
Only god is absolute good.
People can be good because - just like all creation - we are formed by an absolute good.
“you may become participants of the divine nature”
Marshal, I'm going out of my way to try to let you comment here. But you have to engage in reasonable and adult conversation. And part of that is you HAVE to answer questions when they're asked.
Further, you don't dictate how I have to respond. I HAVE answered your question... I don't know how to help you understand it, but I have answered it. Look at it and try to understand and ask questions if you're still not seeing how it is an answer..
Marshal... "You think you can prove people are good because you know those YOU consider good based on YOUR criteria"
No. Words have meanings. Good means something. So I take the word good as is normally understood and look and see, lo and behold, there are good people out there as we normally understand good.
Now, if you want to make a case for defining good in some alternative manner and how it's normally understood, you can do that and we can talk about your altered definition of good. But this is just how communication works. It's how language works.
If I say my car is blue And you say I'm a liar because you say it's not blue because, to you blue is red, my car still remains blue. You're just deciding to define blue in some alternative way.. And we can talk about your alternative definition, but only if you define it.
I don't know what's hard to understand about this.
Here's another question for you to answer. Do you not know any good people? Is your wife not a good person? Your mother?
"No. Words have meanings. Good means something. So I take the word good as is normally understood and look and see, lo and behold, there are good people out there as we normally understand good."
So you're saying Jesus is a liar. If not, then what did He mean? Clearly, there are two legit ways to take His words...to know what HIS words mean as He intended them to be understood.
1. He's proclaiming His divinity. The rich young man didn't know that. Only God is good, but Christ is divine so He's good, too. Yet, the young man didn't know to Whom he was speaking. Consider it a hint.
2. Christ is speaking of the difference between the holiness of God versus the sin nature of man. One can't be "good" and have a sin nature. Having a sin nature prevents a relationship with God. All are in need of Christ. No one is good.
But you prefer to pretend that because WE classify others (or ourselves) as "good", it's the same as what Jesus was saying. It isn't, and His words are true. There is no one good but God and everyone of us is a sinner. Thus, it's not a matter of me defining the word differently, but rather, using is most accurately. In the day to day we use the word to distinguish between the worst of us and the best (or at least the better), but the best among us is not truly good because only God is. I would not argue the point with those in my circle I consider to be good people. But the reality is none of us are because of our sin nature.
You mistake is taking the word as it is "normally understood" rather than understand what Jesus was saying. Furthermore, by taking this position, you place yourself among those to whom Jesus did not come to bring the Good News...the poor in spirit. You see yourself as good. I see myself as in great need of Christ. There's not one person you regard as "good" who isn't. Some more than others...you especially...but you prefer to worship a god of your own making, while appropriating the term "Christian".
One more thing: the difference is a matter of relative terms. That is, we refer to other people as good relative to those who are clearly not. But relative to God, none of us comes close to being "good". It's really simple stuff, but you take offense on behalf of all those sinners you know. I get it. If we befriend people, we are keen to regard them as good because which of us seeks out assholes as friends? Now, I have friends who can be real assholes, but we became friends before that aspect of their personality became obvious. By that point, the friendship was established and they haven't been asshole enough to 86. More often than not, over the years, when a friend of mine was called an asshole by another friend (or just by other people), I could understand why they felt that way. But I saw it as a minor flaw in an otherwise good person RELATIVE TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEARLY FULL TIME ASSHOLES.
Nowhere in "no one is good but god," is Jesus claiming anything for himself. There is zero semantic reference to himself. You want us to stay strictly within the semantics of the the quote but you are now throwing all kinds of stuff in it that belongs elsewhere in Scripture NOT in it.
This is what Dan has been hammering away at you for months: you whine about how we go outside the text. You just did. You are dodging the text.
"He is proclaiming his divinity." Not there. Only "no one is good god."
"Christ is speaking of the difference between the holiness of God versus the sin nature of man." Not there. He is not speaking delineating any difference. What you picked is a simple fact claimed without difference being literally spoken of: simply, merely, "no one is good". There "difference to be drawn out is in your head.
By the way, the Greek word for good, ἀγαθόν.
The same exact word used in Luke 6: "The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks."
____
And speaking of Greek, there is a construction that we don't know how precisely to translate into English. The Greek says, οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός.
οὐδεὶς is "no one"
ἀγαθὸς is "good"
ὁ θεός is "god"
but εἰ μὴ εἷς cannot go directly into English. Most strictly it is "if not one alone -" or more relaxed approach could have it "but One"
Which renders,
"no one is good if not one alone: god"
or
"no one is good but one: god"
The Greek cannot be made to say one or the other without interpretation.
But one of two viable interpretations would be "No one is good if not one alone: god. Which infers that since god is good - the Creator is good - thus, all other good things have their goodness derivatively.
Which is what I've been saying.
Marshal will have to ignore the gospel of Luke.
And he will have to demand that his Jesus in Mark ignores his Jesus in Luke.
"The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks."
Marshal... "Clearly, there are two legit ways to take His words...to know what HIS words mean as He intended them to be understood..."
This is what you are claiming, Marshall. Are you saying that you hold all the knowledge on this point anyone who has a different way of looking at than you have is objectively wrong? Megalomania much?
Now I've been quite patient. I need you to start answering questions directly.
1. Do you know any good people? It's a simple question. Just answer it.
I'm NOT asking you if you know any perfect people or people who are good as compared to a perfect God. I'm asking you do you know any good people as good as defined in the English language? Answer the damn question.
2. Define Good as you are using it. Give a definition.
3. Does that mean that all others who aren't perfectly good can't possibly still be good?
4. And if so, based on what? Your say so?
5. Jesus regularly refers to good people or humans doing good. Do you think Jesus was speaking metaphorically in all those places?
You said... "Possibly the ultimate "human tradition" is claim to anoint others as "good" as if your opinions for what constitutes "good" is what Christ/God means by the word..."
Which seems to suggest that any humans defining Good are only using their own made-up definitions. Is that true for you, as well... or are you an exception?
Answer.
Marshal... "we refer to other people as good relative to those who are clearly not. But relative to God, none of us comes close to being "good"."
I don't know how much more clearly I can put this... compared to perfection and compared to a perfectly good God, we are not that... we are not perfect or perfectly good. I am not talking about perfectly good. I'm talking about good.
Setting aside for a second that none of us are perfectly good like a God, you appear to be saying yes, there are good people relatively speaking.
Is that the case?
Do you know good people?
Answer the questions and do so directly.
Don't tell me that you don't know of any perfectly good people. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking do you know any good people?
Marshal... "you prefer to pretend that because WE classify others (or ourselves) as "good", it's the same as what Jesus was saying."
Literally not what I'm doing. It has nothing to do with me randomly classifying some people as good. It has to do with the word's definition. Some people are Good, by definition.
Do you disagree? If so, based on what?
Define Good as YOU are using it.
Here's one definition from wiki...
"In most contexts, the concept of good denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions..."
For the longest time, I just sort of accepted as a given the conservative Christian notion that people are evil or inherently bad. That people are "not good..." none of us.
But as I aged... just in observing people around me, I see very few actively bad people. Most people I see are just getting by, living their lives the best they can... rarely if ever actively choosing to be or do "bad."
At the worst, most people I see are just taking some middle ground... doing their job, taking at least minimal care of their friends and family and, when asked to help, they generally will try to do so.
That, to me, does not even look anything like not being good. Given a choice of working for a living or stealing, they work.
Given a choice of paying their bills and taxes or not, they pay.
Given a choice of being a good friend or not, they choose to be good friends.
Given a choice of being loving to and caring for their families or not, they choose to take care of their families.
At their worst... they may turn a friend down (sorry... can't help you move...) but because they're tired or have other obligations... but not out of unkind reasons.
Is this not true for people you know?
So Jesus is a liar then. Got it.
Yes. You can tell that's PRECISELY what I said and think by the way I never said that, nor do I think that.
DO you not understand that disagreeing with Marshal's wildly unsupported opinions is not the same as disagreeing with Jesus?
Now, answer the questions.
Just to further elucidate and clarify:
Marshal asked me what I think Jesus meant when he said "There is no one Good, but God." I explained and I'll explain it again.
1. He meant there is NO ONE PERFECTLY GOOD, like God.
2. He clearly DIDN'T mean that humans aren't or can't be good, because he regularly encouraged people to be good or referenced "that good man..."
3. There is a difference between being perfect and being good. Rationally speaking, as the English language uses the word Good, people can be good even when they're not perfect.
4. Of course.
5. Jesus was also likely messing with the rich man asking him this question, and the Pharisees who were always watching. Getting them to think about the notion of Goodness and God and following God.
In NONE of these am I saying Jesus is lying.
Jesus said blessed are YOU who are POOR, and you don't take that literally. Not taking a passage literally is not the same as saying that Jesus is lying.
Of course.
Do you understand all of this reality?
...that I've answered your question multiple times in multiple ways?
...that disagreeing with your opinion is not the same as disagreeing with or contradicting Jesus?
As we knew, Marshal has to ignore some scripture while pouring into his favorites his own views.
So he is the one who has Jesus of Mark, “no one is good if not the one: god”
lying to the Jesus of Luke: “The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks."
And this is why Marshal cannot engage with me.
I know scripture. I was trained in it. He knows carburetors.
"1. He meant there is NO ONE PERFECTLY GOOD, like God."
Where has He ever made that distinction? Maybe I've missed it.
"2. He clearly DIDN'T mean that humans aren't or can't be good, because he regularly encouraged people to be good or referenced "that good man...""
Again, maybe I've missed it, but I can't at the moment recall a case of Jesus referring to anyone (aside from perhaps in a parable) as "that good man". Encouraging folks to be good or holy doesn't mean they are. We're all to elevate ourselves toward those goals. Not the same as achieving it. If we could, how then would we need Christ?
"3. There is a difference between being perfect and being good. Rationally speaking, as the English language uses the word Good, people can be good even when they're not perfect."
Here again, you're doing no more than speaking of how we refer to each other relative to others. Christ isn't doing that. He's being perfectly accurate in pointing to true "good". That doesn't mean we can't use the term to communicate with each other, but only that in our doing so, it is only used to compare one fallen human being to another.
"4. Of course."
...not.
"5. Jesus was also likely messing with the rich man asking him this question, and the Pharisees who were always watching. Getting them to think about the notion of Goodness and God and following God."
Yeah... because there are so many examples of Christ being a big kidder. It is as I said, He's defining "good", as well as pointing to His own divinity.
"Jesus said blessed are YOU who are POOR, and you don't take that literally. Not taking a passage literally is not the same as saying that Jesus is lying."
Again you demonstrate your inability to understand what "taking a passage 'literally'" truly means. It doesn't mean believing the hyperbole or metaphor, it means believing the message in which hyperbole and metaphor is used to express it. There's neither here. He's being quite straightforward in stating a fact. No one is good but God.
And before you whine on about knowing "good" people, you can't do so without acknowledging that it isn't at all uncommon to describe some or some things as "perfect".
And of course, you're not taking "blessed are the poor" literally if you're continuing to insist He's speaking of those with empty wallets. If it is so, then you either indict Christ or the Gospel writers, since Luke and Matthew are saying Christ is saying heaven is for two different types of people. Which is it? The materially poor or the spiritually poor? The answer is not insignificant.
But I digress.
"Do you understand all of this reality?
...that I've answered your question multiple times in multiple ways?"
All of them dodging, not affirming, reality.
"...that disagreeing with your opinion is not the same as disagreeing with or contradicting Jesus?"
It is when my "opinion" is actually just stating what Christ said. You're rejecting His truth claim because people use the word "good" to describe other people, as if that negates the truth claim. It doesn't. Not in the least. What it means is you have to re-think your understanding of what "good" truly means. But don't rely on the One you pretend to worship. You just keep subordinating Him to the world. It's what you do.
Especially in Mark, there is a narrative effort made to pique interest in Jesus by portraying him as playing rhetorical games and secrets from the masses.
In Mark, “And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables.”
And here is Jesus in Matthew doing what Marshal thinks he never does, being a “kidder”:
“Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.”But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
And Marshal has had to ignore the Jesus of Luke - as I foretold: “The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks."
This is why Marshal cannot engage with me: I know scripture. I was trained in it. He knows carburetors.
Marshal... "Where has He ever made that distinction? Maybe I've missed it."
Are you even reading what we're writing? JESUS refers to people as GOOD. He commands people to DO GOOD. CLEARLY, Jesus believed in Good people.
BEYOND THAT, we can look around us and see Good people.
Marshal... "Here again, you're doing no more than speaking of how we refer to each other relative to others. Christ isn't doing that."
SAYS WHO?
I GET that YOU PERSONALLY, in your mind, when YOU read this, YOU INTERPRET this to be Jesus is literally saying that ONLY GOD is Good in ANY WAY and that any people are NOT GOOD. But that is YOUR INTERPRETATION. YOU are choosing to interpret it woodenly literally, even while you don't do the same for "poor" and other words. You don't gouge our your eyes as Jesus literally commanded. You don't take ALL words literally, but you are CHOOSING to interpret this one literally and literally is the ONLY way YOU personally are guessing is appropriate to interpret it.
But just because YOU PERSONALLY think it doesn't mean that no one else's opinions are invalidated by your random, whimsical hunches.
Now, I'm done giving you grace. IF you want to engage in rational adult conversation, THEN you must answer the questions put to you.
Now I've been quite patient. I need you to start answering questions directly.
1. Do you know any good people? It's a simple question. Just answer it.
I'm NOT asking you if you know any perfect people or people who are good as compared to a perfect God. I'm asking you do you know any good people as good as defined in the English language? Answer the damn question.
2. Define Good as you are using it. Give a definition.
3. Does that mean that all others who aren't perfectly good can't possibly still be good?
4. And if so, based on what? Your say so?
5. Jesus regularly refers to good people or humans doing good. Do you think Jesus was speaking metaphorically in all those places?
You said... "Possibly the ultimate "human tradition" is claim to anoint others as "good" as if your opinions for what constitutes "good" is what Christ/God means by the word..."
Which seems to suggest that any humans defining Good are only using their own made-up definitions. Is that true for you, as well... or are you an exception?
Jesus and other biblical writers referring to Good people or telling people to be good...
"A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him."
"Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
Matthew 12
“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant!"
Matthew 25
"“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you"
Luke 6
"Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man..."
Luke 23
"He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord."
Acts 11
"Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die."
Romans 5
"A good person leaves an inheritance for their children’s children"
Proverbs 13
"Do what is right and good in the Lord’s sight"
Deuteronomy 6
"This is what Hezekiah did throughout Judah, doing what was good and right and faithful before the Lord his God."
2 Chronicles 31
"Trust in the Lord and do good"
Psalm 37
"God rescued Lot, a righteous man..."
2 Peter 7
"Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
Job 1
(So, you're saying that God's a liar, Marshal. Got it.) (Or are you saying a man can be "BLAMELESS AND UPRIGHT" but still not Good??!) (The utter arrogance!)
... and of course, I could go on and on.
Now, about people doing good things, Marshal says, "Encouraging folks to be good or holy doesn't mean they are."
That is what MARSHAL thinks. But Jesus rebukes Marshal's foolishness, saying...
"A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him"
So, who should we believe? Jesus or Marshal?
Marshal or our own eyes?
"Are you even reading what we're writing?"
Yes. Question 1 answered.
"JESUS refers to people as GOOD."
Not in any of the verses you listed. That's what I was asking you to provide.
"He commands people to DO GOOD."
Not the same as being good. It's a goal to which we're to aspire and strive.
"CLEARLY, Jesus believed in Good people."
Even MORE CLEARLY, Jesus said there is no one good but God. Why, one can actually find a verse where He says just that!
"BEYOND THAT, we can look around us and see Good people."
BEYOND THAT, we can look around us and see people WE pronounce as "good" people. We've already covered that. Still looking for Jesus referring to some specific person as "good". You don't seem to have such a verse to present.
"SAYS WHO?"
Says me, based on the fact that it's exactly what you're doing.
"I GET that YOU PERSONALLY, in your mind, when YOU read this, YOU INTERPRET this to be Jesus is literally saying that ONLY GOD is Good in ANY WAY and that any people are NOT GOOD."
I'm not "interpreting". I'm repeating what Scripture records Jesus as having said, which is that there is no one "good" but God. But your addition to my words "in ANY WAY" seems very much like your lie about Lev 12:22.
"YOU are choosing to interpret it woodenly literally, even while you don't do the same for "poor" and other words."
I have the same sound and accurate understanding of this verse as I do every verse in which the word "poor" appears. Can't say the same for you.
"You don't gouge our your eyes as Jesus literally commanded."
Now you're just lying again, because Jesus didn't tell anyone to gouge out their eyes. EVER! He merely said it would be better one did rather than sin through them and suffer eternal punishment or hell (whichever was the case in the passage where He mentioned eye-gouging). Didn't you say you seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture?
"You don't take ALL words literally, but you are CHOOSING to interpret this one literally and literally is the ONLY way YOU personally are guessing is appropriate to interpret it."
I never said I take ALL words literally. That's what you want to believe I do. I said I take Scripture literally, or the teachings therein. And again, I'm not "interpreting" this verse. I'm repeating it. There's no guess work involved or necessary because it's so crystal clear. Perhaps it's your guilt over not being a good person that is the problem with your objection. That I can understand. None of us are. It's just that some of us try to be, and you're a heretic.
"But just because YOU PERSONALLY think it doesn't mean that no one else's opinions are invalidated by your random, whimsical hunches."
"Whimsical hunches." That funny as well as pathetically desperate. My opinions are spot on until someone can persuade me otherwise. That takes evidence. Got any?
"Now, I'm done giving you grace."
OK, that's even funnier! You delete my comments. Where's the grace in that? "I'm done giving you grace." That's a stitch.
"Do you know any good people?"
I know many people I refer to as "good". Question 2 answered.
"I'm asking you do you know any good people as good as defined in the English language? Answer the damn question."
I just did. Question 2 asked again and answered again.
"Define Good as you are using it. Give a definition."
That's a demand, not a question. The issue isn't how I define the word. The issue is that there is no one good but God, according to Jesus...someone you pretend to follow.
"Does that mean that all others who aren't perfectly good can't possibly still be good?"
Compared to some, yes. But it's only a reference...a means to describe someone's character. I wouldn't use it to describe you, specifically, but I know plenty of people about whom I would use the word because they're better than most people. But I believe what Christ says because...well...He's the Son of God. I want Him to like me.
Question 3 answered.
"And if so, based on what?"
Actually, I'm sure I made this clear several times now, but what the hell...based on comparisons to other people and my understanding of what constitutes a good person generally speaking, though there is really no one good but God.
Question 4 answered.
"Your say so?"
Given you're asking me my opinion of people I know, yes.
Question 5 answered.
"Jesus regularly refers to good people..."
Not that you've demonstrated.
"or humans doing good."
Doing good and being good are not the same. Bad people can do good. Indeed, given there is no one good but God, that clearly isn't the least bit uncommon. He wants us to do good.
"Do you think Jesus was speaking metaphorically in all those places?"
No. Question 6 answered.
"Which seems to suggest that any humans defining Good are only using their own made-up definitions. Is that true for you, as well... or are you an exception?"
Doesn't suggest that in the least. Everyone has there own ideas of who qualifies for the word. Consider how many mothers of dead thugs cry about the thug being "a good boy". And no, I'm not using a made up definition, but applying the actual definition to human beings, none of whom are actually good according to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ...who ought to know. He is the Son of God, after all. He's not totally dim. Question 7 answered.
"Jesus and other biblical writers referring to Good people or telling people to be good..."
The other biblical writers don't matter given the issue revolves around what Jesus said. None of the verses you've provided satisfies the one question you're dodging...what did Jesus mean when He said there is no one good but God. I gave you the only two possibilities (both of which I believe are true). You think He was "messing" with the rich young man. And now, you post a bunch of verses which do not provide an example of Him referring to any person as "good". Fictional people referring to other fictional people as "good and faithful servant" is a specific person Christ Himself is referencing as "good". Encouraging people to be good, isn't the same as saying anyone is good. Speaking of how a good person behaves (should behave, actually) isn't the same as saying some specific person is good.
"(So, you're saying that God's a liar, Marshal. Got it.) (Or are you saying a man can be "BLAMELESS AND UPRIGHT" but still not Good??!) (The utter arrogance!)"
What's with all the parentheses? It's not arrogance to speak the truth. It's arrogance to say a sin isn't a sin, which is what you do. Here, blameless and upright doesn't mean the same as not being a sinner or one with a sin nature, which a good person can't have.
Question 8 answered.
Also, there's this:
Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. Romans 5:7
This suggests a difference between righteousness and goodness, and thus, one can't be quick to regard "blameless and upright" as the same as "good"...especially since Jesus said there is no one good but God.
"... and of course, I could go on and on."
Please don't...unless you actually have a verse that will prove your point. If you do, why didn't you lead with it?
"Now, about people doing good things, Marshal says, "Encouraging folks to be good or holy doesn't mean they are."
That is what MARSHAL thinks. But Jesus rebukes Marshal's foolishness, saying...
"A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him"
So, who should we believe? Jesus or Marshal?
Marshal or our own eyes?"
Those last three are actually the same question, so I'm going to take the chance of calling them all Question 9 as I answer it now:
Jesus' words there doesn't rebuke me and thus, in this case Himself when He said there is no one good but God. Once again, He is speaking of what a good man should or does do, not that there is a good man. That is, if you want to be a good man, there first must be good stored up in you (as opposed to lies, heresies and support for immoral behaviors) in order to be able to bring out good things.
So Dan, you've totally failed yet again, pretending to have a different explanation for the especially clear and direct statement of Christ's, while not providing it at all, and then trying to pretend He meant something different by providing 13 verses which don't do what you said they do (and yet can go on and on).
Jesus said there is no one good but God. I know you believe yourself to be on par with God. You often expect Him to subordinate His will to your liking. But I choose to believe Jesus because I want Him to like me. You want Him to change enough for you to like Him. Good luck with that.
No, Marshal has not been reading either of us or even reading his book god.
Marshal:
- Where has He ever made that distinction [between good and not good people]? Maybe I've missed it.
- I can't at the moment recall a case of Jesus referring to anyone (aside from perhaps in a parable) as "that good man".
- He's being quite straightforward in stating a fact. No one is good but God.
- Why, one can actually find a verse where He says just that!
Scripture, this first of which contradicts all his whining and which I provided 4 days ago:
- "The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks."
- "For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba![m] Father!” it is that very Spirit bearing witness[n] with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ."
- "Through these, the greatest and priceless promises have been lavished on us, that through them you should share the divine nature"
___
*In addition to admitting his many errors, Marshal should reflect on the advice Jesus LITERALLY gives to the young man who has indeed done what Jesus first suggests to be good:
Jesus: "You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’”
Young man: "He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.”
Jesus: "Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven"
___
More Marshal: And here is Jesus in Matthew doing what Marshal thinks he never does, being a “kidder”:
Scripture: “Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.”But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly."
Bad, illiterate Marshal: Jesus didn't tell anyone to gouge out their eyes. EVER!
Scripture: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away."
Dan: "He commands people to DO GOOD."
Marshal: "Not the same as being good. It's a goal to which we're to aspire and strive."
I of course pointed out that Jesus spoke of a good person's actions spring from the good within them.
You responded to that...
"Jesus' words there doesn't rebuke me and thus, in this case Himself when He said there is no one good but God. Once again, He is speaking of what a good man should or does do, not that there is a good man. That is, if you want to be a good man, there first must be good stored up in you"
That is YOUR interpretation. YOU like to think that Jesus was speaking of a hypothetical good man, someone who literally doesn't exist (in YOUR MIND). But Jesus doesn't SAY he's speaking hypothetically.
Thus, you're literally making figurative what Jesus said in THIS case, but trying to insist that Jesus should be taken literally in the case of "There is no one good."
Given that, WHY should we accept your hunch as if it were the only explanation? WHY is it not more rational to assume it the other way around... that Jesus WAS literally speaking of actual good people - the good people we all know exist in the real world - in that passage and Jesus was speaking more figuratively, referencing God as a PERFECT GOOD, but not actually suggesting there are no good people... again, when we can see Good people in the world?
And before you do or say anything else: DEFINE GOOD, as you are using it.
Marshal...
"The other biblical writers don't matter given the issue revolves around what Jesus said. None of the verses you've provided satisfies the one question you're dodging...what did Jesus mean when He said there is no one good but God."
HE MEANT THAT ONLY GOD IS PERFECT. PERIOD. We KNOW this because Jesus expected us to be Good people. Because throughout the Bible it references Good people. Because we SEE people who are good, by definition.
That YOU THINK IN YOUR LITTLE HEAD that "Ah, but if we're not PERFECTLY GOOD and PERFECT, then we're not good at all..." is bullshit and nonsense. It's an opinion that YOU might hold, but it's not rational, it's not biblical, it's not part of the Gospel message as found from Jesus. And I HAVE "satisfied" and answered the question. That YOU PERSONALLY, INDIVIDUALLY may not like the answer does not mean that the question has not been answered. Giving an answer that you don't care for or that does not convince you is NOT the same as dodging the question.
As a point of reality.
Do you understand that reality?
You've answered some of my questions in a way that I don't find rationally or biblically compelling. Does that mean that you've dodged the question? Or just that I don't agree with your opinion?
It means simply that I don't agree with your opinion. Same for you with mine. Disagreement is not dodging.
Do you understand that reality?
"The other biblical writers don't matter given the issue revolves around what Jesus said."
The other biblical writers don't matter.
Such a callous, crass, dismissive move toward Scripture. He cries out that liberals do what he just did. Liberals don't do what he just did: too lazy and slip shod and relativistic for good liberal thinkers.
Marshal takes 7 words and uses them to abolish all other Scripture.
Liberals take the whole of Scripture as the best commentary on itself... and certainly on how to frame 7 words.
"That is YOUR interpretation. YOU like to think that Jesus was speaking of a hypothetical good man, someone who literally doesn't exist (in YOUR MIND). But Jesus doesn't SAY he's speaking hypothetically."
So when Jesus says He's speaking hypothetically, metaphorically, using hyperbole He is, but if He doesn't say it, He isn't? Or is it just when you need Him to say or not say those things so that your position seems more plausible, then it matters? Clearly, it's the latter. I'd have to research, and think we've been down this road before, but I don't think Jesus ever said "this is just a parable" when teaching with the use of parables. By your logic, every parable He presents is something which actually happened in real life. Thus, the rich man and Lazarus actually happened, without any doubt. Got it.
But more importantly to your comment, Jesus isn't referencing anyone in particular, which is what I continue to hope you can provide...a specific reference to a specific good person by Jesus...not a metaphorical guy, a hypothetical guy, but an actual guy.
Do you understand that reality?
"Thus, you're literally making figurative what Jesus said in THIS case, but trying to insist that Jesus should be taken literally in the case of "There is no one good.""
Not at all. I'm saying you have no evidence to suggest He was speaking hyperbole when He said there is no one good but God. You have nothing other than the fact that it indicts yourself (mostly) and others you know as not being "good" even though in your mind, they are examples of "good" people TO YOU!! And I would caution you to consider that despite whatever evidence you'd present to support your opinion of those people...or yourself...others may still have good (no pun intended) reason to disagree. Thus, Christ's was a statement of fact. YOU are presenting nothing but opinion.
And of course I'm not regarding Christ's words as figurative, but as an example of a description of what a good person is or does, not a description of any specific person. If I say, a good man does XYZ, what makes you think I have someone specific in mind. What makes you think Christ had someone specific in mind?
"WHY is it not more rational to assume it the other way around... that Jesus WAS literally speaking of actual good people..."
Because He mentioned no one specific. Do you believe He forgot the guy's name? It's clear beyond any doubt that your position is self-centered. You want to believe you're good. I get that...most people do. Christ tells you you are not and again, what need of we of Him if we're already good like He Christ says is the Only One Who is?
"And before you do or say anything else: DEFINE GOOD, as you are using it."
God...based on Jesus' teaching. If Jesus says it, I believe it. If you disagree with Him...as you clearly do...I believe HIM over you every time.
ONE REQUEST: If you're going to demand I do something before anything else, have the grace and courtesy to make it the first thing you say, not the last...unless your purpose is to have built in justification for deleting me...which I would put past you.
"HE MEANT THAT ONLY GOD IS PERFECT. PERIOD. We KNOW this because Jesus expected us to be Good people. Because throughout the Bible it references Good people. Because we SEE people who are good, by definition."
HE MEANT THAT ONLY GOD IS GOOD. PERIOD. We KNOW this because Jesus didn't use the word "perfect" in response to the guy who approached Him. We see people who are good by our opinion of what good looks like, which is subjective to say the least. You say homosexuals you know are good. As they ignore God's Will, to actual Christians that would preclude use of the word being applied to them.
"That YOU PERSONALLY, INDIVIDUALLY may not like the answer does not mean that the question has not been answered."
Oh, you've answered the question now. You just don't have a good answer. Your answer is unsupportable as rendered. Christ said "good" when if He meant "perfect" He would either have used that word or provided an explanation that the words are synonymous and has no bearing on whether or not there exists "good" people. Indeed, He was defining the word "good" in a way that cannot be legitimately used to describe any person, though does not deny us the ability to use it for our own purposes. Unlike you, I can distinguish between how we use it and how Christ did without wetting myself over it. You clearly hate that by His words, you're not good. Boo-hoo.
"Do you understand that reality?"
Your position is not reality. The reality is there is no one good but God. Jesus said so.
"You've answered some of my questions in a way that I don't find rationally or biblically compelling. Does that mean that you've dodged the question? Or just that I don't agree with your opinion?"
The problem...the true reality, as it were...is that your answers are of the "nyuh uh" variety and fail to satisfy the salient meaning of my challenges to you. You simply don't like that Christ's words means you're not good. But your answers fail to provide a legitimate Scripture supported response to the question of what He words mean. None of your verses do what you say they do, because none of them constitute an example of Christ speaking of a specific person, or even anyone at all who ever lived.
Dan...
"And before you do or say anything else: DEFINE GOOD, as you are using it."
Marshal...
"God."
And here is the heart of the problem. You're redefining good to mean something that it doesn't mean. You're literally redefining the word to mean something entirely different.
THAT'S why giving your definitions is important. Especially if you're going to be abusing the English language and giving alternative, non-standard definitions to words.
If you're whimsically redefining words, then you have to expect that people are not going to understand what you're saying because you're speaking nonsense and gibberish.
Yes. No human is God. By definition. No one is claiming that humans are God.
But that's different than saying no human is good. You're redefining good to mean something that the word literally doesn't mean.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
If you say that no human beings are alive and sentient, but by Alive and Sentient you mean Dead and A Rock, then you will be speaking gibberish that normal, rational people won't understand because it's gibberish.
So, yes. We agree. No human is God.
Duh.
Now, back to normal English and setting aside your redefinition, do you agree that at least some people are reasonably considered Good, as humans speak that word?
Marshal... "Your position is not reality. The reality is there is no one good but God. Jesus said so."
Ah. But you have already established that YOUR position is the one literally not established in reality. YOU said that YOU are redefining Good to mean God. That is not reality. It's your own invention.
You are literally NOT saying there is no one good but God. You are saying "There is no one God but God."
Ok. And there's no one Marshal but Marshal. There's nothing water but water. There is nothing poop but poop.
You've reduced God down to nothing but an irrelevant tautology and Jesus words down to meaninglessness.
Congratulations.
NOW do you see that, by your own admission, your position is meaningless and not grounded in reality but literally your own redefinition?
Marshal... "If Jesus says it, I believe it."
Jesus said blessed are you who are poor and woe to you who are rich. But you don't believe it.
Jesus said if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. And yet you don't believe it.
Jesus said don't store up treasures on earth, and yet, you don't believe it.
Jesus has said all kinds of things where you reject a literal interpretation.
So, count the cost.
Marshal believes the gospel of Luke is a lie.
"And here is the heart of the problem. You're redefining good to mean something that it doesn't mean. You're literally redefining the word to mean something entirely different."
Not really...indeed, not at all. I'm simply restating what Jesus said. "My" definition is irrelevant to the issue of how Jesus is defining it in his response to the dude. But as is true with so many words, this one has multiple definitions and usages:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good
...and in daring to criticize me, you show your hypocrisy given how often and quick you lefties are to truly and egregiously redefine words and terms to push your sick agenda. I'm just repeating what my Lord said.
At the same time, when I call someone "good", that in no way means anything more than that such person is or does that which is pleasing to me. You do the same thing. Doesn't mean the person is actually good in the truest sense of the word, as Jesus used it. And if ever there was a case of "human traditions", this is it. Using the word subjectively as you...and I...do. Your troll may regard you as a good man. I don't because of all your clear and unambiguous anti-Christian positions, words and actions. Yet, I wouldn't deny you do good works. The latter doesn't erase the former, especially as you regard the former as good despite it being clearly not.
As such, I'm not at all abusing the language. That's what YOU people do. I'm repeating what my Lord said. You reject my Lord in favor of your invented lord.
"But that's different than saying no human is good. You're redefining good to mean something that the word literally doesn't mean."
Not at all. I'm using the word as Christ did, which is not how the average mortal man commonly uses it and misapplies it to those who really aren't that good at all. Those like you, for example.
"do you agree that at least some people are reasonably considered Good, as humans speak that word?"
And here you affirm the distinction I'm defending as real...that "as humans speak that word" is not the same as Jesus did, and due to His words, my understanding of the word is now more accurate. Yours reflects your dismay at facing the truth that you're not good. How dare Jesus say such a thing, right? The arrogance of the Son of God is appalling to you! I can live with it just fine. I'm not the least offended by what is so obvious. There is no one good but God. Embrace it, Dan. It won't kill you...unless you embrace instead all that which makes it true about you.
"Ah. But you have already established that YOUR position is the one literally not established in reality. YOU said that YOU are redefining Good to mean God."
No, I did not. The reason is, regardless of whether I go by the definition you so desperately need to be true, or by that which Christ provided for us in the verse in question, I have no personal definition. I just use the definition that's the truest, as well as that which is most appropriate given the situation on the table. In this discussion, it's Christ's definition. When I'm referencing someone I know, it's the standard commonly used in life, which is subjective given no one is good but God. "Good" compared to other people.
"You are literally NOT saying there is no one good but God. You are saying "There is no one God but God.""
Not untrue, but no different than what Christ said and thus reality. It is Christ Who equates the two, not me. Who am I to argue with the Son of God? More to the point, who do you think you are to argue with the Son of God?
"You've reduced God down to nothing but an irrelevant tautology and Jesus words down to meaninglessness."
A very funny thing coming from you.
"NOW do you see that, by your own admission, your position is meaningless and not grounded in reality but literally your own redefinition?"
I admitted nothing with suggests such a thing. It's simply something you need to be true.
"Jesus said blessed are you who are poor and woe to you who are rich. But you don't believe it."
Yes I do. I also believe you corrupt the meaning of it to satisfy your socialist bent.
"Jesus said if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. And yet you don't believe it."
I do, but there's no true expectation by Him to actually do that, as you well know...I think.
"Jesus said don't store up treasures on earth, and yet, you don't believe it."
Yes I do, but I don't forget the context and true message in which that is said, which is to put God first in all things. One can be as rich as one desires so long as God's Will always comes first.
"Jesus has said all kinds of things where you reject a literal interpretation."
Again, you do not understand the concept of taking Jesus/Scripture literally. It's just a semantic game you play.
Count the cost.
Marshal thinks the gospel of Luke is a lie.
Marshal. Answer one simple question directly. Do you recognize the reality that in the English language, good is not defined as God?
That is a reality. I'm not asking your opinion on it. I'm asking if you recognize that reality?
"Marshal. Answer one simple question directly. Do you recognize the reality that in the English language, good is not defined as God?"
Yeah. So what?
Marshal thinks the gospel of Luke is a lie.
Jesus: "The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks."
I've known good people. I never call them good to their face. Unless it's like, you know, toned down. Dan, you're a good man, Charlie Brown.
I've known holy people. I never call them holy to their face. Unless, it's like, you know, toned down. You're a saint, Dan, for the having the patience of Job.
We just don't do that in language. And certainly not in preaching. Jesus didn't either.
Marshal... "Yeah. So what?"
So, YOU are literally redefining Good to something other than the English language. I assume then that you acknowledge that, as well.
So?
So, the question is "Are at least some people Good, as it is normally understood?"
In the English language, as we normally mean Good, then, the answer is Yes.
Do you agree with that reality?
Let's assume you can say yes. Finally.
Beyond reality, and what normal, rational people mean by Good, you are welcome to your own opinions about what you think in your head that Jesus may have meant by that in that one instance. But no one else is obliged to agree with your opinions on that.
Do you understand that?
And finally, do you understand that reasonable people would not opt to say there are no Good people in the world just because Marshal happens to think that Jesus was saying that?
Beyond that, there's not much more to say.
Marshal... "When I'm referencing someone I know, it's the standard commonly used in life, which is subjective given no one is good but God. "Good" compared to other people. "
Again, it is a given that no human is a God. So what?
It is likewise a given that there ARE good people as rational people understand Good. I think you are finally agreeing to that much reality.
Do you recognize how it's not especially rational to compare humans to God? I don't compare rocks to humans, either, because, why would I? Different categories.
I guess one final question: Are you suggesting that you think that God thinks that because humans are not God, they deserve to die forever in eternal torment?
And if you do, do you recognize that is irrational and you're portraying God in a rather irrational, diabolical and mean manner?
My last comment... "And if you do, do you recognize that is irrational and you're portraying God in a rather irrational, diabolical and mean manner?"
Think about that. Here you have an almighty God who is also defined as perfectly Good, perfectly loving, perfectly Just God.
Right?
And then this all-powerful, perfect God says... "You know what? If you're not perfect...LIKE ME! ...Then you deserve to be punished for an eternity of torment! And - here's the kicker - I am the God who designed and made you... and I designed you as imperfect humans! KNOWING you'd then be Not Good and workforce food for eternity! Bwa ha ha ha!!!"
How sick, narcissistic, egocentric, irrational and just plain cruel do you imagine this god of yours to be? He's like a kid with a magnifying glass messing with ants for a sociopathic joy that comes from torture, this god you describe.
"So, YOU are literally redefining Good to something other than the English language."
No. I'm literally acknowledging the truth claim of Christ that there is no one good but God and logically concluding "good" is an inappropriate description of the condition of mankind. It doesn't preclude or prohibit our using the term to describe the character of some people relative to the rest.
"Do you agree with that reality?"
Sure, given the qualifier you provide, "as it is normally understood." But that's different than "good" as Christ explains it. Indeed, He is clearly correcting the rich dude for using it "as it is commonly understood."
"But no one else is obliged to agree with your opinions on that."
"Obligation" doesn't enter into it. You have full liberty to choose death. Have fun with that.
"And finally, do you understand that reasonable people would not opt to say there are no Good people in the world just because Marshal happens to think that Jesus was saying that?"
I don't see how that at all guarantees they're the least bit reasonable. Reasonable people would rely on Scripture, not on what either of us (especially the likes of you) say about it. Reasonable people can clearly see Jesus said that and not see any "reasonable" problem with accepting it as truth.
"Do you recognize how it's not especially rational to compare humans to God?"
Almost as irrational as you supposing you can dictate to God how He must respond to your self-serving expectations in order for you to worship and obey Him.
"Are you suggesting that you think that God thinks that because humans are not God, they deserve to die forever in eternal torment?"
No. Not even a little. Thus the rest of your comments are no more than you fighting against your straw man.
Marshal believes that the Jesus in the gospel of Luke is a liar. "Good people draw what is good from the store of goodness in their hearts; bad people draw what is bad from the store of badness. For the words of the mouth flow out of what fills the heart."
He also believes the Jesus in the gospel of Matthew is a liar: "Good people draw good things from their store of goodness; bad people draw bad things from their store of badness."
___
Basically, Marshal cuts the Sermon on the Mount out of his book god.
"But alas for you who are rich: you are having your consolation now."
"Alas for you who have plenty to eat now: you shall go hungry. Alas for you who are laughing now: you shall mourn and weep."
"Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from someone who takes it."
"And if you lend to those from whom you hope to get money back, what credit can you expect? Even sinners lend to sinners to get back the same amount."
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned"
"Why do you observe the splinter in your brother's eye and never notice the great log in your own?"
"There is no sound tree that produces rotten fruit, nor again a rotten tree that produces sound fruit. 44. Every tree can be told by its own fruit"
Marshal... "No. I'm literally acknowledging the truth claim of Christ that there is no one good but God and logically concluding "good" is an inappropriate description of the condition of mankind."
Answer these directly and factually or move on.
1. Again, you are LITERALLY redefining Good to mean something that the English language does not say. You are, according to YOU, LITERALLY redefining Good to mean God. That's not the definition of Good in the English language. It literally isn't.
DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REALITY?
2. No one has said that "good is an appropriate description of the condition of mankind."
DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REALITY?
3. I've said that there ARE good people as Good is understood in the English language.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT REALITY?
Answer these directly and factually or move on.
"1. Again, you are LITERALLY redefining Good to mean something that the English language does not say. You are, according to YOU, LITERALLY redefining Good to mean God. That's not the definition of Good in the English language. It literally isn't.
DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REALITY?"
It's literally NOT reality.
"2. No one has said that "good is an appropriate description of the condition of mankind."
DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REALITY?"
That's literally not reality, either.
"3. I've said that there ARE good people as Good is understood in the English language.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT REALITY?"
And I've said, "Sure, given the qualifier you provide, "as it is normally understood.""
Three more questions answered directly and without Dan-like equivocation. This is probably where you delete.
Marshal... "It's literally NOT reality." (For point 1 and 2).
You LITERALLY SAID that YOU are defining Good as "GOD."
Did you not?
The definition of Good is literally NOT God.
Do you understand that reality?
And I literally never said that "Good is an appropriate description of the condition for mankind."
Do you acknowledge that reality?
I'm done playing this game. Acknowledge reality or go away. I can't help this level of fundamental misunderstanding of reality.
Something I posted on Marshal's that I thought I'd post here, as well...
Marshal... "If He didn't mean THAT [ie, redefine Good to be Perfect], what did He mean?"
As I have said repeatedly:
* It seems clear that he's merely pointing out that there's no one perfect like God is perfect.
* And it also seems pretty clear that he's playing a bit of a game with this man and the Pharisees to get them all to think about the nature of following God.
*And, he could also be pointing out that this rich man is seeing what the Pharisees are failing to see: That Jesus IS God.
To further elaborate: I'd suggest, taken in context of the whole of Jesus' teachings, the best way of understanding this verse you're cherry picking out of nowhere is...
1. Understanding that the Pharisees were the main antagonists in the Jesus story
2. That much of what Jesus was doing was presenting an alternative Way to the Pharisees' way
3. The Pharisees way was a way of deadly legalism, in which ultimately NO ONE is perfect, so we're all "unclean" except for the rich and powerful and the ones that the Pharisees decided were Good enough
4. Jesus' Way, in opposition to that, was that it was NOT about being Good. It was about living in a way of Grace, and that this Grace was a Way that begins with watching out for, aligning and siding with the poor and the marginalized.
5. In the context of that Way - the Gospel as taught by Jesus throughout the Gospels - Jesus was pushing back against the deadly legalism of the Pharisees and their hypocrisy, AND at the same time, noting that we are ALL "Good enough" to be invited by God to the great Welcome Table of the Beloved Community.
THAT makes sense, in the context of Jesus' teaching.
On the other hand, redefining Good to be God and saying, in effect, No one is God but God, and thus, we're all BAD PEOPLE... is very much more in alignment with the death-dealing bad news of the Pharisees, rather than the welcoming Good News of Jesus.
More on the Bible and Good.
"But when he saw many of the
Pharisees and Sadducees
coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them:
“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’
I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
The ax is already at the root of the trees,
and every tree that does not produce good fruit
will be cut down and thrown into the fire."
John the Baptist, differentiating between the legalistic, deadly way that the Phariseees were "good" and noting that it's not THAT way which is Good, but the Way of gracefully producing GOOD FRUIT that is Good. He's literally NOT saying no one is good, he's specifically threatening many of the Pharisees/Sadducees and saying THEY and their way is not Good.
"“You are the salt of the earth.
But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?
It is no longer good for anything,
except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
You are the light of the world.
A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.
Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl.
Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.
In the same way,
let your light shine before others,
that they may see your GOOD deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."
Jesus SOTM, where he's literally suggesting that we CAN be good, IF we don't "lose our saltiness..." and flavor the world in the way that we see Jesus doing with his welcoming grace for the least of these.
Same for the Light. We should UNCOVER our light and LET our Good shine. That's not saying we can't be good or that humanity is, in total, bad.
And get ready for this one... Jesus isn't merely suggesting we are or can be good... HE's suggesting (commanding?) that we be PERFECT, like God is perfect!...
"I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your Father in heaven.
God causes his sun to rise on the evil
and the good,
and sends rain on the righteous
and the unrighteous.
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?
Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?
Do not even pagans do that?
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
cont'd...
First of all, Jesus clearly believes that there are good people, he literally says so. And that God sends rain on the good and the bad.
And what is the greater point being made? It's back to that greater Gospel story of a Way that is different than the deadly legalism of the Pharisees, a way that is all about grace and love and welcome AS DEMONSTRATED NOT by merely loving your friends and the ones easiest to love, but loving and welcoming the Enemy, the Foreigner, the Least of These, the Poor, the Marginalized.
Jesus then concludes with this command that's got to make the legalists' heads explode: BE PERFECT, LIKE GOD IS PERFECT...
Damn, boys, that some bar! We all know we're not perfect, none of us. What is the suggestion here?
I think that the Way of Grace, of welcoming, of inclusion, of love... buying into that WAY is a perfection, even if we don't live it out perfectly (that is, contrasting that with legalism... with the suggestion that the Pharisees and Marshal make that if you're not perfect, you're bad...) I've heard it suggested that this kind of Being Perfect is more being perfectly who we are. Like a Perfect Dozen Eggs is merely pointing out that they're perfect in the sense that there are 12 of them... not that there aren't any flaws in the eggs. It's not being perfectly white and free of flaws that makes them perfect, it's just being the grouping of 12... a perfect dozen.
Not sure if that makes any sense or that I'm explaining it well.
Out of time, may later on look at more of what the Gospels say about being Good and what it means in the greater context of the Jesus story found in the gospels.
"Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?”
The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.”
Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?'
I'm with Marshal. Jesus isn't kidding. Nor is Kanye. We are gods.
Jesus isn't kidding, right Marshal? It is written in the law and the scripture cannot be annulled. You've always insisted on that.
You have questions to answer before you can comment here further.
Marshal, you've provided nothing but fearful avoidance of the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. Your insistence on 7 words erase the Jesus present on those gospels.
I repeat: You have questions to answer. Repeated here...
1. You LITERALLY SAID that YOU are defining Good as "GOD."
Did you not?
2. The definition of Good is literally NOT God.
Do you understand that reality?
3. And I literally never said that "Good is an appropriate description of the condition for mankind."
Do you acknowledge that reality?
I'm done playing this game. Acknowledge reality or go away. I can't help this level of fundamental misunderstanding of reality.
Here's a comment on the topic I left for Marshal on his blog...
re: You can't show where Jesus preached a Gospel of "The way to be saved is for me to be killed and my "blood" (literal? Figurative??) will be used to "purchase" (ransom? pay off?) your "forgiveness" (from whom? God? The Devil??) so you can be "saved.""
I'll even help you. Here's someone from a conservative evangelical human tradition, trying and failing to find "atonement" in "Jesus' own words." He fails utterly.
https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/atonemt1.html
If you look, you'll see he found ONE place where Jesus mentions "ransom" (and "Ransom" is so baggage-laden... what the hell does that mean? Who are they paying off a ransom to? The devil? God?? God is paying off a ransom to himself??? How's that rational? Biblical?!)
...and one place where he cites Jesus (at the Final Supper with his disciples) where he uses the phrase, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
And THAT'S IT! That is his ENTIRE argument that he can find from Jesus' own words where he says anything that can be considered remotely similar to evangelical traditions of "atonement."
TWO SENTENCES.
And one of them was in a private conversation with his disciples.
AND YET, Jesus and his disciples were out preaching "the Gospel" throughout Jesus' ministry. And in ALL those sermons and lessons, not a single word clearly talking about "atonement" in the sense that modern evangelicals talk about it.
Does this not trouble you?
"1. You LITERALLY SAID that YOU are defining Good as "GOD."
Did you not?"
Yes, I did. I also said...because it's true..."my" definition is irrelevant to the issue on the table and Christ's assertion there is no one good but God. Indeed, I only gave you a definition because you demanded it in your usual petulant and dishonest way. Thus, I chose to define it based on Christ's truth claim there is no one good but God. Now you're wetting yourself?
"2. The definition of Good is literally NOT God.
Do you understand that reality?"
Not as the word is "commonly understood", but Christ seems to have an uncommon view of mankind. It's also interesting that a lefty like you would have a problem with "redefining" words...though it seems clear Christ is clarifying what "good" really is rather than "redefining" it...given how common it is for lefties to redefine words to suit their agenda. But I guess that's the key: is the one doing the redefining a leftist or someone honest?
"3. And I literally never said that "Good is an appropriate description of the condition for mankind."
Do you acknowledge that reality?"
You literally object to Christ rejecting "good" as an appropriate description of the condition of mankind, as well as insist you know good people "as it is commonly understood". Pardon me for generalizing your position because of how you express yourself.
"I'm done playing this game. Acknowledge reality or go away. I can't help this level of fundamental misunderstanding of reality."
A game you never lose so long as you assume sole authority for determining what "reality" is. But then, you're the only person who plays the game anyway.
"And THAT'S IT! That is his ENTIRE argument that he can find from Jesus' own words where he says anything that can be considered remotely similar to evangelical traditions of "atonement.""
In the meantime, you've offered far less to pretend there's Scriptural support for your human tradition of homosexuality as worthy of God's blessing and stand by it firmly. But again, you think quantity of expression has meaning over the message itself. Then, in your typical deceitful manner, you not only ignore the teachings of the Epistles, but of the entirety of Scripture on the subject of Christ's salvific purpose.
"And one of them was in a private conversation with his disciples."
As if that changes anything.
"Does this not trouble you?"
No, because He does teach no one comes to the Father but through Him. The obvious question is "how?" The "how" is through His atoning sacrifice as explained by Paul, Peter and such in the Epistles. What's more, your "game-ending" link...does it cite Christ referring to Himself as the "Good Shepherd" who lays down His life for His flock? Does it mention His prayers in Gethsemane when He asked about having "the cup" taken from Him if the Father so wills that it be so? Christ referred to His impending death on more than one occasion, and it matters not to whom if the Gospel writers include it in their record of events. And it matters not how many times Christ mentions His atoning sacrifice when those like Peter and Paul preach it themselves. The "theory" is fact.
"He does teach no one comes to the Father but through Him. The obvious question is "how?" The "how" is through His atoning sacrifice..."
Marshal thinks St Paul is a liar, contradicts himself, and opposes Jesus. And he may well be right.
"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse OR PERHAPS EXCUSE THEM ON THE DAY when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all."
I'll deal with what you said in your latest comment later, Marshal. In the meantime, I have an unrelated question for you. One day when you find out that Trump really did sexually harass and sexually assault and rape women, will you feel bad at all that you bought into his lies? That you extended him a benefit of doubt that he did not deserve?
You pretend I'm "buying into his lies". This is absurd if you can't provide a lie of any significance. You can't present his rejection of sexual abuse allegations as lies until you prove the allegations are true beyond a shadow of a doubt. If it comes to pass that Trump actually raped anyone, I would expect he be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But to suggest that presuming innocence until being proved guilty is giving anyone the benefit of the doubt they don't deserve is totally anathema to the ideals of this nation and it's judicial philosophy.
What's more shameful, is your position that it's a reality that Trump raped. This is evident in your question: "One day when you find out that Trump really did" as if there's no question. How would you know? When have you ever hung with him? Biden's accuser stands willing to take a lie detector test along side Biden. Which Trump accuser has expressed such willingness? Perhaps there is one, but as with Bubba Clinton, you are willing to minimize and overlook credible accusations against Biden. You're a hateful hypocrite.
Time may indeed tell how deserving Trump was, but that he was deserving of a second term in office based on his stellar record from his first is beyond any doubt except by hateful asshats like you.
In the meantime, I haven't heard jack shit from you about ANY of Biden's PROVEN lies. You're such a fake.
Wow. The delusion is impassable in this one:
LAST TIME:
WHEN (IF) you find out that Trump was a sexual predator who harassed, assaulted and/or raped women and/or children, WILL YOU BE EMBARRASSED or regret your support for this deviant?
I'm not asking if you believe he was a sexual predator, I'm asking if and when you DO have it verified (believe me, you will...), will you regret your great deviant stupidity in defending a clear moral deviant and oppressor?
Marshal... " This is evident in your question: "One day when you find out that Trump really did" as if there's no question. How would you know?"
1. I don't know for certain.
2. The odds are in its favor.
3. For people who are aware of sexual predators, Trump has all the signs, INCLUDING his own words.
4. Add to the compelling and damning evidence of his own testimony, the man has ~25 charges of sexual assault/harassment against him. False testimonies about sexual assault are rare, but it can happen (it's why I give some leeway when a man has one or two or so claims against him). But 25? It strains credibility.
He is almost certainly some degree of sexual predator. I suspect he is a rapist and a child molester and, while we can't convict him on an overabundance of obvious data and his own malevolent testimony, he's still almost certainly guilty. If you believe in knowing about this stuff in the afterlife, then you'll find out then, if not sooner. So, again, answer the question: IF and WHEN you find out he's precisely the sort of deviant molester that he presents as, will you THEN be embarrassed or otherwise regret your support for this sicko?
Do you even care?
"can't find a lie of significance."
Given that Marshal thinks Jesus is lying in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, the LIE, Dan, has to be of some nuclear magnitude of significance.
"LAST TIME"
Promises, promises. I won't have to wait very long before you come up with a similarly twisted hypothetical you think means something. That's just how perverse you are.
"WHEN (IF) you find out that Trump was a sexual predator who harassed, assaulted and/or raped women and/or children, WILL YOU BE EMBARRASSED or regret your support for this deviant?"
I can say with absolute certainty that I will not be as embarrassed as you should be for asking such a deviant question about someone you thrill to imagine is a deviant. Your desperate hope that such a revelation should come to pass is palpable. What a fake Christian you are!!
As to the sordid perversity of a question itself, no, I would not be embarrassed. I voted for him...both times...for legitimate, justifiable reasons and given his opponents, I stand by those votes based on what I knew at the time. And as disappointed as I would be to learn that he's everything you hope he'll someday be proven to be, I would be far more disappointed knowing that a leftist media who spent so much time and effort to falsely portray him as something they could never prove because none of it was true in the first place, wasted so much time doing so when there was something (hypothetically) true they totally missed or were too incompetent to know how to uncover. And I would be saddened that it was probably a source like FoxNews, OANN, Breitbart or some other real news source who had to be the one to report it.
"I'm not asking if you believe he was a sexual predator..."
Bullshit. You need people to believe he is. Doesn't matter a far more credible victim of Joe Biden is ignored...by you above all others, you fraud of a human being. All you care about is that your hatred will one day be validated by proven evidence he's what you so perversely need him to be.
"I'm asking if and when you DO have it verified (believe me, you will...), will you regret your great deviant stupidity in defending a clear moral deviant and oppressor?"
And above is proof of your perverse hope for the man...that he be found to be what you want and need him to be in order to justify your unChristian hatred. You're a sick motherfucker.
"1. I don't know for certain."
Oh, you know it for certain. You just have no legitimate reason to "know" it at all. You want it to be true so you can have your wish validated. Sick mofo.
"2. The odds are in its favor."
You clearly want them to be. You clearly hope they are. Sick. Mofo.
"3. For people who are aware of sexual predators, Trump has all the signs, INCLUDING his own words."
So you clearly love believing. But of course, you have a decided penchant for seeing what you want to see, especially as it regards center-right figures and most definitely as it regards Trump. Incredibly sick MF.
"4. Add to the compelling and damning evidence of his own testimony..."
This is a guy you call a liar whose words cannot be believed...except for this salacious crap which clearly provokes a tingling in your lady parts. You'll forever be known as SMF.
"the man has ~25 charges of sexual assault/harassment against him"
And these have been addressed where details were provided. For example, one was his ex-wife, Ivanna, who recanted her accusation. Two were, shall we say, low character women who traded their bodies for money, and by their testimonies engaged in a consensual affair with a married man. One made a claim for which there was a witness on the same flight insisting the two barely said a word to each other, much less did Trump assault her. Others had equally sketchy tales one would have to be a Trabue to believe. And the rest? Which one is pursuing her allegations. I just read of one who withdrew her case a week or so ago. (Didn't save the story.)
"(it's why I give some leeway when a man has one or two or so claims against him)"
Because to you a single woman alleging assault isn't as believable as "25" going after a rich and famous dude like Trump. I'm sure such women...like Tara Reid...would feel just great hearing that. But it also allows you to overlook accusations against those you favor over Trump, like Biden who's a moron and destroying the nation.
"But 25? It strains credibility."
More of a strain is trying to figure out why none of these women are going after him.
"He is almost certainly some degree of sexual predator."
Most people refer to men like him as "a womanizer". Haters call him a sexual predator.
"I suspect he is a rapist and a child molester and, while we can't convict him on an overabundance of obvious data and his own malevolent testimony, he's still almost certainly guilty."
How very American of you to have found him guilty without a trial, without having proven him so. A SMF and a major dickhead, but in no way a Christian. The fact is you want him to be guilty. The idea excites you because you're a pervert.
"So, again, answer the question: IF and WHEN you find out he's precisely the sort of deviant molester that he presents as, will you THEN be embarrassed or otherwise regret your support for this sicko?"
You'll have to be more honest in how you frame you question, first. Let me help you. It should go like this:
Dan: IF and WHEN you find out he's precisely the sort of deviant molester I believe and hope he is, will you THEN be embarrassed or otherwise regret your support for this guy I want to be a sicko so I can continue hating him like the grace embracing Christian I only pretend to be?
My answer is, You need serious psychological help.
If you can't read, Fartshal, then you're ignorant and will believe lies.
Marshal believes that the Jesus in the gospel of Luke is a liar. "Good people draw what is good from the store of goodness in their hearts; bad people draw what is bad from the store of badness. For the words of the mouth flow out of what fills the heart."
He also believes the Jesus in the gospel of Matthew is a liar: "Good people draw good things from their store of goodness; bad people draw bad things from their store of badness."
___
Basically, Marshal cuts the Sermon on the Mount out of his book god.
"But alas for you who are rich: you are having your consolation now."
"Alas for you who have plenty to eat now: you shall go hungry. Alas for you who are laughing now: you shall mourn and weep."
"Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from someone who takes it."
"And if you lend to those from whom you hope to get money back, what credit can you expect? Even sinners lend to sinners to get back the same amount."
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned"
"Why do you observe the splinter in your brother's eye and never notice the great log in your own?"
"There is no sound tree that produces rotten fruit, nor again a rotten tree that produces sound fruit. 44. Every tree can be told by its own fruit"
Why are you letting feo get away with lying about me? I never said Jesus lied, nor does anything I've ever said so much as hint at such a thing.
If you cannot respond to the Jesus in the gospels of Luke and Matthew, then you are avoiding what you claim to believe in. Lying, in other words.
Deal with Jesus across the gospels. Or verify that you are, in fact, an abuser of Scripture because you need your book god.
Marshal will come up with some lazy, shitty bullshit answer for the Jesus in Mathew and Luke and count it as good. He can't afford to be silent but he cannot admit his mistakes. He's a poorly educated white man, in other words: the only demographic for whom the mortality rate has been rising for over a decade.
And he will divert and deflect to surround his answer in a fog of gas.
The defense attorney for William Bryan, one of Ahmad Arbery’s murderers, said the presence of so many black Christian pastors was “what a public lynching looks like in the 21st century.”
Craig says he’d be in the right to grab a gun and go to Atlanta to kill one of them in self defense.
That’s who he is: stench in god’s nostrils.
White man. Of course.
“A man who pleaded guilty to the rape and sexual assault of four teenage girls will avoid prison time after a New York state judge said time behind bars would be inappropriate.
Christopher Belter, now 20, entered a plea deal in 2019 in which he agreed to plead guilty to attempted first-degree sexual abuse, third-degree rape and two counts of second-degree sexual abuse, according to court documents.”
Craig: “ I firmly believe that one of the greatest disservices of the anti-gun political left is the fact that they are intent on preventing women and minorities from availing themselves of the choice to be armed as a means of self defense.”
What a fucking idiot - with white supremacist glasses.
Anyone - with regard to identity other than age (get all your Brian cells grown first: age 25) has a right to get a gun just like we all have right to drive. Take lessons, pass a test, get a background check.
The WILL to be stupid as fuck and frame everything by white make default is obviously how Craig self identifies.
My wife is so terrified of people like Marshal, Neil, Craig, Stan, and the fake Scotsman that she doesn’t want to drive west of the Hudson.
They terrorize people of color.
90+% of black folks vote for the Democratic Party in every election, national, state, or municipal. Not because they believe in the Democratic Party. But because the other side doesn't care if black folks are shot to death.
But Marshal and Glenn have to weave a diversion of lies to cover up reality.
Marshal tries to rhetorically erase my wife. Because she's black.
That's who he is.
There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.
Marshal cannot see his way to apologize for calling my wife fake.
Zero character = zero credibility.
Marshal, your vulgar, arrogant attempts to erase a black woman is repugnant. You won't post here until you apologize for this sad, pathetic, limpid attack on a woman you don't even know and a man you can't hold your ground with. Not a mere admitting that you were maybe mistaken. An apology.
Good God, have mercy.
Marshal continues his vulgar attacks on reality. In a comment that is now deleted, he said... " I've questioned [Feodor's] claim that he's married and have provided sound reasoning for that doubt."
You have not. That you REALLLLLLY don't like Feodor is not "sound reasoning" to suggest that a woman of any color would not marry him. Feodor and I may really find your words ugly and vulgar, but we wouldn't go so far as to claim, "Therefore, NO WOMAN would ever marry him..." and try to suggest you're not married, no matter how much of an embarrassment you are to your family.
Go away, Marshal. Your ignorance is not amusing or compelling or really, much of anything but pathetic.
Marshal, do you not understand how idiotic and ridiculous it is - not to mention stupidly insulting- to make such easily disproven claims like this about a person you literally don't even know!
These are easily established fact claims (the same as noting I was raised as a traditional conservative... the same as noting that "the media" are rational citizens who love their country and are not "enemies of the state" in any rational understanding of that term...) and modern Trump-style "conservatives " who blithely dismiss reality are just demonstrating disordered, irrational thinking.
Myth-making to deny reality is the next to last weapon that white supremacy has to defend itself.
And thanks for sticking up for me, Dan.
Well, you seem like a fine enough fella, and smart as a tack... but nonetheless, it's more about sticking up for basic decency. Just to say to another person, "What you say is meaningless, you're not who you say you are, you don't know who you're married to," etc, etc is just vulgar and delusional and arrogant as hell. And weird. Who does that and takes themselves seriously?
People who lie. He lies to himself perpetually. He lies to god. He lies about Jesus. He lies to you. He lies to me.
To try to hold on to white exceptionality - an identity born only in the slave trade - is to build a house of lies to live in.
Post a Comment