Stan at the Birds of the Air blog put up a post today about his understanding of Justice. As is often the case, his argument raises so many questions that I'd love to see answered, and yet, he never answers questions. So, here are some of the questions/concerns I have about what he's written, for what they're worth.
Stan... "as is so much the case these days -- words are shifting --
"justice" is shifting. Part of that is displayed in that simple first
definition above, where "fair and reasonable" becomes purely "What I
consider fair and reasonable.""
It is not currently defined as
"WHAT I consider fair and reasonable..." It has always been what the
culture at large considers fair and reasonable. Nothing is shifting
there.
Stan... "Instantly it becomes contrary and meaningless
because too many of us would define "fair and reasonable" in a way that
is neither."
Like, for instance, saying that a human who has
committed 1000 typical "sins" (no murder, rape, arson, grand larceny,
etc... more of the gossiping, slander, lying, etc sorts of sins)
"deserves" to be punished for an eternity of torture/torment... that is
most certainly not in any rational way far or reasonable... and yet it's
what conservatives routinely teach. So, insofar as you're talking about
traditional abuse of the word Justice by conservative Christians, yes,
it does become meaningless.
Do you understand why?
At the same time, I suspect that what is Just is not that difficult for the vast majority of us. We recognize that for a ruler/nation to punish someone for a lifetime for relatively minor crimes would be a travesty of justice. We recognize murder, rape, arson, abuse of innocents, assault, etc... to be offenses against justice. It's generally and broadly speaking, just not that difficult for most rational adults.
Admittedly, when it comes down to specifics, it can be trickier... what IS a just punishment for murder? Capitol punishment? Life in prison? Possible parole for good behavior? What if the murder was a woman killing her abusive husband? Same punishment or do the circumstances make a difference?
The details can be tricky and disputable and, to be completely clear, there are NO perfect answers. We don't have a perfect court or word from God that spells out the specifics of all the potentialities of what to do when someone harms another. But, nonetheless, generally speaking, it's not that difficult.
Stan (referring to a death penalty for eating the fruit in the garden in the Creation story)... "God thought so. We wouldn't. "
Stan thinks God thought so. But that's Stan's opinion and it's not a given and not proven.
IF the story is a mythic telling of Creation as
it appears to be at face value, then we aren't obligated to treat that
"punishment" as a literal suggestion that God thinks eating fruit
deserves a death penalty, which is irrational on the face of it. And
unjust as the word is defined.
Stan... "God considered adultery worthy of death (Lev 20:10); we don't."
Just to be clear: YOU, Stan, don't consider adultery (or talking back to your parents) to be worthy of death, do you? No answer forthcoming, I'm sure.
Stan...
"Perhaps you see, now, why simply "that which corresponds that what is
right" is something of an unhelpful definition for "justice" when we are
so deficient at knowing what is right."
Ah, and it comes down to
this. YOU are suggesting that we are "so deficient at knowing what is
right..." but you haven't proven this. It's an unsupported hunch on your
part. God has not said this. Reason does not demand it. It's what you
and your human tradition believes.
Do you recognize how this is correct?
Stan...
"His infinite perfections, infinite greatness, and infinite worth are
violated when we take it upon ourselves to circumvent Him."
Ah,
but what of those who never once decide to "take it upon ourselves to
circumvent God..."? The atheist and agnostic, for instance, who don't
believe the evidence supports a God are specifically NOT ever, not even
one time, trying to circumvent God. They just don't believe in God, so
they would have no reason to choose to circumvent God.
If they do
something wrong, it's never an intentional affront to God. At all. So,
by that measure (the one you're suggesting there), atheists can do no
wrong, it would seem. Does that make sense?
Also, what of all
those who DO love God and disagree with conservatives about how best to
follow God. We support the idea of aiding refugees and immigrants, of
abolishing the death penalty, of supporting a woman's right to choose,
of supporting women's rights in general, of supporting LGBTQ rights...
ALL in an effort to honor God and follow God's ways. There is zero
intention on our part to "circumvent God," even though conservatives
disagree with us on these points. But we're not beholden to
conservatives, are we? ...but to God, as best we understand God.
In that case, do you agree there is no intent to circumvent God... but instead, just the opposite?
Stan...
"If we understand sin like it is described in Scripture -- a violation
of God's glory, an assault on God's holiness, treason against the Most
High -- then lots of things change. Death for sin becomes reasonable."
1.
First of all, "scripture" LITERALLY never describes sin in those
terms... not that I can think of. Those are human interpretations of
Scripture, but literally NOT scripture. Just as a starting point, do you
recognize that?
(Briefly, in the Bible, there are two terms translated "sin..." The most common one, I'm told, is one that speaks of missing the mark - imperfection. Attempting to hit the target but falling short. That makes sense. We all recognize how we humans do that. The second, less-common in the Bible word is the notion of intentionally transgressing a law, going beyond boundaries that were set... neither of those ideas are comparable to "cosmic treason" or "an assault on God's holiness." Those are Stan's - and others' - reading into the Bible something that is literally not there.)
2. Even so, death does not "become
reasonable..." IF we are imperfect humans and we make mistakes and
choose wrong and do something God doesn't want us to do... HOW does
eternal punishment for being imperfect make rational, just sense?
It doesn't.
Stan...
"Christians who believe that Christ redeemed us by His blood (Rom 3:25;
Rom 5:9; Rev 1:5) are backwards, ignorant, and, basically, just as evil
as this god they believe in. Or, as I started to explain, they believe
in a different form of "what is right" and it is not consistent with
Scripture, history, or Christian doctrine."
That IS what much of
conservative evangelical history teaches, but it is ONLY what you all think Scripture teaches, it's not God's Word. It's your opinion of God's
Word, which many of us think is wrong for precisely the reasons you
cite here... You're relying upon your own interpretations which are, on
the face of it, unjust and unholy and irrational... which is, itself, an
indication that you've misunderstood and misinterpreted. Do you
recognize that distinction?
And if you can't answer them (and you almost certainly can't), then maybe it would be time to humble yourself a bit and take a step back, take a breath, open your eyes and ears to a fresh word from God... a Word that isn't so crazily irrational and unjust and unholy.
Stan... "Thus, the penalty for failing to meet that all-encompassing glory must be equal to the size of the failure. That's what corresponds to what is right."
???
Says who? And to be clear, I'm NOT disagreeing with God. I'm saying DID GOD REALLY SAY THAT precisely because I know the Bible and God did NOT say that. Any of that.
The Bible teaches of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God.
The Bible teaches of a God that wants ALL to be saved.
The Bible teaches of a God who has a table open to all, who saves by Grace, not by irrational fury.
The Bible teaches of a God who is patient and forgiving, who knows us better than we know ourselves and who loves us, just the same. BECAUSE God knows us perfectly.
It's an unhealthy, irrational and unjust human understanding of the Bible. A perversion of both God's great and glorious grace and God's justice.
Think about it: We have flawed, imperfect humans who sometimes make deliberate wrong choices, but more often than not, we make mistakes... We THINK it's right to oppose gay marriage, for instance, or we THINK it's right to support immigrants... and it turns out we're mistaken. Our point was to honor God and do the right thing. We're more often that not, I suspect, making errors from a place of trying to do the right thing.
Consider: What if STAN and his human traditions were wrong all along in their opposition and oppression of gay people? They didn't even realize they WERE oppressing gay people and causing harm (we conservatives have been, after all, but I know I didn't realize it at the time and no doubt, you don't realize it now)... but what if they were wrong? What if you were wrong?
Do you think that you, a human created as an imperfect human "deserves" to be punished "equal to the size of God's glory..."? How is that rational? Moral? Just? Biblical?
MAYBE, if we were perfect gods and everything we did, we did knowingly to cause evil... MAYBE then that would make sense. But imperfect humans being imperfect "deserve" a punishment as big as an almighty God??
You paint a rather petty and mean-spirited picture of a god who is irrational and unjust, by biblical standards.
Do you understand why or do I need to explain it to you? (That's a serious question, not meant to be insulting.)
More questions to Stan that will go unanswered by him or by conservatives, in general. At least, that has been my experience. I hope one day to find the conservative willing to wade into this and actually answer questions directly and rationally. I'm confident they exist... I just can't prove it, yet.
54 comments:
Part of the problem happening here is that Stan (and many conservatives) are wanting to say that IF we're just relying upon what we consider fair and reasonable, that we have a problem and there is NO WAY of agreeing upon what is and isn't just.
But Stan (et al) are not stopping there. The implication is (I believe, and they could always confirm if they'd just answer the reasonable question) that we DO have a way of "knowing" what is and isn't just and that way is the Bible. We have the Bible, they'd argue, to let us know what is and isn't just.
But they don't follow that through.
HOW do we know what is and isn't just because "the bible..."? There are lines saying Israel should execute adulterers and disrespectful children. Is executing people for those "crimes" in any way just or rational or moral? Or would it be a great evil?
I know what I think ("No, of course not. Don't be an idiot."), but I can never get an answer from them as to what they think.
Selling your children into slavery is allowed in those OT rules. Is selling children into slavery somehow Just?! Again, I say the answer is easy: No. But what is their answer? I don't know, they never say.
IF they give the obvious correct answers (No, it's not just to kill disrespectful children or adulterers for that "crime," and no, it's not just to enslave your own children - why does that even need to be a question?!), then the question is, "How do they know this? The Bible allows, even commands this." If "the Bible" is their source for knowing what is just and yet, they use their reason to say, "Well, but that isn't just..." then how are they any different than those of us who say we can reason our way to what is and isn't just?
IF they say, "Well, it was (somehow) just for ancient Israel, but it's not just for us..." how do they know that? The Bible doesn't make that distinction. It would be a conclusion that they're reaching using reasoning, not the literal words of the Bible. But if our reason is not sufficient for understanding justice... well, they're in the same boat the rest of us are in.
So many questions, so few answers!
As always, I stand ready to hear their answers should they ever want to try.
These aren’t conservatives, Dan. They are pre-Enlightenment extremists. They ignore cause and effect at will. They are in thrall to myths. They parse behavior because they fear a god who burns people at the stake.
They want to think they are conservatives because they know they need to smell good. But you and I both know true conservatives who are rational.
First, the INTENTIONAL LIE which your troll spewed and to which you are in agreement. You don't know conservatives who are "rational". Such people are in your good graces because of their irrational agreement with leftist stupidity to one extent or another. Those who crapped on Trump, for example, are now considered "rational" by irrational, low info, low intelligence people like the two of you. That's the first thing.
Secondly, with regard to your post, because I like to stick to the topic as best I can and not immediately go off on tangents or totally unrelated crap like your troll does, nothing changes. You continue to regard God as just some dude on the street who thinks like humans, particularly sub-humans like you and other fake "progressive" "Christians". But that's wholly untrue. As such, you've no standing, authority or Biblical support for supposing God must respond to sin as you do.
Stan's point is spot on. Each of us have our own notions of what "justice" is based on how we or those we know are treated in specific situations. Look at all the leftist bullshit regarding "justice" with regard to righteous police treatment of thugs resisting arrest and their violent, criminal responses. They pretend they seek justice. Well, setting aside using these cases as excuses to rob people with impunity and destroy private property, not to mention murdering random citizens at the same time...often in their own communities, meaning the victims are of the same race as the criminal rioters...there's nothing at all "just" about any of it except for the police and/or court response to the criminal behavior which provoked involvement of law enforcement. The crimes of these people are excused away by leftists. They believe they are balancing the scales of justice, as if honest, even mildly intelligent people are going to buy into that crap.
God was quite clear about behaviors are worthy of death. You want to argue that we don't put every perpetrator to death due to our own notions of justice, pretending God is speaking of physical death. While the ancients did indeed mete out such punishments on the direction of the God you reject, it demonstrates enough to where it should be quite obvious the God you reject is far more offended by sin than you are.
All your drooling about the God you pretend is real being one of mercy and love. The One True God is also, but on His terms, according to His tolerance for sin...not according to the personal beliefs of some Louisville buffoon like you.
Answer a few on topic questions, please, Marshal:
Do you think that it is just to kill adulterers? To kill disrespectful children?
Should you be put to death and if so, would it be just?
Marshal, a conservative whom I know, said... "You don't know conservatives who are "rational"."
...and doesn't get that he's insulting himself.
That may be true as far as you are concerned, Marshal. But I know other conservatives who ARE rational.
Marshal... "The One True God is also, but on His terms, according to His tolerance for sin...not according to the personal beliefs of some Louisville buffoon like you."
So... if God's justice is different and alien and entirely unknown to humanity, then presumably you are saying that YOU, as a human, don't understand God's justice?
Please answer directly.
While waiting...
Marshal... "the INTENTIONAL LIE which your troll spewed and to which you are in agreement. You don't know conservatives who are "rational". Such people are in your good graces because of their irrational agreement with leftist stupidity to one extent or another."
You really need to stop with the "intentional lie..." You're misusing/abusing the word and it's not a good thing.
I truly know conservatives (personally and others who I've read/listened to). I have no reason to doubt that Feodor does. Of course we do. We're humans in a world filled with conservatives (and liberals and everything in between and around). It's ridiculous to suggest we don't know conservatives.
And it's harmful to your side to say we don't know conservatives who are rational.
I think the point that you're trying to make is that conservatives that we know and have some level of respect for - even while disagreeing with them - are somehow NOT "truly" conservatives because you disagree with them.
It doesn't matter that they're opposed to abortion, that they believe traditional conservative Christian doctrine, that they vote Republican... for some reason - they're not supportive of Trump enough?? Who knows? - you don't consider them "conservative," even though clearly they are.
Thus, it's not a lie (and certainly not intentional) to say we know conservatives and we know conservatives who are rational.
Are you suggesting that George Will is neither rational or conservative? Or that he's not a rational conservative? How about John McCain? Liz Cheney??
NONE of those people are conservative? Or do you allow that they're conservative, but you think they're not rational?
This "intentional lie" thing of yours is just irrational and nonsensical.
Also, if you think they are not conservatives (!), DEFINE CONSERVATIVE.
If you think they are not rational (that is, they base their opinions and conclusions on reasoning), then explain SPECIFICALLY HOW they're "not rational..."? Do you mean they are not rational in any manner whatsoever? That they have NO reasoning capabilities?
You recognize how irrational that suggestion would be, right? We ALL have reasoning capability. We note that the stove top is hot and we can burn ourselves on it and we can REASONABLY conclude that we should not put our fingers on a hot stove top... We all know this because we can all reason. All of us. So you can't mean they're entirely irrational. So, what do you MEAN they/we are irrational? Because we don't agree with you on a certain subset of points, that this disagreement with Marshal means we're not rational?
You would recognize how irrational that claim is, right?
That we use our reason to take in and consider data and form conclusions IS rational, even if it disagrees with conservative thinking. You recognize that reality, don't you?
Okay, there's a bunch of rational questions for you to answer. Please answer directly as possible before making any further comments.
And since that's a lot at once, I'll break it down into the series of reasonable questions and you can answer them by number, as you have time.
1a. Do you think that it is just to kill adulterers? To kill disrespectful children?
1b. Should YOU be put to death (ie, were you ever an adulterer or a disrespectful child) and if so, would it be just?
1c. If you think that it's rational to say, SOMETIMES, it's just and good/moral to kill adulterers and disrespectful children, but OTHER TIMES, it's not just or moral, please explain what makes the difference.
+++++
2a. It sounds like you're saying that God's justice is different and alien and entirely unknown to humanity, is that correct assessment of your assumption?
2b. If so, then presumably you are saying that YOU, as a human, don't understand "God's justice?" ("God's justice" in quotes, to distinguish between that an ordinary human understandings of justice - it sounds like you're saying it's two different things...?)
2c. Are you saying that we - none of us - have any hope of understanding God's justice in any sense? To some degree, maybe?
2d. If some degree, please explain what makes the difference between not having ANY idea of what "God's justice" is and having SOME idea...
2e. Also, how much of an idea... like, do we have an INKLING... maybe 10% understanding of "God's justice..." 35%? And what are you basing it upon?
2f. IF you're basing it on the idea that God has a separate, distinct idea of Justice, do you see how it would be odd for such a Just God to create a Justice system that is not understandable?
+++++
3a. Are you suggesting that George Will is neither rational or conservative? Or that he's not a rational conservative? How about John McCain? Liz Cheney??
3b. Are you saying that NONE of those people are conservative?
3c. Or do you allow that they're conservative, but you think they're not rational?
3d. If you think they are not conservatives (!), DEFINE CONSERVATIVE, as you're using the term.
3e. If you think they are not rational (that is, they base their opinions and conclusions on reasoning), then explain SPECIFICALLY HOW they're "not rational..."?
3f. Do you mean they are not rational in any manner whatsoever? That they have NO reasoning capabilities?
3g. That we use our reason to take in and consider data and form conclusions IS rational, even if it disagrees with conservative thinking. You recognize that reality, don't you?
++++++
4. Finally, do you recognize that these are reasonable questions, given what you've said and appeared to claim?
"Do you think that it is just to kill adulterers? To kill disrespectful children?
Should you be put to death and if so, would it be just?"
These question totally ignore my points completely and by asking them, you're doing exactly what my points describe. You're "judging justice" on the basis of what YOU think is fair. My comment...if you actually read it like an honest person seeking to understand the different positions of others...clearly addresses these questions and any others like them. But I'll say it again in hopes you'll make a mistake and ponder the response for a change: What we do as humans in our various forms of society and government is not the same as what God does. What we as humans regard as a just response to behaviors by other humans is not the same as how God responds. We do NOT regard sin with the same level of revulsion as does God and your support of sinful behaviors is clear proof of that.
"But I know other conservatives who ARE rational. "
I addressed this as well. Didn't you read my comment at all? YOU know conservatives you regard as rational because they believe things you believe. That doesn't make them rational, especially if the beliefs upon which you and they agree are irrational, which no doubt they are, give what you are.
"So... if God's justice is different and alien and entirely unknown to humanity, then presumably you are saying that YOU, as a human, don't understand God's justice? "
OK. So now this is the third straight comment which indicates you didn't read my comment. And by "read", I mean seek to understand the clear and rather elementary manner in which I present my positions. I truly can't make them any simpler so that you can readily understand.
I NEVER said God's justice is different. Indeed, I've affirmed that repeatedly in past "conversations" on the same issue. My position is that you are clearly not averse to sin to anywhere near the same degree as He is. What's most frustrating is just what a simple to understand concept this should all be even to such as you with your poor comprehension skills. So let me try to dumb it down even further for you:
Most everybody has what is referred to as "pet peaves". These are behaviors of others which piss off particular people but not necessarily anyone else. Indeed, others may wonder just what it is about a given behavior which so pisses off that other person. It doesn't seem so bad to YOU. To someone else, it may not seem bad at all, even possibly desirable. While you scratch your ass and then pick your teeth with the same hand and have no problem doing so, your wife may choke back vomiting every time she sees you do it. Are you understanding this? Same behavior which is fine with you but disgusting as hell to her.
This is sin. You pretend some sins are worthy of death despite the fact that they still are, even if we who believe in the One True God have Christ Who already died for it. Thus, some sins we as a society don't punish with physical death, others we don't punish with imprisonment or fines, others are those for which we no longer kick someone out of the club. Yet, sin is still sin to God and He'll have none of it. This is Christianity 101. How could serious and prayerful study ever missed something so incredibly basic about the nature of God as revealed to us in Scripture?
I see that while I was responding to your original comments and questions, you've chosen to "redo" them. You'll have to make do with what I've already provided as a quick glance at your emboldened alternates aren't so different my responses won't suffice.
I'm not dealing with the issue of your poor understanding of conservatives here, except to say that John McCain had one of the lowest rating by the Conservative Union in the last 15-20 years of his disappointing career than most members of the GOP. I never needed to access their rankings to know he's not the best example of conservatism. You're not honest enough for it to matter.
"You really need to stop with the "intentional lie..." You're misusing/abusing the word and it's not a good thing."
You lefties like to believe yourselves to be the sole arbiters of language usage. This just makes it easier for you to INTENTIONALLY LIE. What's more, it was you who demanded I provide evidence of you penchant for lying intentionally. These emboldened words make it easier for you to find all those occasions where you lied intentionally. I'm using the same method for pointing out every occasion where you demonstrate your lack of understanding regarding conservatism.
Marshal is so fucked in the head.
He bizarrely continues to assume he knows us: "You don't know conservatives who are "rational." How does he know this? He lies.
He idiotically doesn't know the people of reason can disagree: "Such people are in your good graces because of their irrational agreement with leftist stupidity to one extent or another." Uh, no, they don't agree with me and neither do they use medieval alchemy to think the they know the world behaves according to Tarot cards. They use their reason to make arguments. This, Marshal cannot do, corrupted as he is.
And then he names Craig and Stan as OUR friends instead of his: "Those who crapped on Trump, for example..."
Marshal is so pathetic, so childish, and so very stupid.
re: "INTENTIONALLY LIE"
But you merely saying the words "INTENTIALLY LIE" is not providing evidence.
Tell me you understand this. It's important to me that you understand this.
NONE of what you are saying is "proof" of "lies" is either. They're just empty claims.
I don't know how to help you understand this.
As to the rest of your mostly non-answers to my questions... I'm pondering whether to leave them as a failed but good faith effort or just delete them and tell you to try again.
But let's make it easy:
HERE ARE THREE RELATED QUESTIONS I WANT YOU TO ANSWER DIRECTLY:
1a. Do you think that it is just to kill adulterers? To kill disrespectful children?
1b. Should YOU be put to death (ie, were you ever an adulterer or a disrespectful child) and if so, would it be just?
Saying THIS: "These question totally ignore my points completely and by asking them, you're doing exactly what my points describe. You're "judging justice" on the basis of what YOU think is fair."
...is NOT AN ANSWER TO THOSE QUESTIONS. And saying that is meaningless. I'm not JUDGING ANYTHING with those questions. I'm asking YOU a question for YOU to answer. Directly.
IS IS MORAL AND/OR JUST TO KILL A DISRESPECTFUL CHILD AND/OR AN ADULTERER?
Is that a difficult question for you to answer? If so, why?
I can answer it easily: By rational considerations of justice, KILLING a CHILD for being disrespectful to their parents would not be just. It would be a great evil. WHY? Because the definition of Justice includes a reasonable, proportionate response to wrong-doing. KILLING A CHILD (do I need to even say this??!!) IS WRONG. PERIOD.
Answer. Last chance. Just answer that question.
Marshal... " What we do as humans in our various forms of society and government is not the same as what God does. What we as humans regard as a just response to behaviors by other humans is not the same as how God responds."
And I entirely GET that this is what you are saying. Without proof. Without support. Without any way of PROVING these claims. It's an empty claim. BUT, what it is NOT is an answer to the question that I asked.
Would you prefer if I ask: Do YOU think that GOD THINKS that it is moral and just to kill a child for being disrespectful or to kill an adulterer? ...okay, you can answer that question, but THEN, answer the question as asked.
Marshal... " What we as humans regard as a just response to behaviors by other humans is not the same as how God responds."
When I learn that a man rapes or sexually harasses a woman or group of women - when a man makes jokes about grabbing women by their crotches and forcing kisses upon them - I am repulsed. I am sickened. I am outraged. I would never support such a man, especially if he were unrepentant about his gross outrages and dangerous assaults and his cavalier way of laughing about it and laughing about getting away with it!
I am sickened.
I am angered - outraged.
I am furious.
I am disgusted.
Do you think God responds differently? How so? Be specific and give support for your claims. Prove it with data.
OR, admit that you can't. That this is just another empty and unsupported claim.
For my part, as humans made in the very image of God, as I believe, I think we DO get a sense of the sadness and anger and bitterness that God feels when perverts prey upon women or girls, for instance. I have no reason to believe that God might think something different about it.
I mean, do you think that God is delighted when a man rapes a woman, whereas we are disgusted and angered? I think we and God are of one mind on that point.
Do you think that God is feeling something other than anger and outrage and sadness and compassion for the victim of sexual predators like your favorite pervert?
Prove it.
Marshal... "I NEVER said God's justice is different. Indeed, I've affirmed that repeatedly in past "conversations" on the same issue. My position is that you are clearly not averse to sin to anywhere near the same degree as He is."
Prove it. It may or may not be true, but prove it, regardless.
Marshal... "sin is still sin to God and He'll have none of it. "
Prove it.
I hope you get the point. These are empty claims. As if you were speaking for God. Which you're not.
God has not told you (in the Bible or otherwise) that God will have "none of it" when it comes to "sin" (or, perhaps more importantly, what MARSHAL thinks is a sin, which is not provably the same thing that God thinks is a sin...).
"Sin? I'll have none of it!" Is not a biblical verse.
“For the Son of Man has come to seek and save that which was lost.” That IS a biblical verse.
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." That IS a biblical verse.
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." That IS a biblical verse.
"While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples." That IS a biblical verse.
"go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Amen and amen, that IS a biblical verse. Perhaps, Marshal, you should learn what this means... I desire MERCY, not sacrifice... for I have come to call sinners." Imperfect, flawed, messed up humans. What some might call, "sinners."
"Marshal... " What we do as humans in our various forms of society and government is not the same as what God does. What we as humans regard as a just response to behaviors by other humans is not the same as how God responds."
And I entirely GET that this is what you are saying. Without proof. Without support. Without any way of PROVING these claims."
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)
“Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me, (Isaiah 46:9)
I'm surprised with all your alleged serious and prayerful study, verses like these are foreign to you.
"Would you prefer if I ask: Do YOU think that GOD THINKS that it is moral and just to kill a child for being disrespectful or to kill an adulterer?"
I would prefer you stop asking me the same question over and over again which I answered in a variety of ways crafted to help your infantile mind understand. But then, it's not a matter of your mind being so underdeveloped, is it? It's your moral character which is. But I'll answer...AGAIN: God believes such sins are worthy of death. We know this because He told us so in Scripture. But that's not the same as God looking for Christians to do so now. I would say He'd rather we didn't, and should some reprobate insist on a sinful lifestyle or practice, HE'LL deal with it in His own good time...as He'll deal with all of us.
"When I learn that a man rapes or sexually harasses a woman or group of women..."
Look here! ANOTHER INTENTIONAL LIE! You've never learned any such thing. What you've "learned" is that some have made allegations, but you have no proof because none has ever been offered, found or given.
"when a man makes jokes about grabbing women by their crotches and forcing kisses upon them - I am repulsed. I am sickened. I am outraged."
And clearly very proud of yourself...unless it's Joe Biden who is accused of ACTUALLY forcing himself on Tara Reade in that very way...INCLUDING grabbing (actually sticking his fingers up) her crotch. Then you'll dismiss it, vote for him, and insist you've chosen a better man...which would be hilarious if it hasn't harmed the nation so badly.
"Do you think God responds differently? How so? Be specific and give support for your claims. Prove it with data."
Well, I've already provided data proving God is not like us and doesn't think like us. He most certainly doesn't think like YOU! But it's not surprising you ask this question after providing an example of physical assault, as if that's the type of sinful behaviors we were initially discussing to illustrate our worlds-apart beliefs about God's justice. But that won't work, Dan. I'm not you or your troll. You'll have to maintain a semblance of honesty in your discourse. You know...embrace grace and all and not try to pull this kind of shit in hopes it won't be recognized for the kind of shit it is.
And then you go on to double down on this crap for the rest of the comment. All the while ignoring the point, which is that God's justice doesn't necessarily satisfy an asshat like you. By the way...I'm fully cognizant that God doesn't like me calling you and asshat, though I wouldn't wager that He disagrees. But you again wish to believe it's all about the act, rather than sin, and depending upon how you think you can "win" which you've so badly lost long ago, you'll switch between minor offenses (to us) and the most egregious (to us). Hell...that's like INTENTIONALLY LYING given the manner in which you play this game of yours.
So I've done all you've asked of me, answered every question you asked me a million times already and for which you've gotten unassailable answers you can't debunk if I helped you do it. All that's left for you now is to delete me, because you certainly don't have the honor and integrity to admit you've been schooled and that your understanding of basic Christian teaching is wholly lacking.
I, still, take up so much room in his head. Blocked for years for writing the same things you write, Dan: pointing out how imbecilic his attempts at thinking are; how brutalizing is his view of god's creation and god's beloved humanity. But he cannot deal with me because he too often has been stripped by me of any veneer of decency or ideas he oozes.
So, he has play fantasies of killing me, of erasing my wife from his horizon of seen things... because I and my life and my love for black people offends his need to have faith in white supremacy. His god is his hate.
You shouldn't give him a field to say anything he says, Dan. Letting evil speak is always retarding and regressive. Engaging with him in dialogue is never, ever, progress. You just offering the opportunity to him to weave a narcotic picture that his poison is normal.
"If I'm a government official and it is decided that we are better off killing anyone who calls himself "feodor", then as an agent of the state whose job it is to uphold the law, it is indeed moral in that capacity. "
The trials of Nuremberg, where the US and the collective West decided the morality of such a claim of protection from being guilty of crimes against humanity, definitively established his kind of conscience as evil.
But Marshal insists on being a Nazi follower. He is an armchair terrorist. A self turned slug.
I've gone over this post and its subsequent comments and have no doubt you're still not getting these simple-for-everybody-else-to-understand responses. So I thought I'd try again on a few points. From the post itself:
Regarding the definition of "justice"...
"It is not currently defined as "WHAT I consider fair and reasonable..." It has always been what the culture at large considers fair and reasonable. Nothing is shifting there."
Who's culture? Ours? Islams? Just the distinction between these two cultures proves Stan's point. Even the distinctions between sub-cultures proves the point. Clearly, the culture of your beloved LGBT people differs from that of Bible-believing Christians (to distinguish between them and "Christians" like yourself). That LGBT culture believes speaking truthfully about them is just about criminal and they would seek "justice" against some who do so. Indeed, they try to enact their perverse understanding of justice when they invade Sunday services to protest teaching what the Bible says about their sexual behavior.
So even between these three or four groups of people, we can clearly see human subjectivity with regard to what justice looks like, how and when it's applied, despite the very real likelihood that each group defines it in exactly the same way. That's because the behaviors for which "justice" might be sought are not as offensive to each group to the same degree, or for the morally bankrupt, not offensive at all.
It's the same with God. While you continue to try and submit there's some difference in definition, my position regards the difference in how one feels about a given behavior and thus whether or not perpetrating that behavior is worthy of one degree of punishment or a greater degree, or even no punishment at all. YOU don't regard sin in the same way God does...be it specific behaviors, or sin in general. Too bad you don't get to decide, isn't it? I'll bet you could teach God a thing or two.
"Like, for instance, saying that a human who has committed 1000 typical "sins" (no murder, rape, arson, grand larceny, etc... more of the gossiping, slander, lying, etc sorts of sins) "deserves" to be punished for an eternity of torture/torment... that is most certainly not in any rational way far or reasonable... and yet it's what conservatives routinely teach."
Proving once again you don't understand conservatism...or you do and are now purposely corrupting conservative opinion in order to disparage it, rather than to honestly argue against it, which is common with you. Conservatives don't speak of "typical" sins when speaking of God's justice. We speak only of sin. It is sin which God abhors, and all of His law details examples of sin, with clear indications of severity as understood by attendant punishments assigned to them. However, even this doesn't mean that one is going to hell for murder or for engaging in homosexual behavior. These acts indicate rebellion against God. It's really a matter of "one is either with God or against God". If the former, there's life. If the latter, death. Another basic Christian teaching. Thus, "typical sins" don't deny one what rebellion deserves, unless one has accepted Christ, who died for us so that no sin we've committed will be prevent us from a seat at the table, so long as we repent of it and are remorseful for having offended God.
"Stan (referring to a death penalty for eating the fruit in the garden in the Creation story)... "God thought so. We wouldn't. "
Stan thinks God thought so. But that's Stan's opinion and it's not a given and not proven."
That's not Stan's "opinion". That's Stan presenting the clear teaching of Scripture which you reject on the basis of worshiping unreliable science over the Word of God. Is the Genesis story pure myth? No way to know. None whatsoever, except for those who play fast and loose with when the supernatural can be accepted as having affected the physical world and when it won't be in order to push a narrative. You can't use the natural to explain or debunk the supernatural.
"The Bible teaches of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God."
You pretend to believe this, but ONLY on the basis of what YOU insist constitutes a perfectly loving, perfectly just God. That is, if YOU don't think a punishment of eternal separation from God...torture and torment or not...is perfectly just and loving toward those who are NOT in rebellion, then by golly there's no way God could be like that. That's called "a false god"...an "idol" you've created for yourself.
"The Bible teaches of a God that wants ALL to be saved."
Sure. God wants that none should perish. What in that makes you think no one will? Do you really think it will be only Hitler and those whose actions in life were as egregious, while nothing less than that will deny one entry into eternal life? On what basis? Where's YOUR support for this if it reflects your position as it seems to?
"You're relying upon your own interpretations which are, on the face of it, unjust and unholy and irrational... "
Stan repeats what is clearly taught in Scripture. You refer to it as "your own interpretation which are, on the face of it, unjust and unholy and irrational" because it offends you personally to believe what is true...NOT because you can actually argue against it with facts and evidence from Scripture. As such, you have less to back up opposing what Stand says is true than he does in expressing what is true. "That's your own interpretation" is NEVER followed by an actual explanation which more accurately clarifies the meaning of a verse or passage on which someone like Stan expresses an opinion. It's "Nyuh uh" and nothing more. Hardly persuasive.
"Just to be clear: YOU, Stan, don't consider adultery (or talking back to your parents) to be worthy of death, do you? No answer forthcoming, I'm sure."
Why would you think it matters what Stan thinks about any given behavior? You obviously expect that Stan should agree with you regarding that which offends God. If it doesn't offend YOU enough to put someone to death, then God shouldn't, as if God answers to you. Here's an idea: don't commit adultery. Don't dishonor your parents. Don't engage in homosexual behavior. You may have a strong desire to do all those things and find nothing all that wrong with any of them. But it ain't about you and what you believe, yet that's exactly what your position on this issue clearly proves: God must bend to Dan's notion of how serious sin is and judge and sentence no one more harshly than Dan would.
Good luck with that.
Marshal, I'm still waiting for you to answer directly the questions asked of you. While I'm waiting, let me point out a factual mistake you've made.
You said... "What we as humans regard as a just response to behaviors by other humans is not the same as how God responds."
I responded by noting that that's just an empty claim, one that you haven't and can't support. You responded by pointing to a couple verses, pulled out of context. One of those verses was from Isaiah 55.
First of all, neither of those verses says that God says that we don't understand Justice. They just literally do not say that. And it certainly doesn't prove that claim.
Do you understand that?
Secondly, do you know what Isaiah 55 says? Are you familiar with the text in context?
Here are the verses leading up to your proof text pulled out of context...
"Come, everyone who thirsts,
come to the waters;
and he who has no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price.
Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread,
and your labor for that which does not satisfy?
Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good,
and delight yourselves in rich food.
Incline your ear, and come to me;
hear, that your soul may live;
and I will make with you an everlasting covenant...
Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call upon him while God is near;
let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the Lord, that God may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for God will abundantly pardon.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord."
Who is God speaking to in this proof text of yours?
Is God literally saying all of humanity doesn't understand Justice as God understands it?
Literally, no.
In this text, God is speaking to the wicked, those who would oppress Israel... those who would oppress the poor and marginalized.
God's way of Justice, then, is one where the poor are welcomed and share in the food and good things. And in this passage, they are eating and drinking for free. Eating and drinking the good things.
This is a just solution to hunger, in this text. The presumption then, is that we CAN understand Justice. It is to follow the way of God... to align with the poor and hungry and provide free food and drink.
And in this text, EVEN THE WICKED are invited to join, but they're invited to join when they recognize and understand God's ways of Justice and free welcome for all.
For THE WICKED don't get this... but God expects that EVEN THEY can.
Thanks for providing this passage.. If ever there was a passage for you and modern evangelical conservatism, this is the one. Listen to the actual message of the verse that you quoted.
Congratulations are due to Stan and the goons. They played the fool and helped kill people. They lie when they think they’re pro life.
“People living in counties that voted for former President Trump in the last presidential election are nearly three times more likely to die from COVID-19 than those who live in counties that voted for President Biden, according to an analysis conducted by NPR.
For its analysis, NPR looked at about 3,000 U.S. counties and the deaths per 100,000 people since May 1, 2021. The news organization found that individuals living in counties that voted for Trump by at least 60 percent had 2.7 times the death rate of counties that voted for Biden at the same clip.
Counties that went to Trump by a higher percentage had higher COVID-19 mortality rates and lower vaccination rates, with the rates lowering as Trump's vote share increases.”
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/584468-people-in-pro-trump-areas-have-ben-nearly-three-times-more-likely-to-die?amp
"First of all, neither of those verses says that God says that we don't understand Justice."
That's just peachy. Good thing that's not the reason I submitted them. What's more, I've NEVER said "we don't understand Justice". NEVER. Not even so much as hinted it. So, are you trying to INTENTIONALLY LIE here, or am I dealing with someone who just won't freakin' actually read what I post?
"Secondly, do you know what Isaiah 55 says? Are you familiar with the text in context?"
Thanks for the context. You such a help in providing evidence supporting my position. Of course, you corrupt the passage with your socialist message, which is not at all the point of the passage. It has absolutely nothing to do with wealth and poverty. How can anyone buy without money or some form of barter? It isn't speaking of material things here. Good gosh you're tiresome with your marxist view of the Text you've never truly studied seriously or prayerfully.
What follows is a commentary on the verses in question. This chapter refers to repenting and turning to God. Where you emboldened a section bears this out nicely right there.
https://godisopen.com/2017/05/05/isaiah-558-9-commentary/
This link is notable in two ways:
First, it wrongly disagrees with Grudem's position regarding the verse I posted. Nothing which follows suggests in any way Grudem is wrong in his commentary. Within the context of the chapter it still is clear on the vast difference between mankind and God. Though there's no better example of that fact than you, Grudem simply states a simple truth: God is beyond our full understanding and you are sorely lacking in that regard (He's got you pegged, and that's for sure!)
The second notable aspect of this commentary is that it is saying the same thing Stan and I have been saying, but with regard to the other side of the justice coin, particularly as regards the Isaiah verses I provided. That is to say, while you whine that God would be unjust to punish people for what offends Him far greater than offends you, this chapter speaks of how He is willing to forgive for a level of transgression most humans wouldn't. It's telling us that despite how Israel has turned from God, God is providing opportunity to turn back to Him, all offenses water under the bridge.
This harkens to Craig's obvious conclusion that you're more than willing to accept how we're overly rewarded for accepting and abiding God's will, you can't handle the logical opposite for rejecting Him. To use an analogy akin to one you've used, just as a mother wouldn't kill or torture her child for eating cookies before dinner, she wouldn't set him up in a mansion with all his needs met for life for abiding her demand about not spoiling his dinner. But that's because the mother simply isn't so offended by the infraction and rebellion to consider it. God's not like the mother. Sin doesn't roll of His Holy Back as it does some people, especially "progressive" "Christians".
So you've totally crapped on another teaching of Scripture in order to further your leftist narrative, while ignoring the clear and plain teaching it provides...so obsessed you are with other people's money. This passage is in no way evidence in support of Dan Trabue's comedic lessons on the Bible and Economics. But then, you lefty's routinely miss the point.
Dan... ""First of all, neither of those verses says that God says that we don't understand Justice."
Marshal... "That's just peachy. Good thing that's not the reason I submitted them."
But THAT is what I was asking for when you offered those verses.
I'll remind you what YOU said when I asked for support...
MARSHAL: "What we do as humans in our various forms of society and government
is not the same as what God does.
What we as humans regard as a JUST response
to behaviors by other humans is not the same as how God responds."
To which I responded...
"I entirely GET that this is what you are saying.
Without proof.
Without support.
Without any way of PROVING these claims."
You responded to my saying you had NO PROOF of the claim that God doesn't consider Justice the same way we do by offering those verses.
So, to be clear: You NOW ADMIT that you have NO PROOF that God doesn't consider justice the way we consider justice?
And finally, don't say ANYTHING ELSE until you answer these questions:
Do you think that it is just to kill adulterers? To kill disrespectful children?
Should you be put to death and if so, would it be just?
ANYTHING ELSE will be deleted.
AFTER you answer those reasonable questions, you can answer this question:
You NOW ADMIT that you have NO PROOF that God doesn't consider justice the way we consider justice?
Nothing else. Nothing else. Just answer the questions or move on.
Marshal... "Grudem simply states a simple truth: God is beyond our full understanding and you are sorely lacking in that regard"
I've never said that an everlasting omnipotent God is something we can fully understand.
What I've said is that we can reasonably understand Justice. Not perfectly, not fully, but reasonably.
You may also answer this question:
DO YOU AGREE that we can reasonably understand Justice?
Marshal... " Of course, you corrupt the passage with your socialist message, which is not at all the point of the passage." (Isa 55)
1. I never said anything about socialism. Fact.
2. I merely cited the context of the passage from which you pulled a quote out of context.
The passage BEGINS (as so much of the bible does, in context) with:
"Come, everyone who thirsts,
come to the waters;
and he who has no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price."
And eventually makes the point with God saying "your ways are not my ways..."
I pointed out WHO it was that God was speaking to. Was it all of humanity?
Literally, no.
It was specifically those who had LEFT God and needed to RETURN to God and God's ways. And what were God's ways? A way of welcome for the poor and marginalized... and even for those who'd left that teaching... WHEN they repented and returned to God.
The point being: God is NOT saying "Humanity doesn't understand my justice or my ways..." God was fully expecting those who'd LEFT God's ways to RETURN, the point being that they COULD understand.
There is nothing "corrupting" in my citing the passage in context and making clear that it's not speaking of God's justice not being understandable to humanity.
No need to respond. Just pointing out how this is not a factual claim on your part.
Wait a fucking minute!!!
I said, "What we do as humans in our various forms of society and government is not the same as what God does. What we as humans regard as a JUST response to behaviors by other humans is not the same as how God responds."
To which you responded...
"I entirely GET that this is what you are saying.
Without proof.
Without support.
Without any way of PROVING these claims."
My subsequent response was the two Isaiah passages which clearly support the truth of my contention, which is that God is not like us, doesn't think like us and ultimately, doesn't respond to sin...of any kind...like us. Hence, I've literally, absolutely, directly and unequivocally proven my truth claim. It's easy when one is actually presenting "truth" in a "truth claim". Try it sometime.
"You responded to my saying you had NO PROOF of the claim that God doesn't consider Justice the same way we do by offering those verses."
So clearly, you were expecting proof of something I wasn't saying at all, but what you need me to say because you can't confront what I did say. Got it. But what I've been saying consistently is that justice is not defined differently regardless and you want to continue arguing what I'm not saying and haven't been saying...in any way, shape or form.
"So, to be clear: You NOW ADMIT that you have NO PROOF that God doesn't consider justice the way we consider justice?"
I now admit...reiterate, actually...that I never...EVER...suggested, asserted, claimed or even accidentally claimed such a thing. Thus, I cannot give you an answer to a question which accuses me of something nothing in any of my comments implies, insists upon or demands. Got it, Sparky? I just can't dumb it down enough for you. It's like I'm talking to some mentally challenged foreigner who doesn't understand plain English!
"Do you think that it is just to kill adulterers? To kill disrespectful children?
Should you be put to death and if so, would it be just?"
Why do you keep asking me these stupid questions? What does my notion of justice between me and my fellow man have to do with how sin offends God and why do you continue to evade, deflect and ignore that very point on which my entire position is based? "Just" isn't the proper question anyway. "Appropriate for the crime" is better. I think it's an over the top position to take, absolutely. It doesn't mean they're not worthy of death by God's standards, does it? Prove that it does. Which is a good point...when are you going to prove God acts and thinks and is offended by sin exactly like Louisville "progressive" fake "Christians" like you?
"You NOW ADMIT that you have NO PROOF that God doesn't consider justice the way we consider justice?"
I NOW REITERATE I have never attempted to make this argument, and thus what makes you think I'd have PROOF of an argument I not only never made, but never considered as worth making? Is this getting into your pointy head at all, Dan? I'm not obliged to prove what I never said. I'm not obliged to admit not being able to prove what you need to believe I said. Try focusing on my actual words and comments like someone who isn't prone to INTENTIONAL LYING.
Nothing else. Nothing else. Just my ACTUAL words and comments. Not those of your fevered, hateful imaginings.
"DO YOU AGREE that we can reasonably understand Justice?"
Yes, but it's wholly irrelevant to anything I've been saying, yet you consider to pound away at it. You may as well demand I prove broccoli tastes better than Brussels sprouts though I've never taken that position, either.
It's pretty clear. I can no longer deny it, though I've been hoping and praying for years. When "conversing" with you, I'm dealing with a complete moron.
Marshal... "which is that God is not like us, doesn't think like us and ultimately, doesn't respond to sin...of any kind...like us. Hence, I've literally, absolutely, directly and unequivocally proven my truth claim."
1. No one is saying that IF there is an infinite, everlasting, almighty God, that this God is beyond us, at least in some ways.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
2. But, you citing a verse, ripped from context, doesn't PROVE that there is a God or that God is beyond us in every way. It's just you citing a verse from a text that some people take seriously and others less so or not at all. A verse from the Bible doesn't PROVE anything except that there is a verse in the Bible that says THIS...
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
Regardless,
are you agreeing with me that God's Justice (ie, "justice" - I don't pretend that God has some different justice than we do) is reasonably understandable to us?
Given that, do you think it is unjust to kill a disrespectful child or an adulterer?
Are you saying it's evil and unjust for US - human governments - to do this, but it's "just" if God does it?
If so, are you saying it was unjust for Israel to do it?
Thus, are you saying that the action of killing a child for being disrespectful is not, itself, immoral... it just depends on who's doing the killing and why?
Marshal... "when are you going to prove God acts and thinks and is offended by sin exactly like Louisville "progressive" fake "Christians" like you?"
1. I haven't said that.
2. When are you going to prove that God has some difference in how God responds to injustice than we do?
3. Do you recognize that you have NOT PROVEN THIS?
sigh.
A. Okay. So we are AGREED that you and I can reasonably understand God's justice... or justice.
B. We are agreed that, while God may be beyond our total understanding, humans can generally agree about matters of justice, broadly speaking.
C. We are agreed that when God is quoted as saying "My ways are not your ways" God was not saying that we can't understand justice, reasonably speaking.
Is that correct?
Then...
D. Are we agreed that it is NOT just to kill adulterers or disrespectful children, even though there are lines in the bible that call for that?
E. Are we even agreed that it would be a great EVIL to kill adulterers and disrespectful children?
F. Do you suspect that something that is UNJUST and EVIL for humans to do, MIGHT be "just" and "not evil" somehow if God did it? Even if you can't prove it, do you think this?
G. Do you acknowledge that you can't prove it?
H. What if God commanded people to do what is otherwise unjust and evil... would it be copacetic then, and not an atrocity of justice and morality?
I. Do you think that God might do or command something that is, on the face of it, evil and unjust?
J. Oh, also, do you agree that the passage in Isaiah 55, in context, is quite clear that we CAN understand Justice and that God is calling for us - even the disobedient ones - to understand justice?
There's something seriously wrong with you. I believe it starts with your moral corruption.
D. No. It's not wrong for us to kill adulterers or disrespectful kids regardless of what God commanded His people to do in ancient Israel. Whether it's right or wrong for us to do that has nothing to do with what God commanded His people to do in ancient Israel.
E. No. The best we can say is that in our culture, we have no mandate to enact punishments that severe for such offenses...and I'm assuming you're referring to government actions for such offenses. That's an important distinction, because though we do have death sentence laws for, say, murder, we as individuals are proscribed from such a response. This response is based on the fact that not all people feel the same about the degree of evil of any given behavior. So while you might think it's OK to engage in a given behavior, others might find that behavior immoral and a detriment to society worth prohibiting. Such prohibition will provoke consequences established to dissuade people from engaging in those behaviors. That's how civil law works.
F. Yes. We've seen it in Scripture. Mere vengeance is evil and unjust for humans to exact, but not for God since vengeance is His.
G. See my response to "F". It represents all the proof an honest person would need.
H. Yes.
I. I don't spend time wondering what God "might" do as a means of defending my position. But anything God wants is fine with me. I don't have to like it.
J. No. It suggests a lack of understanding about how God operates should be a given. You've never provided anything to support your position as you're now stating it here. but that's because you don't understand the passage. You think it's about poor people. It's about turning to God.
F.
No, it's not unjust to kill disrespectful children and adulterers, nor is it immoral.
Is that what you want your answer to be?
Were you a disrespectful child? Did you have sex outside of marriage?
Do you think it would be moral and just, then, to kill you?
Answer directly, just to clear up your very disturbing answers you've already given.
You apparently believe in a disturbing, unjust and evil little god who would command what is evil and unjust and say, "But I said to do it, so it's cool..."
How sick.
Dan... "also, do you agree that the passage in Isaiah 55, in context, is quite clear that we CAN understand Justice and that God is calling for us - even the disobedient ones - to understand justice?"
Marshal... "It suggests a lack of understanding about how God operates should be a given. You've never provided anything to support your position as you're now stating it here."
I've been saying that we humans can REASONABLY understand Justice. You SOUNDED like you were saying we couldn't (as when you cited the passage about "my ways are not your ways" which is NOT saying that we can not understand justice). When I note that, you have repeatedly insisted that you ARE NOT SAYING that we can't understand justice.
Do you understand how it's confusing what your position is?
MY position is that, once again, WE HUMANS CAN REASONABLY UNDERSTAND WHAT JUSTICE IS.
Do you disagree with that or not?
My position has been that God does not have some secret, unknowable arcane idea of Justice that we can't understand.
Do you agree with that or not?
Make yourself clear. Answer questions directly.
Answers that are not direct, clear answers to the questions asked will be deleted. I've given you plenty of wiggle room so far. It's time for direct and clear answers.
Really, Dan? You're going to let him get away with fantasizing killing me?
Marshal... "I. I don't spend time wondering what God "might" do as a means of defending my position. But anything God wants is fine with me. I don't have to like it."
Nor do I spend time wondering about what God might do. A good and loving God will act in a good and loving manner. I don't HAVE to wonder, "Will God command somebody to rape children or execute adulterers..." because it's beyond the pale of what a good God would do.
You appear to allow that your god might command atrocities and that's in your mind.
I don't have that sort of confusion about those sorts of things and thus, I don't spend time wondering about it.
This is the problem with the literalists' position: Their god might command ANY kind of action - slavery, rape/forced marriages, selling children, etc. Such a god is not a god of morality or justice, but a god of capricious whimsy where ANYTHING might go.
Feodor, I can't find whatever fantasy of Marshal's you're talking about.
As to the general wisdom of letting conservatives like Marshal make comments... My goal is not always (or ever, really) to change their position. My goal is to AIR their position, expose it to the light of day (within guidelines). If they want to engage in reason, then they can try to answer the questions I'm asking and I'm often confident that they can't reasonably answer the questions, given their faulty presumptions.
BUT, if they could answer questions and demonstrate something I haven't understood, I've gained some knowledge. If not, then their refusal to answer questions directly - or their inability to do so - exposes flaws in their reasoning.
It also helps me think through how to raise questions like this in other conversations. Every odd answer or non-answer they give helps me understand my position in a more clear manner.
This is why I try to get the Marshals of the world to answer questions and engage in dialog.
"Nor do I spend time wondering about what God might do. A good and loving God will act in a good and loving manner. I don't HAVE to wonder, "Will God command somebody to rape children or execute adulterers..." because it's beyond the pale of what a good God would do."
Clearly you DO spend time wondering such things, because rational people don't wonder if God might command them to rape children. The thought never comes to mind for rational, honest people who actually study Scripture.
"You appear to allow that your god might command atrocities and that's in your mind."
No...that's not it at all. This is something you project upon me despite countless explanations provide by me which would be easily understood and accepted as normal by any honest person. To suggest that I love the Lord so much that I would do anything He commands without question is not at all a suggestion He might command me to do any of the vile things which you suggest when failing to understand this most simple of concepts. Most of Christianity refers to this concept as "obedience to God". Given your many rejections of so much He has commanded, I can see how this is confusing for you.
"I don't have that sort of confusion about those sorts of things and thus, I don't spend time wondering about it."
And yet, you're the only one I ever seen who conjures these vile behaviors and considers that God might command them. Kind belies your above statement quite plainly.
"This is the problem with the literalists' position:"
No. This is only YOUR problem. While I rarely take the time to read anything from your troll, I haven't even seen him go down this path! Indeed, it's solely YOUR problem based on your shame when dealing with those more devoted to God and studied in His ways to the extent Scripture has revealed them to us.
Marshal lies about his own lies.
Marshal... " To suggest that I love the Lord so much that I would do anything He commands without question is not at all a suggestion He might command me to do any of the vile things..."
DO YOU THINK GOD commanded enslaving people in the OT?
We know your answer to this is Yes.
DO YOU THINK GOD commanded Israel to take captive the orphan girls of the enemy, saying that Israeli men could marry them if they wished (ie, forced marriage, ie, rape)?
We know your answer to this is Yes.
And so, we can see that, FOR YOU, even enslavement of people and forced marriage are not great evils in and of themselves, AS LONG AS God commands it.
And we can see that you think God might command it.
Where am I mistaken?
If I am not (and I'm sure I'm not because we've discussed this in the past), then no need to respond. I don't want to see you spew words saying that enslaving people or forced marriages are somehow not great evils.
I don't want you to make the suggestion that a good, loving and just God would command people to do great evil.
Marshal... "Most of Christianity refers to this concept as "obedience to God"."
Just to be clear: "THIS CONCEPT" you speak of is listening to that which you think is a god speaking to you, commanding you to do even great moral atrocities like enslaving people or forced marriages... and THAT concept is what rational people call delusional thinking and, taken to the degree of enslaving people or forced marriages, it's potentially dangerous.
A "god" who has TRUE believers who can justify enslavement, forced marriages, stupidly false claims about elections, groping and oppressing women and being an utterly corrupt and shadowy "business man..." that "god" has some potentially dangerous believers.
Hell, they might even believe that the second coming of JFK, JR will come to lead a corrupt pervert to power.
Oh, wait... that's already happened.
Marshal, you have questions to answer.
DO YOU THINK GOD commanded enslaving people in the OT?
DO YOU THINK GOD commanded Israel to take captive the orphan girls of the enemy, saying that Israeli men could marry them if they wished (ie, forced marriage, ie, rape)?
You can't ignore the questions and then attack other comments/questions without clarifying these earlier questions first.
In the meantime, Marshal...
"You don't want to face the FACT that nothing God would or could ever demand of us would be evil because He commanded it."
So, this makes it SOUND LIKE there are no objective clear rights and wrongs. It's not wrong to enslave people IF GOD commands someone to do it... that's suggesting that you don't think that it's wrong to enslave people. Or forcibly wed (rape) someone.
You see, rational people don't think of the notion of a Good and Just God where there is NO SENSE of right and wrong, just the whims of what an amoral god happens to say to do or not to do.
Do you understand why this is problematic?
Do you understand why it sounds like you're calling for an amoral notion of a god and worldview where there is no right and wrong?
Your need for visible condemnation of and superiority over Marshal overrides your ethics. Think about what that means.
For the second time:
You shouldn't give him a field to say anything he says, Dan. Letting evil speak is always retarding and regressive. Engaging with him in dialogue is never, ever, progress. You are just offering the opportunity to him to weave a narcotic picture that his poison is normal.
"If I'm a government official and it is decided that we are better off killing anyone who calls himself "feodor", then as an agent of the state whose job it is to uphold the law, it is indeed moral in that capacity. "
The trials of Nuremberg, where the US and the collective West decided the morality of such a claim of protection from being guilty of crimes against humanity, definitively established his kind of conscience as evil.
But Marshal insists on being a Nazi follower. He is an armchair terrorist. A self turned slug.
As to deleting you: I'm giving you a space to interact with them, since they don't. However, I may well limit that at some times, just for clarity and the point of the topic.
As to a comment that says, "And now you're deleting me..." that post itself is not adding anything to the conversation. Yes, I've deleted you and I've deleted Marshal for off topic comments or for wasting time with words that aren't adding to the discussion or for not answering questions.
You've made your point with "and now you're deleting me..." I don't see any reason to leave those words up.
As to "giving him a field to say anything..."
I disagree with that theory.
Like it or not, we have a nation where a full 30-40% (or more, and give or take, depending on the topics) of people who think like Marshal. Because of bad election laws, this minority has an oversized voice. It's wrong, but it's the reality we live in.
I can pretend like this sizable minority doesn't exist while they keeps getting elected to office (thanks to the aforementioned bad election policies) and keep setting policies that further give them an out-sized voice. I don't think that's an effective way of dealing with this sizable minority. We HAVE to find a way to expose their bad thinking, reasoning, policies and actions and letting them speaking - with some constraints - serves that purpose.
It allows rational citizens to point to the error in their reasoning and the danger in their thinking and thereby be in a better position to deflate their over-sized influence.
Feodor... "Your need for visible condemnation of and superiority over Marshal overrides your ethics."
If a Christian says that God sometimes is okay with slavery and enslaving human beings isn't, in and of itself, immoral, THAT is a dangerous philosophy. It's unhealthy and irrational.
I think it's fair to point out that philosophy for what it is.
It's part of why I ask questions and hope for these fellas to answer them. Because, inevitably, the answer points to such sick, irrational and dangerous principles. In some cases (people I know of personally), seeing such conservative thinking and reasoning taken to the point of answering these questions, seeing those answers exposes the fatal flaws of such modern conservatism.
Indeed, it was conservatives espousing these sorts of philosophies and principles that drove me from conservatism (or what's become of modern conservatism...) I didn't change because I listened to liberal arguments complaining of conservatism. It was conservatives like Marshal being irrational and even dangerous.
Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know what the right answer is. But I lean towards exposing irrational thinking to the light of day.
It's not about pretending like they don't exist. It is, rather, acting as if they don't have the right to falsely yell, "Fire", in a crowded theater.
You're allowing it. And, thereby, giving them the feeling of credence. Together with your need to see your moral superiority in print.
Marshal wants to erase my wife from the fact of who I am: because he cannot abide reality. You "said" to him that that was not acceptable. But here he still is; and there you go to his site. He play fantasizes like he had a right to kill me. You deleted it and kept on going.
You value your adversarial relationship with him higher than your limit for brutality toward decent people. You have stricken your own credibility. Because you need an outlet. A sacrifice. A target of your anger at hate.
I understand. But perhaps we shouldn't.
Marshal... ". I will not answer these kinds of questions again since you're not interested in truth and reality, but only in your fake god."
You WILL answer these reasonable questions if you want to comment here.
Marshal... "You continue to ignore the answers given to these loaded questions..."
Enslaving human beings and forced marriage/rape are great moral evils. Period. Asking someone if they think that God might command someone to enslave another or forcibly marry/rape someone... it's not a loaded question. These are rational questions.
That you want to be vague and obfuscation does not make a reasonable question loaded. That you are uncomfortable answering a rational question because it makes you sound irrational does not make it loaded.
Answer the questions directly.
Marshal... "If God commands it, it can't possibly be evil."
THIS is why my questions are reasonable. If we can agree that a good God would not command evil actions, and if slavery is a great moral evil, THEN God wouldn't command it. Right?
Answer the question.
Marshal, as to comments like this... "to ask again is simply to forge ahead with your Scripture-hating agenda. You don't care about the context in which these issues come up in the Old Testatment."
And this... "asked as if you actually care about truth and mature, adult conversation. You don't. You care only about agreement with your perversions."
And this... "I know you're a fucking moron..."
etc... I've been quite patient and mostly ignored your overly combative, irrational attack comments like this. I'm asking you to stop with them. Not because they hurt my feelings or anything like that, but simply because it's a childish and irrational and hyper-emotional (on your part) way of trying to communicate. You can do better.
Do better.
Post a Comment