Returning to earlier comments and questions from Craig on his blog...
The question then becomes,
since all of those things are completely dependent on how they are perceived by humans, isn't it possible that two people can see the same thing and reach conclusions about YHWH that are complete opposites?
Yes, of course it is. It happens all the time.
If so, then how does YHWH revealing Himself in such a subjective way actually reveal anything about Himself?
If we are OF/FROM God, "created in the image of God's own Self," "a little lower than God's Self," with "God's Word written upon our hearts (metaphorically speaking)," then why would we not expect some notion of understanding God within us? Just as I can understand something about my parents from my DNA, I suspect that we can understand something of God from our own psyche.
Indeed, CS Lewis (and others) even cite this "God within us" and the sense of morality generally shared amongst humanity as one of the evidences of a Creator God.
I suspect that your problem is with the "vagueness" of these various ways. You ask...
Is there no standard available for us to measure against?
No.
Just, no, not that God has ever told us about. As a point of fact, God has never said, "HERE is THE Standard to measure against. The SOLE SOURCE for understanding me, God, and my Godly ways." God just hasn't done that.
On the other hand, God did say (or Jesus and the biblical writers, anyway) some version of
Love is the way to recognize God and God's way and God's people.
That's probably the closest thing to a Sole Standard we find in biblical text.
“By this all people will know that you are my disciples,
if you have love for one another”
~Jesus
"We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us.
God is love,
and the one who remains in love
remains in God, and God remains in him."
~Paul
But alas, Love, too, is subjective.
But this returns us to an earlier problem I've raised with you all:
EVEN IF "the Bible" was THE SOLE standard for recognizing God and God's ways, for recognizing Christian faith and practice, to WHOSE interpretation will we be able to reliably appeal for a ruling?
Some of us Christians recognize the great glory and love in straight and LGBTQ folks allying together, supporting each others' humanity and that of God within them, supporting the rights of LGBTQ family just as we support the rights of straight folk. We, on our side, recognize this as Godly and biblical and reasonable and moral.
Other Christians, as you know, have historically NOT accepted LGBTQ folks rights, to marry, who to date, whether they can raise children, to recognize their own gender, etc. To them, none of that is biblical or Godly.
EVEN IF the Bible were the SOLE authority, WHO DECIDES? Which set of fallible humans are understanding God and God's ways correctly?
Or, some Christians accept SS as biblical, others don't. WHO DECIDES if SS is biblical or reasonable or not?
We have not been given an arbitrator or decider to make such calls. When we HAVE had people assume that role in the past (the Pope, for instance), many of us have objected to that human's presumption in appointing themselves the Decider.
So, to return to answering your question: NO, we've been given no assurance of a Sole Source and even if we did have that - which we don't - we're still at a loss of a Decider to say, "Yes, that is the correct understanding of this Sole Source." Which raises the reasonable question: If a Sole Source of text to decide things comes with NO Authoritative Interpreter, is it really a Sole Source for understanding? Certainly not for perfect understanding.
Jesus and the early church all taught the very reasonable (ie, it appeals to that of God in all of humanity) line of "If we LOVE, that is of God," and "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," and, even more briefly, "Love God, Love humanity." THAT is THE MOST reliable source we have, both from a reasonable point of view and a biblical point of view.
You want a Sole Source? How about this:
One of the [Pharisees], an expert in the law,
tested him with this question:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied:
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
37 comments:
- Is there no standard available for us to measure against?
-No.
Again, Dan, you’re too far out over your skis.
Christian faith begins in believing that Jesus is god and rose again as the living Christ. And then the commitment to following Jesus as the standard is the foundation of Christian life.
I don't understand your point.
I'm saying that the Bible speaks of no "sole standard," in any clear, direct way. And that the closest to that may be the standard of Love... which, in my view, equates with following Jesus, as that is what Jesus taught. What are you suggesting?
The NT has one standard for Christians. And it isn’t scripture. Scripture is a witness of and testimony to the one standard. Scripture is the primary authority as a witness and as testimony. But equally authoritative is what came before: the oral tradition passed down over generations and deliberated and debated upon and constantly brought to consensus in the councils of the church as the Christian community’s understanding of the core gospel message.
The secondary authorities of reasoned reflection and spiritual experience by the body of Christ brought new understandings. Under the guidance of the Holy Sprit and with the capacities of spiritual experience and reasoned reflection, generations in the church grew in faith.
But you and Craig are speaking past each other because both of you have misplaced the central focus of Christian faith. The one standard by which Christian life is to lead and to which all authoritative sources point (and none of them point to themselves.)
“I, therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.
But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it is said,
“When he ascended on high, he made captivity itself a captive;
he gave gifts to his people.”
(When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.)
He himself granted that some are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.”
Okay.
I generally agree with you and don't have much to add. Don't mean no disrespect.
In the anabaptist and baptist worlds (and others), we have the notion that all Scripture should be interpreted through the lens of what Jesus taught. That is, if Jesus is "the son of God," and then perhaps the best representation of what God thinks, then it makes sense to treat his direct words and teachings with utmost importance. I tend to agree and this seems similar to what you're saying, if I understand you correctly. Truth be told, I don't always understand what your point is, but you speak in ways that seem to be generally something I agree with.
I grew up in the Churches of Christ, one of the distant, American agrarian heirs to the anabaptist movement. Radical Protestants all, along with Craig’s Presbyterianism, Marshal’s Disciples of Christ, and whatever ultra strain Stan and the fake Scot are.
What you do not understand in my position is the sacramental theology that is foundational to the ancient and historic churches prior to Zwingli and John Calvin and John Knox. A sacramental theology believes in the reality of what all Christians believe: Jesus is the Son of God, human and divine, born of a woman, who suffered, was crucified, died and buried, rose again from the dead on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
If one believes that, one must pay attention to it: Jesus is alive as the living Christ. Today.
Therefore it is senseless to say what protestants say and to which you referred: 1. Jesus IS [no past tense] "the son of God," and 2. confine oneself to “his direct words and teachings” in scripture and think that’s the best representation we can access.
If Christ is alive, then how much higher is the living Son of God as a representation of the godhead than a Bible? Infinitely higher.
But, how can we experience this living Christ if not in the medium of the Bible? Well,
read the Bible: “when I go I will send the Spirit to abide with you” and “whenever two or more of you gather I am with you” and “do this in remembrance of me”.
The one, true, catholic, and apostolic church believes it gathers as THE living bodyguard of Christ and worships Christ the Son and God the Father through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit by participation in the sacraments of the Mass: the sacrament of the Word and the sacrament of the Eucharist. And Christian life is initiated, sustained, and ordered by the additional sacraments of baptism, confirmation, anointing of the sick, marriage, and ordination.
Sacramental christians believe we do indeed meet Christ by the power of the Spirit throughout a life lived surrounded by these sacraments plus all the other sacramental ways in which outward and visible manifestations of god’s life if grace meet us. Family, friends, all relationships… clearly for you a walk in the woods, music, your client population. And etc.
If the living Christ speaks to us - as guided by life in communion with the Spirit and bound with the body of Christ as the church - then how exceedingly paramount is the whole message presented to us! This hearing of the life of god within us and surrounding us in all of life and lifelong must frame how we read scripture (“wow, so god even offers the promise FULLY to Gentiles!/Africans!/gay and lesbian!/non-binary!) how we compose the gospel for ourselves (By his divine power, he has lavished on us all the things we need for life and for true devotion… through these, the greatest and priceless promises have been lavished on us, that through them you should share the divine natur”), and how we individually interpret our own reasoning and mystical experiences of god - for we must submit our own personal witness to that of the whole body of which we are a part. Jesus is with us in a particularly authoritative way when we gather (“two or more and I am with you”).
This is the mystery of Christian life that the thugs reject. It scare them. Deep faith scared them. They are frightened children frightened if the world which God made and blessed and lives. This is the mystery of Christian life that, frankly, seems alien to American cultural Christianity. We are thoroughly a protestant culture that Protestantism’s everything: sectarian judgments and fetishizing privatized individualism.
___
"You have not seen him, yet you love him; and still without seeing him you believe in him and so are already filled with a joy so glorious that it cannot be described; and you are sure of the goal of your faith, that is, the salvation of your souls. This salvation was the subject of the search and investigation of the prophets who spoke of the grace you were to receive, searching out the time and circumstances for which the Spirit of Christ, bearing witness in them, was revealing the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow them. It was revealed to them that it was for your sake and not their own that they were acting as servants delivering the message which has now been announced to you by those who preached to you the gospel through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even the angels long to catch a glimpse of these things."
1 Peter 1: the Bible is not mentioned or necessary. But life together through the centuries IN the Holy Spirit, is.
Conclusion and last note to you unless there are questions: we don’t need an Enlightenment-based textual critical study of scripture for the church to be moved in the Spirit and realize new things that contravene our inherited understanding of god’s will. Doubtless modern scholarship is a godsend and an incalculable help. But to drive theology and spirituality from a text-critical position is to remain bound to a book and remain binding god in a book.
Peter and the Jerusalem church were stunned to be confronted by the Holy Spirit with the news that the promises of Jesus Christ were offered to all Gentiles as well. This experience led Paul and Peter and the rest of the NT Jewish writers to reread and reassess the Hebrew Scriptures in a much different light and to see god’s relationship with Israel as told there to serve as a typology of god’s plan for the whole world. Jesus himself said he had a new commandment.
This is what the church - at its best - has done down through the centuries. You and I see faithful gay and lesbian and non-binary and all the historically marginalized folks tell the gospel story better than ever. And so, scripture has to be reread, refreshed if it is to serve as a living sacrament: an outward and manifest sign invested with the authority to signify the presence of god in Jesus Christ.
Oops, una mas: when Craig objects to the Holy Spirit guiding us to full accept our “sinful” LGBTQ+ family, he shows that he doesn’t read the NT, his “sole” authority. He doesn’t realize through Acts and the letters of Paul how very hard it was for Jewish christians to accept the blaspheming, unclean Gentiles into the body of Christ. But in the end, they had more faith in god than scripture than he does.
Again you make arguments which require knowledge of Scripture to make, especially given your many citations from Scripture.
Now try making those same arguments without Scripture. You can't do it. So while you desperately try to dispute SS, you continue to rely on Scripture as your sole authority. Better evidence of the truth of SS would be hard to find.
Marshal walks around without his head. Marshal tries to point to churches who throw out scripture and ends up with his finger in his ass.
Marshal, there are two kinds of theologies:
1. The original kind: tradition wrote scripture and christians with god created minds employ reason and experience in the ongoing interpretation of Christian revelation and faith in the world.
Tradition
Scripture
Reason
Experience
… all an array of authoritative (God given) resources supporting the human capacity to co-participate with god (2 Peter 1 doesn’t say “read”, it says co-create) by the power of the Holy spirit in communion with the living Christ to live the life of love that redeems and perfects all of god’s creation.
2. Your kind: 16th century slavery to a book in order to feel better and less fragile. You think a thing made of leather and ink is a god. You wouldn’t make it across Sinai.
Marshal in response to your observation that whole denominations have realized the spiritual wholeness of LGBTQ+ folks: “What is sinful is not a matter of personal opinion.”
Marshal doesn’t know the difference between personal and vast majority. That’s why the raging right cannot tolerate democracy.
By Marshal’s thinking, if the Jewish christian elders in Jerusalem couldn’t accept Gentiles, then that would have been ok. But Peter and the handful of elders - at least according to Acts, scripture, which those thugs claim to respect - were shocked by the movement of the Holy Spirit… after Jesus was gone.
Marshal...
Now try making those same arguments without Scripture. You can't do it.
We should love and treat others as we'd want to be loved and treated. That is IN the bible, but it's also a fairly universal notion that does not need the Bible to recognize the sense of it.
If we don't like being abused, enslaved, mistreated, beaten or otherwise bothered, then it makes sense rationally that we would not do that to other people. The ONLY way to secure a less hellish (not in any "biblical" sense, for what it's worth) life on earth is to work for a world built upon mutual respect and common decency. This is true regardless of what the Bible does or doesn't say. Indeed, biblical authors wrote in a world that slavery was not seen as a great evil and injustice, but we don't NEED the Bible to note that slavery is a great evil and wrong. It just clearly is for reasons of a sort of Golden Rule notion that, again, is beyond the Bible.
So, while I can appeal to that of God within all of our minds and lives WITHOUT the Bible to defend the notion of not enslaving people, it becomes more difficult if you are only relying upon some rather literal or "inerrant" tradition of reading the Bible.
I’m in Stan’s head rent free in his latest post. My response:
“What would be the point in having a religion that is not reliant on an established document?” Uhhh… faith? Replaced those tablets according to Paul.
It’s not what is written in stone, Stan. That’ll only given you a heart of stone. As it clearly has done. But in your case, pulped paper.
Do you know the passage, Stan, written in you idol book? Where it says things written down serve the Holy Spirit, not vice versa? And life in the Holy Spirit - you wouldn’t know this - is freedom: a life with god cannot be ruled by a binding and red ink.
You should read the whole chapter. And pray for understanding. You are far, far from the Spirit of God: whom Jesus said he would send to abide with us when he left, and who would teach us even more than he did. He didn’t say book.
“Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Surely we do not need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you or from you, do we? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by all, and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are human hearts... our qualification is from God, who has made us qualified to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life….
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.”
My further note to Stan:
So, where is the Word, Stan? Don’t say it’s foundationally in different versions of English language translations from a hodgepodge collection of papyri that don’t absolutely agree (and none of which contain the whole) and printed on acid-free paper bound in imitation leather and mass produced by software run by for/profit companies. What a ludicrous idea. What a choice for an idol. You wouldn’t have made it across Sinai.
Choose a holy God. And choose a holy foundation for faith. Faith is not a belief in something that can be seen. What is the Word? Where is it?
Read Holy Scripture, again, Stan. It POINTS away TO the Foundation! That! is why it is Holy.
“Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that “the person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that comes from faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say?
“The word is near you,
in your mouth and in your heart”
(that is, the word of faith that we proclaim), because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe[b] in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart, leading to righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, leading to salvation. The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
___
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
Ongoing revelation is simply the life of God with us - God’s grace - and revelation is communicated to us by the Holy Spirit. And the Spirit ain’t 1. Dead, or 2. Trapped in a book.
Craig has once again activated a number of strategies white people use when confronted with truths they are to fragile to dialogue with:
- divert
- deflect
- deny
- disassemble
- lie
- double down on the lie
- myth make
Among these, today I’m especially pointing out his myth making. Craig claims I’m spending a lot of time writing things that no one reads. Looking at Craig’s blog… for years now… who shows up? Marshal and Dan. For a grand total of 2. And yet Craig will write 500,000 words going in endless circles. “I have to wonder how bereft someone's life must be if you invest extensive amounts of time doing what amounts to nothing.” Lying to oneself in such a deeply disingenuous fashion is only a little less worse.
In the past few days, who has openly responded to me? Stan, Marshal, Craig, and Dan. Only one of whom is honest. The first three have only snark and duplicitous disparagement as thin cover for their deceptions. They fear to actually engage with me.
I think, Craig you and I both believe that lying is a sin. And lying because you need to divert from things you’re too fragile to bear? Gutless as well.
It may be that scriptural witness to the primacy of the Holy Spirit - whom the Son and the Father sent after Jesus ascended - who abides in, as Jesus promised (with no word about the primacy of scripture)…
… has undone them.
Their own idol points to a higher authority, an authority who is no less than god, who is with us and guides us as the gathered body of Christ: we, WE who by faith and divine love are empowered to co-participate with God in divine activity in this world. The Bible isn’t given such an exalted, glorious partnership.
I'm with you on all of that, Feodor.
And in response, they say things like this...
I think that you are both correct about the reason for trying to move Christianity away from it's foundational documentary basis.
Ie, they make up myths about our supposed reasons for "trying to move Christianity 'away' from it's [sic] 'foundational documentary basis...'"
They try to hard to convince themselves that people can't simply be disagreeing with their opinions, they create this mythology about their "adversaries," that involves us having these vile, evil, deliberate intention to destroy the world, to eat babies, to traffic children, etc, etc. You'd think they'd be embarrassed by these amazingly stupid false claims and attacks which are wholly unsupported by reality.
It's like someone daring to disagree with their human opinions and traditions totally undoes their ability to reason like adults in any sort of respect, supported manner.
What a strange phenomenon.
"We should love and treat others as we'd want to be loved and treated."
By some, perhaps, but clearly and obviously not by all, nor was it ever in universal usage. It still isn't. Certainly many who do not abide it recognize it as a sensible concept, but that doesn't insure one actually implements it in practice. But the question, then, is why would one? If one is powerful, has the clout, one can act as one wishes and call it wise or good. Who can rebut such a person except another with more power at his disposal? Again, even with sources like Scripture and others you regard as more important, there still exists many who do not abide it at all, seeing what pleases and benefits themselves as all they need for determining right versus wrong. Scripture exists, and like you, they reject it when a more personally pleasing alternative provides them profit in some way. Happens all the time. Thus, you mention of the Golden Rule is superfluous as it doesn't do anything to rebut the premise.
"If we don't like being abused, enslaved, mistreated, beaten or otherwise bothered, then it makes sense rationally that we would not do that to other people."
Again, I could do what I like if you are impotent in preventing me from doing it, and I can respond to anything from you which displeases me by killing you. Without an outside source for moral behavior which I regard as authoritative and binding as a result, I can, like you, do as I please and call it good. I can even call it Godly or Christ-like. Who can argue against me who is incapable of stopping me from acting as I choose? You're not making the case. Not even close.
"The ONLY way to secure a less hellish (not in any "biblical" sense, for what it's worth) life on earth is to work for a world built upon mutual respect and common decency."
You're making self-serving assumptions here, particularly that others would feel life is hellish in a world where they can force their will on others without fear of reprisal they couldn't handle. It happens all over the world now with Scripture and other tomes of moral teaching. It's all irrelevant to the point of what stands as the ultimate source.
"Indeed, biblical authors wrote in a world that slavery was not seen as a great evil and injustice, but we don't NEED the Bible to note that slavery is a great evil and wrong."
As indicated at Craig's, and can be confirmed with a simple Google search, that's not in the least bit something about which there is universal agreement. Without Scripture, that's just your opinion so many others do not share. Do you think such people view themselves as evil? Obviously, if they did they would stop enslaving people, yet...
What's more, I maintain the contention that you are the product of a generally Christian culture (despite your blatantly anti-Christian being) which has come to reject slavery as a sinful institution. I fully doubt that you would feel the same if you lived in the time of your own slave holding ancestors.
"So, while I can appeal to that of God within all of our minds and lives WITHOUT the Bible to defend the notion of not enslaving people, it becomes more difficult if you are only relying upon some rather literal or "inerrant" tradition of reading the Bible."
Wrong on two counts, since 1) you're again acting as an agent of Scripture due to the culture in which you were raised, despite your personal corruption of Christian teaching, and 2) doing right is far easier relying on the teachings of Scripture without the corruption those like you impose upon it, without rejecting parts which have no personal appeal as you do and with as total a devotion to God as I can muster. You presume all people are Godly at heart, but you do so because of your understanding of Scripture. You continue to bolster my position, rather than diminish it in any way. Thanks. You're a pip.
Marshal asks a reasonable question and then, unknowingly, provides the answer in his next question...
But the question, then, is why would one? If one is powerful, has the clout, one can act as one wishes and call it wise or good. Who can rebut such a person except another with more power at his disposal?
WHY would someone live a "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you?" life and code of morality?
Indeed, if someone IS temporarily more powerful than you, they can do much harm. Who could rebut such a person but another person with more power.
And there will always be people with more power.
Do you get it?
For anyone with some measure of power and a willingness to abuse it with no concern for decency or scruples or respect for humanity (see your corrupt pervert president, for a clear and obvious example, or his buddy, Putin), they can INDEED get away with abusing others. For a while.
But those people have people in their lives - children, aunts, grannies, loved ones - some perhaps with a disability, some who perhaps live in dangerous regions of the world who might wish to use their self-determination to escape to safer locations... AND those "powerful people" themselves are only powerful temporarily. AND their are always other powerful people to deal with...
Given the reality that ANYONE with powerful has connections to those with less power and are only possessing power for a limited time - there will come a time when THEY are the ones with less power. Or one of their loved ones will be in a position of having less power. What then?
In a corrupt, vile "might makes right" worldview, YOU or your loved ones will eventually get oppressed and dumped upon, beaten and abused. And that would be universally true. That system makes for hell upon earth. Opting to dump toxins in streams because it helps your company (and thus, you) get richer and hell, you don't live in those ghettos that are getting polluted, so what do you care? That kind of idea only works well for anyone for so long, but eventually, you're the one (or someone you love) is the one receiving the short end of that hellscape.
It's just so ultimately extremely irrational, from a self-interest point of view, even if you're an extreme narcissist or sociopath. But here's the thing: We all have that of God within us. CS Lewis argues that the notion of right and wrong, good and bad that is universal to humanity, albeit imperfectly, is part of the evidence of a Creator God. But there is no evidence I know of that says most people don't care about other people, even people they don't know. We ALL hate seeing an abused child, a molested woman, an oppressed people. It sickens nearly all of us to see it happening (to one degree or another). So, given that most of us are NOT narcissist/sociopaths, it's just so extremely reasonable, this Golden Rule life.
Do you disagree?
Do you think God/Jesus is promoting a basically irrational worldview in the Golden Rule? Or when Paul says of the "pagans,"
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."
Do you think Paul was mistaken?
We are an imperfect people and we, collectively, have managed to commit all manner of atrocities, sometimes in the name of supposedly trying to do good. But we are also clearly a people (humanity) who have an innate sense of morality, of right and wrong, of justice. You can't read the Bible or look at the world and come to any other conclusion. I mean, how many people do you personally know who are committed to being "bad..."?
At any rate, we all recognize - nearly all of humanity's religions and philosophies - the basic rational and moral nature of the Golden Rule.
Marshal...
Again, even with sources like Scripture and others you regard as more important, there still exists many who do not abide it at all, seeing what pleases and benefits themselves as all they need for determining right versus wrong.
The reality is that, for those who love Scripture and for those who are ignorant of it, there is always and always have been people who misbehave and who choose temporary pleasures even when it causes harm to others. But that we are an imperfect people who sometimes choose to be selfish and even to commit harm does not mean that this basic notion of morality is not something that exists.
C. S. Lewis argued that "conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver." Now, I don't think that ultimately, Lewis' argument that this "proves" or "suggests" a creator God doesn't necessarily hold up to reason, but the point here is that many very traditional philosophers, as well as the Bible's teachings itself, accept the reality that moral notions are common to humanity.
Do you disagree?
Marshal theorizes...
I could do what I like if you are impotent in preventing me from doing it, and I can respond to anything from you which displeases me by killing you. Without an outside source for moral behavior which I regard as authoritative and binding as a result, I can, like you, do as I please and call it good.
I think you are flatly wrong and I don't believe the data supports suggesting anything like that this would be commonly found in humanity. I think, by and large, people recognize, "Why, if I kill Dan, it will horribly grieve his family and loved ones. And really, ultimately, WHY would I KILL Dan? What does it gain me? A momentary impulsive childish desire to strike out against someone who has merely displeased me?"
The problem is that, IF one's ultimate moral framework is merely "I don't want to be punished by an angry god or gov't or relative, so I won't kill Dan," that is a rather childish and irrational/hyper-emotional framework. I believe that research has and will show that the best moral framework is that with an internal locus - that I don't want to hurt Dan because I THINK IT IS CLEARLY WRONG to take such an action.
And rules/punishment-based rules might be advisable for the more troubled or childish amongst us, it's just not an effective tool for creating a more genuinely moral community. Threats of prison or the death penalty, even, have not been shown to curb murder, crime.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
cont'd...
Look, the world population is practically 8 billion. There are 400,000 murders a year (presumably, some are committed by the same person, but let's assume that there are 400,000 murderers. That's .005% of humanity. That means that 99.995% of humanity - who ALL get very angry at other people at times - manage to recognize, "Hey, still, it would be wrong to kill that jerk."
Now, it may well be that they may be deterred somewhat by the fear of being caught, as opposed to not truly wanting to kill the person who angered them. But the thing is, there just is no real data to support a claim that most of humanity would murder someone absent some rule system. In cultures without policing or Christianity or common religions (!Kung, for instance, and others) murder is no more common for them - and often MUCH lower! - than for policed and religious societies. Why is that?
Do you have some evidence that speaks to what their motivations for being LESS murderous than policed and religious peoples?
https://www.rewild.com/in-depth/peace.html
You presume all people are Godly at heart, but you do so because of your understanding of Scripture.
I presume that all people generally have that of goodness and decency in their hearts because it's observable and demonstrable.
As a person who is a follower of the teachings of Jesus, I believe all people have that of a good and decent God within them as it is a scriptural teaching found throughout the Bible that is supported by the hard data of basic observation.
But in that case, Scripture is just supporting what is rationally seen in the real world. If, on the other hand, there were interpretations of Scripture that weren't matched by the reality of the world (for instance, the flat earth or young earth human traditions), then I would reject those understandings of Scripture because they just don't matched observed reality.
See the difference?
I believe in a perfectly good and just God with ALL knowledge. I therefore do not view God to be irrational or unloving or unjust. Therefore, I believe that any human religious theory that is debunked or at least raised into serious question by observable reality we should be wary of. Irrational religion/religiosity should be a red flag.*
* With the caveat that of course, some can question the rationality of loving one's enemy, for instance, or of rescuing your enemy from danger when they will just arrest you afterwards and we can play with the rationality of specifics... but I think generally speaking, this is true.
First, let me thank you, Dan, for welcoming me to write down my christian witness here at your blog. It’s very nice of you.
Regarding your last exchange with Marshal, it becomes obvious that Marshal refuses to see human people through the eyes of Jesus, even though his idol book tells him to do so throughout the NT. Jesus loved all human beings. Marshal, a law before faith guy every time (which according to Paul is merely killing off faith and live by law) will always want to make the OT covenant great again because Gods sanctioned so much brutality in order to establish an “exceptional” nation state. This is what he and the other thugs do in order to hold on to their brutality when we point out that the only people Jesus had harsh words for was 1. Religious extremism; 2. Rich people; 3. People making bank off of hustling the poor; 4. The power hungry.
They gate Jesus for that but cannot become conscious of their hate. So, back to old covenant they go. Damn any new commandments Jesus may give.
So, I’m Marshal’s life to say people have good hearts is only to assent to what he can only assent to: it’s written down somewhere. Marshal has no intent to live by these kind of words in his idol book. Because when one worships an idol, one had a way of taking the idol as a part of self. An idol never challenges the ego. Because it nots real. Marshal says people are good like Trump says he didn’t urge a violent insurrection: it’s just the thing to say.
1. Religious extremism; 2. Rich people; 3. People making bank off of hustling the poor; 4. The power hungry.
Amen, amen, amen and amen. And back to the Old they go, indeed. Or at least, their interpretation and understanding of the Old covenant.
"Marshal asks a reasonable question and then, unknowingly, provides the answer in his next question...
But the question, then, is why would one? If one is powerful, has the clout, one can act as one wishes and call it wise or good. Who can rebut such a person except another with more power at his disposal?
WHY would someone live a "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you?" life and code of morality?
Indeed, if someone IS temporarily more powerful than you, they can do much harm. Who could rebut such a person but another person with more power.
And there will always be people with more power.
Do you get it?"
No. Because nothing you've said addresses the point I was making, nor does it do a darn thing to further your position that Scripture isn't the ultimate sole authority for understanding God and His Will. And I don't see what you mean by my second question answering the first. It's a continuation of the first.
What's more, what if by doing unto others as I would have them do unto me, that includes punching me in the face if I say stupid things like you do. That would mean I'd be justified in punching you in the face when you spew your drivel if I expect that everyone would correct me in the same manner, wouldn't it? Indeed, I've heard manifestations of this all my life..."Honey, if you see me start to act like Fred, kick me."
"For anyone with some measure of power and a willingness to abuse it with no concern for decency or scruples or respect for humanity..."
You're presuming such people see their actions as an abuse and disregard for decency and scruples. You're presuming the culture in which you were raised is the same culture in which that person was raised and/or they see the manner in which they interact with others as wrong, yet do it anyway. As such, you continue to manifest an understanding drawn from the sole authority for understanding human behavior as God would have us understand it.
"In a corrupt, vile "might makes right" worldview, YOU or your loved ones will eventually get oppressed and dumped upon, beaten and abused."
Which has nothing to do with anything as regards their worldview and how they regard the morality of their actions. They obviously disagree with you and me about what constitutes right behavior and base it on a distinctly different position. You think them immoral, they regard you as moronic for not taking what you can and doing what you want.
It's really quite simple, in a world where there is no Scripture, there is only the belief that being harmed is wrong more than harming, except when one feels unable to prevent being harmed. In the latter case, agreements are sought to prevent being harmed by agreeing that no one should harm anyone and then this is regarded as moral or right. But it's purely subjective and thus subject to change as circumstances dictate or allow.
In the meantime, a reliance on Scripture indicates one acknowledges morality is objective, already set and thus one's behavior follows it, rather than morality following behaviors legislated to ward off harm.
Gotta go.
that includes punching me in the face if I say stupid things like you do. That would mean I'd be justified in punching you in the face when you spew your drivel if I expect that everyone would correct me in the same manner, wouldn't it?
If your point is that people with mental disordered thinking that includes self-harm and irrational abuse means that the Golden Rule doesn't work so well, yes, you're correct. For the narcissists and sociopathic types who accept and embrace violence and who don't care about basic decency, you're correct. Disordered thinking of this sort IS a problem for the way of the Golden Rule.
Fortunately, this level of disordered thinking is an irregularity in the population at large. The point would be that the Beloved Community would be able to overrule the tiny minority of those with such disordered thinking. This however, depends upon people at large not being prey to being conned by the irrational disordered thinking of folks like this.
To the degree that people can be conned by such emotional-stunted people is the degree that the Putins, Trumps and other narcissists can get away with abuse and harm. All the more reason to embrace and grow the Beloved Community through education and mutual support and being community, one for another.
Fyi: Malignant narcissists are about 1% of the population. The trick is not reinforcing the delusions and power of such troubled thinking. One problem is that there are people willing to go along with those with such tendencies, sometimes being fooled by their cons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism
Likewise with sociopaths, who are about 3% of the population. The thing is that, with both of these disorders, they are often disabled by their disorder to a degree that they are not anything like convincing to the vast majority of people. The trick is that there are the occasional "high functioning" malignant narcissists and sociopaths and they can be, to some, convincing and even charming.
The key is to pay attention and not be fooled by them.
"If your point is that people with mental disordered thinking that includes self-harm and irrational abuse means that the Golden Rule doesn't work so well, yes, you're correct."
It's not "disordered" to oppose stupidity so strongly that one would hope to corrected in the clearest manner possible. But you go ahead and do your "grace embracing" lying about the meaning behind my words which only exists in your God-hating mind.
"Fortunately, this level of disordered thinking is an irregularity in the population at large."
More's the pity given just how badly those like you have destroyed the culture. Would that more people took my extreme example to heart out of a true concern for the truth you reject with impunity. The world would be a better place indeed. No one would need to punch anyone because stupidity and bullshit would not be spread like the plague it is. Respect for truth and wisdom would reign.
In the meantime, what I expressed was not at all "malignant narcissism" by the definition provide at your link. Not even close. The one point which might fit is "aggression", if one chooses to believe an aggressive regard for truth and wisdom is a bad thing. But as a "grace embracer", you're not above demeaning those whose positions and opinions are beyond your ability to honestly overcome. All you've got is hate and demonizing. Sad. Certainly nothing Scripture teaches.
To that end, Christ teaches about the harm likely to come to those who stand up for His Way. No doubt you'd find some psycho-babble word to describe true Christians, seeing as how you fall so woefully short of actually being one yourself. Few are fooled by those like you, except for others like you who bear only the most superficial resemblance to a true Christian.
To the extent that I'm unable to convince the likes of you is hardly an indictment of me as it is of you, who constantly rejects truth in order to further your world-worshiping claptrap. I see my comments here and elsewhere in opposition to you as no more than actual truth confronting your lies, distortions and perversions. Those of your ilk will never be convinced of the truth as God has given you over to your corruption. Sad.
Stan just decided that St Augustine has more authority than scripture. Stan thinks Augustine claims that there is nothing in having faith that benefits us in doing good works worthy of heaven’s attention. But, scripture says…
By his divine power, he has given us all the things that we need for life and for true devotion, *bringing *us *to *know *God *himself [how much holier than the Bible!] who has called us by his own glory and goodness. In making these gifts, *he *has *given *us [if god gave them to us, surely we have them, right?] the guarantee of something very great and wonderful to come: through them *you *will *be *able *to *share *the *divine *nature [we have what we need from god to participate in the divine nature… IF WE ACT ON THEM] and to escape corruption in a world that is sunk in vice.
But to attain this, *you *will *have *to *do [what’s that?! We have to do something! But what?] your utmost [ah hah!] yourselves [ourselves!], *adding *goodness [wow! We can add goodness! You’re way behind, Stan. You never thought you could do it. Sad.] to the faith that YOU HAVE, *understanding *TO *YOUR *goodness, self-control TO YOUR understanding, patience TO YOUR self-control, true devotion TO YOUR patience, *KINDNESD *TOWARD *YOUR *FELLOW *MAN [human] TO YOUR devotion, and, to this kindness, LOVE. [All of you thugs deny the necessity of the commandment to love; you always hear “judge” when the Lord says love] If you have a generous supply of these, they will not leave you ineffectual or unproductive: they will bring you TO A REAL knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. [you’re clearly not there yet]
But without them a man is blind or else short-sighted; he has forgotten how his past sins were washed away. [yep: having been freed from the law and the sin that enters with it, you bastards always pile burdens on others]
Brothers, you have been called and chosen: WORK [what’s that again?] WORK [huh?] WORK all the harder to justify it. *If *you *do all these things there is no danger that you will ever fall away. [you’re not working hard enough, Stan. You don’t even believe your own claim that no authority is higher than a book. Yet here you are taking St Augustine’s side against scripture.] Hah!
Craig tried to clap back at your rural progressivism information. He only hit himself in the head:
Fall 2019
The Seeds of Rural Progressivism
Many rural communities feel a contempt for the status quo that persists regardless of the ruling party. Organizers are helping them build their own political power, in service of their own needs.
dissentmagazine.org/article/the-seeds-of-rural-progressivism
Bigoted dumb ass: all he thinks he knows is his own little world… which he despises anyway. How hateful and pitiful he is. All of his his thug idiots.
It's odd, that he could be so unaware of this. I mean, even if he disagrees with the ideas, how is an educated adult unaware of it? And he refers to simple living and healthy rural agrarianism as "bullshit..."??
That was me, Dan
Marshal...
bring it with your evidence to enlighten Craig, rather than gossip about him here
1. It's no hidden secret that liberals/progressives have a LONG history of promoting simple living and healthy farm communities.
Are you ignorant of this reality?
2. I've provided Craig with information about a few of the hundreds of progressive types who talk about these topics. I've offered to give him much much more. I LOVE this area of thinking - as do nearly all my progressive friends - and I have a wealth of information I could provide.
The question then is, HOW are you all ignorant of this central common philosophy amongst liberals?
"2. I've provided Craig with information about a few of the hundreds of progressive types who talk about these topics."
Where? When? This doesn't sound the least bit familiar, and trust me, your nonsense is easy to remember. It makes me laugh.
"The question then is, HOW are you all ignorant of this central common philosophy amongst liberals?"
Craig answered this with his response about liberal cities. How are you ignorant of that?
Marshal...
"Where? When?"
From Craig's blog...
"I've certainly written of this for all the years you've read my blog. I've cited the
Wendell Berry's,
the Thoreaus,
the Harlan and Anna Hubbards,
the Robin Wall Kimmerers,
the Edward Abbeys,
etc, etc over the years.
My personal urban community includes multiple rural agrarians, small farmers, food co-ops, farmers markets... it's an EXTREMELY common thread in modern progressivism. Would you like some reading material? It's extremely lovely, life-affirming, beautiful writing that makes exceedingly wisecommon sense."
Dan
Post a Comment