I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've become increasingly progressive and liberal NOT because I read a lot of liberal, anti-conservative material, but because I was raised within, listen to and read the arguments of extreme conservative white Christians. (And I need to cite specifically "white Christians" because conservative black Christians often don't hold to the same theology as conservative white Christians).
Take the "sin nature" of humanity. These conservatives assure me we are all - ALL of humanity, right down to our newborns! - evil humans intent on rebellion against all that is good and decent and of God.
I don't think they understand how shocking a claim this is to a large portion of humanity - that even newborn babies are not innocent of sin, of having a "sin nature," and that this "sin nature" is so bad, so evil, that even newborns are "deserving" of an eternity of torture for having this "sin nature."
Now, most of them, I believe, will hedge their bets and say that God will probably give a pass to babies and children up to a certain age, not because their "sin nature" isn't deserving of an eternity of torture, but because, they are guessing, that they haven't reached an age where they can make reasonable decisions not to commit these awful sins that come from this "sin nature."
I ask them regularly what they mean by "sin nature..." and never get much of an answer.
Are they saying that these newborn babies are imperfect humans who, given a chance to grow up, will make mistakes and "sin," and do wrong in numerous ways? Of course, that comes with being imperfect humans.
But what specifically are these infants doing - or going to do - that is SO heinous, SO evil that it deserves to be punished with an eternity of torture?
Or what about these conservatives, themselves. What have they done, specifically, that is so evil that the only reasonable punishment is an eternity of torture? Not merely rebukes or temporal punishments for the typical "crimes" of humanity - the being jealous, being greedy, telling a lie, telling 1,000 lies, lusting after a man or a woman... - that the ONLY possible punishment for it is an eternity of torture, something akin to being burned alive forever??!!
I ask and get no answers.
Or the answers, when I get them, are vague and unsupported and frankly, a bit irrational. "You're committing 'cosmic treason' against God almighty!"
"Cosmic treason??" What's that?
Ultra-conservative RC Sproul says in an essay on "cosmic treason..."
“The sinfulness of sin” sounds like a vacuous redundancy that adds no information to the subject under discussion."
And he's not wrong. It DOES sound like a vacuous redundancy. He goes on with this nonsense.
What I meant by that statement was that even the slightest sin that a creature commits against his Creator does violence to the Creator’s holiness, His glory, and His righteousness. Every sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is an act of rebellion against the sovereign God who reigns and rules over us and as such is an act of treason against the cosmic King.
Fine. But says who? Where is the support for this nonsense?
Does he know EVEN ONE PERSON - much less proof that it's common amongst humanity - that is deliberately "rebelling against the sovereign God..."? I mean, I'm a fallen, imperfect human just as we all are, and I know a good number of fallen imperfect humans... but I've never met one person who has said anything to suggest that they are deliberately wanting to do evil, or deliberately wanting to rebel against a sovereign God. Where is the evidence for this?
I just don't see it and they never provide it.
I then have often asked, "What about you? Your children and family? What specifically have they done where they said, in effect, 'I want to spit in the eye of God and commit atrocious crimes that cause harm to people and the world and to God...'?"
Again, I get no answers, no response.
Maybe it's the case that I just know a better class of people - fallen, though we all may be. I just don't know anyone like this. I can't imagine what it is that I or the people that I've known throughout the years that is SO evil, SO atrocious that the only apt punishment is an eternity of torture, of being burned alive, forever.
And when I repeatedly get no answers from the conservatives that I grew up with, the conservatives I know now... I have to think that they simply have no answers.
They believe that newborn babies are guilty of having a "sin nature," and that "sin nature" ought to reasonably be punished with an eternity of torture... even though they have no proof of this. They believe that people - themselves included - regularly, naturally engage in cosmic treason, deliberate acts of spitting in the face of God and saying, "I WANT TO REBEL AND DO EVIL..." even though they can't even point to one thing that they've done that supports this crazy-sounding claim.
What do we do with that?
42 comments:
I'll probably create a new entry, just to better note this information, but yesterday and today, Stan, David and Marshal have had some interesting/devastating comments on this topic.
Stan...
What can we commit in this life that is serious enough to deserve an eternal punishment? As it turns out, Scripture tells us that answer. "All have sinned," Paul tells us, and then elucidates why that is problematic -- "and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). "Really?" some will protest, "You consider violating the glory of God worthy of eternal punishment?"
1. He starts out super, with a reasonable question (although, it DOES seem like he's begging the question...): What CAN we do in this life, what SIN can we be part of that is so egregious, so evil that the ONLY reasonable punishment is an eternity of torture? It's a reasonable question, given that so many argue this point.
2. From there, he unfortunately immediately assumes the point has some merit (problem 1) and he points to Bible passages that literally do not support his conclusion (problem 2).
3. Romans 3 literally does NOT say that the only reasonable punishment for any and all sin is eternal torture. It's just not in the words. It's something that white evangelicals (and other guilt-based religious traditions) are reading into the words that simply isn't there.
4. "All have sinned..."? Well, sure, okay, other than infants and those not capable of choosing to deliberately sin, I can buy the general idea. Humans are demonstrably imperfect and we sin, we do wrong. SOME of us, unfortunately, commit egregious, terrible acts - what we can reasonably call "evil" acts. But those over-the-top evil acts are the exception, not the rule. For most of us, we are literally imperfect. We get snappy with people instead of being patient. We cuss at the car in front of us for making us miss a traffic light (or am I confessing a personal sin, there??). We lust, we lie, we are sometimes greedy. We ARE an imperfect people. No one is disputing the point.
5. But then Stan continues... "and fall short of the glory of God"
Wait. What??! An imperfect people fall short of the glory, the grandeur, the perfection of an almighty, all-powerful, perfectly loving, perfectly just God??? Gasp! Can it be???!!!!
OF COURSE, we are not God-like in our perfection. We are not perfect. Indeed, if one believes the Bible, we are created by God as an imperfect people. Duh. So, what? How is it, in ANY possible way, alarming that an imperfect people are imperfect?
6. But wait. Is Stan saying that because we who were created imperfect ARE, in fact, imperfect and mess up sometimes... that THIS is somehow reasonably punished by an eternity of torture?
Paul literally does not say that. Jesus literally never said that. This is a human invention, not something from the Bible. Does Stan realize that?
More...
More from Stan...
"Really?" some will protest, "You consider violating the glory of God worthy of eternal punishment?"
Yes, that IS a reasonable question. Unfortunately, Stan doesn't answer it in a reasonable manner. He just presumes that his presumptions are necessarily correct.
Well, I do if I concur with God.
Begging the question. Come on. Do better than that, fella.
Adam and Eve in the garden weren't warned they would die for eating fruit; they were warned they would die because they violated God's glory.
In the mythic story of Adam and Eve, yes, they were warned not to eat of the tree "in the center of the garden" or they would die. This is the way the storytellers introduce the notion of sin in the world. But it ISN'T a factual or reasonable explanation of whether or not "typical sins" are ONLY reasonably punished by an eternity of torture. Even if one begs the question and ASSUMES that the story is a literal history and not a myth style Creation story, it doesn't explain this and certainly doesn't insist upon Stan's preformed conclusion.
If the singular focus of the human creature is supposed to be the glory of God, then eating wrong is a violation
If. IF. But who says "the singular focus" of humans is "the glory of God..."? Where did God or anyone in authority say that? It's certainly not biblical.
AND EVEN IF "the singular focus" of humans is "the glory of God...", who says that being imperfect and failing somehow to "live up to" the supposed "glory of God" (and what does that literally even mean??), WHERE is the text or data that authoritatively says the only reasonable punishment for being imperfect in this regard can ONLY reasonably punished by an eternity of torture?
That is LITERALLY not found in the Bible ANYWHERE. Where is this imaginary mythical angry god living and making such claims, if it's not in the Bible?
No answers.
Which is fine. But I keep wondering and asking, do they know how unbiblical and irrational this is on the face of it? Do they realize what an ugly, immature notion of "god" they are portraying with their human theories?
Stan...
If the reason we are under God's wrath is not our sin, but our suppression of the truth about Him, it's about His glory, not "bad behavior."
IF. IF!
IF IF IF IF IF IF!!
But WHO is making this nutty little claim, if it's not God and DEMONSTRABLY not God? WHY would we care about these human theories that paint such an ugly, childish version of this petty little godling?
Do they really think that it paints an almighty, perfectly loving God in a positive, rational light by saying this godlet will be angry if it doesn't get the "glory" it thinks it needs? What a childish, petulant, needy little godling!
Stan...
And violating the eternal glory of the Creator falls in that "most serious of crimes" category, the crime we commit in every sin we undertake.
And again, it's a cute, nutty little quirky theory he's got there, but WHY would anyone take this human theory seriously? WHERE IS THE DATA?
Then David commented...
Anyone that denies Hell denies that God is glorious and holy. They must have a low view of God to dismiss the seriousness of sin.
?? Well, says who? What is THIS nonsense based upon? WHO SAYS that disagreeing with their human theories and notions of what hell means somehow "denies that God is glorious and holy..."?
That's a reasonable question, but these sorts of reasonable questions never get answered. I REALLY want to know what their best shot at trying to justify this human theory that seems so silly on the face of it is.
WHY isn't it those who say, "IF there is an almighty, all-powerful God, creator of the Universe and all that ever was... a PERFECTLY loving and perfectly just God... IF such a God exists, would that all-powerful God REALLY need mere humans to somehow insist upon how glorious and holy he is?
That sounds like a narcissist, not a God.
Marshal continues this line of thinking by comparing the almighty God of the universew with a jealous, petty, insecure king...
mankind has imperfectly mirrored the gap between God and man with regard to earthly rulers. Rare was the king or emperor who would suffer the slightest disagreement or insult...intentional or not...without serious repercussions
Yes, it IS true that certain tyrants HAVE been so needy and weak that they rule brutally against ANY suggestion that they are not the GOAT. But who says this is a positive thing?
Humanity is ever-evolving and progressing to the point where we realize how ugly and evil it is to grovel at the feet of narcissistic, insecure, bullying kings. But Marshal somehow sees this as a role model for the almighty God??
WTF?
I mean, even if they truly believe this, do they not realize how ugly and petty and childish/sick they paint their god to be? I would think they'd be embarrassed to repeat such childish and unbiblical nonsense.
Back to Stan...
Of course, most people won't see this as reasonable. That's because diminishing God's glory is routine for us. He's just like us (Psa 50:21), isn't He?
Umm... I don't know of anyone who is saying that an almighty perfectly loving, perfectly just God is "just like us." Do you have ANY data to support this suggestion?
Indeed, that's part of the problem with your human theories. God IS GOD. God is perfect. Perfectly just. Perfectly loving.
We, on the other hand, are flawed and imperfect, entirely incapable of being perfect.
Given that reality (one that I think you and I agree upon), HOW it is rational to expect flawed, imperfect mortals to be perfect in the way that an almighty GOD is perfect, perfectly loving, perfectly just?
The ONLY reasonable answer is simple: We can't. We will NEVER be perfectly loving or perfectly just.
Given that reality, HOW is it reasonable (from a perfectly loving, perfectly just God's point of view) to charge imperfect people as criminals worthy of eternal torture for the "crime" of being imperfect humans?
Where is the answer to that question?
Ignored.
Given that they just ignore the questions and don't even TRY to acknowledge, much less answer them, WHY should we take their human theories about a petty angry little god seriously?
Wow. I just skimmed these comments until I found your laughable response to my comment at Stan's. I may review the rest in more detail later. For now...what a moron! I wasn't "comparing" God to earthly kings. I was using earthly kings to illustrate the concept which is a far more reasonable understanding of God, His justice and how it plays out as regards what one deserves. The point...something so consistently lost on "progressives"...refers to the effect of sin on God...in other words, His tolerance of sin. That tolerance is unique to Him, as are whatever selfish or self-serving tolerance for behaviors earthly rulers might have. It's not to compare God's intolerance of sin to the intolerance and earthly king might have with any given behavior. Those are distinct. But the tolerance is the key here. I again use the example of a slap. No doubt you'd wet yourself and whine about the character of the person who slapped you. Someone like me wouldn't get quite so bent out of shape. You would insist it's a nasty thing, while I would regard it as a mild annoyance. I would wonder what your problem is. You would question why I'm not more upset.
But with regard to God and what offends Him, you insist He be no more offended by sin than you are...as if you're in a position to dictate to God. And while you believe you're only reflecting what a "perfectly just and loving God" would do, the reality is you're demanding what God must do to be "perfectly just and loving" TO YOU!!! You would demand I MUST BE more upset when slapped than I would be. While I would wonder what's wrong with you to get so upset.
With my hypothetical regarding the two of us, I put you in the "God" position, being more greatly offended than I think you ought to be over getting slapped. YOUR tolerance level regarding getting slapped would inform your policies were you in a position to rule like a king. It would inform the degree of punishment in a way my tolerance level would not. In the same way, because YOU don't regard sin...or particular sins...to be offensive enough to warrant eternal punishment, you're not God and don't get to decide. YOUR job is to adjust your life to what we know to be true regarding God, sin, His intolerance of it, and His promised sentencing for it.
I doubt you have the mental and intellectual ability to grasp this simple concept. But it does differ greatly from your bastardized presentation of my comment at Stan's.
You're welcome.
Marshal...
I wasn't "comparing" God to earthly kings. I was using earthly kings to illustrate the concept which is a far more reasonable understanding of God, His justice and how it plays out as regards what one deserves. The point... His tolerance of sin.
So help me understand. You're saying that, JUST LIKE some kings may be harsh and pugnacious about ANY perceived slight or lack of respect ("What? Thou doesn't BOW and GROVEL in my presence??!! TO THE DUNGEON with thee, pissant!!"), so too and even more so, God will not tolerate ANY perceived slight?
Is that your point?
If so, do you think that helps your case?? That's precisely what I'm saying.
You're treating your idea of god as if god is some childish tyrant, that this god of yours "can't tolerate sin..." Is that what you're saying?
If so, can you see how wimpy and emotionally fragile that portrays your version of what you think god is like?
But the tolerance is the key here.
By all means: Explain what you mean. Be respectful, though. Just make clear. ARE you saying that in your head, you don't think your god can "tolerate" even being in the presence of even the slightest sin? Or what do you mean? Be clear.
with regard to God and what offends Him, you insist He be no more offended by sin than you are...
I literally never said that. Do you recognize that reality? Do you recognize that it is false to say that I have "insisted" that God be no more offended by sin than I am?
What I disagree with is not God but the notion that a perfect, almighty, all powerful, perfectly loving, perfectly just God is somehow incapable of "tolerating" any imperfection... to SUCH a degree that this god would think ANY slight imperfection can ONLY be dealt with by eternal torture.
Is THAT your view?
If so, do you recognize it's not a biblical or rational view? Do you realize how pathetic and weak your notion of God makes that god to be?
Consider some parents who deeply love their children - not perfectly, but as strongly as humanly possible. And sometimes, when that child is a petulant two year old and throws their food on the floor to refuse to eat what the good parent has provided, that good parent does NOT respond with fury and punishment, but with patience and loving correction. Or when that child is a teenager and responds to questions about their day by rolling their eyes and rudely telling their loving parent to mind their own business. Such insolence! But does the good parent respond with a punishment that is WAY out of proportion to the childish disrespect, placing them in jail for the rest of their lives? No, of course not.
It would be a weak, immature and deranged/unloving parent to respond to such minor infractions with over-the-top violent punishments. Wouldn't you agree?
"So help me understand. You're saying that, JUST LIKE some kings may be harsh and pugnacious about ANY perceived slight or lack of respect..., so too and even more so, God will not tolerate ANY perceived slight?"
No. But before I answer, take your own self as an example. You insist I respond with "respect", as if I haven't been as respectful as your own manner deserves (actually, I've been more respectful than you...but that's another debate for another time perhaps). You've said it many times, "My blog, my rules.". In essence, it makes you "god" of your blog, with the ultimate authority to dictate what is or isn't "moral" to you, god of the blog. I don't agree with your punishment, like you disagree with God's. Your constant deleting of my comments is a punishment which isn't commensurate with any "crime" you've insisted I've committed. But while I wonder why you get bent out of shape over my especially minor "sins", it is clear to me that you at least posture as if those "sins" are most heinous...even thought that's just crap. That is, I don't believe you're in any way offended by 99% of that which you've argued is the reason you've deleted my comments. I DO, however, believe God is truly offended by sin and sinners far more than you're want to believe is true, because that's what Scripture teaches. Is He still a perfectly just and loving God? Absolutely, and His justice...despite your rejection of it...proves just how much that's so. It doesn't indicate He isn't.
In the meantime, where it counts so much more, you refuse to consider that God must really, really hate sin if He's stated so many times in Scripture how much He does and what He intends to do about it. YOU insist it demonstrates He's "petty" or "childish" or some other arrogant condescension to the One to Whom you should be prostrating yourself in fear BECAUSE He has the power and authority and the perfect sense of justice to deal with the likes of you for your rebellion.
So no. God will not tolerate sin or sinners in His presence. That's not remotely "non-biblical". But it does very much demonstrate you've not studied Scripture as much as you try to make us believe you do if you have not grasped this reality.
"ARE you saying that in your head, you don't think your god can "tolerate" even being in the presence of even the slightest sin?"
No. I'm not saying "in my head". I'm saying in Scripture God is described as being unwilling to tolerate sin or sinners in His presence. It's right out in the open where no deep diving is required to discern this Bible 101 revelation.
"I literally never said that. Do you recognize that reality? Do you recognize that it is false to say that I have "insisted" that God be no more offended by sin than I am?"
I recognize that you say exactly that even if you don't say it in exactly those words. When you say that God is "some childish tyrant" and "wimpy and emotionally fragile" for being how Scripture describes Him, you're insisting that He must regard sin as you do or He's exactly that. What other conclusion could there be?
"What I disagree with is not God but the notion that a perfect, almighty, all powerful, perfectly loving, perfectly just God is somehow incapable of "tolerating" any imperfection... to SUCH a degree that this god would think ANY slight imperfection can ONLY be dealt with by eternal torture."
And thus you insist He be no more offended by sin than you are. You deny what you then confirm. But I'll say that it's not a matter of capability. It's a matter of desire. Are you incapable of allowing me to speak as I choose, or just desire that how I choose to speak not be allowed to be published?
"If so, do you recognize it's not a biblical or rational view?"
It's both, but your rejection strongly suggests you've never really "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture as I've long suspected.
"It would be a weak, immature and deranged/unloving parent to respond to such minor infractions with over-the-top violent punishments. Wouldn't you agree?"
I disagree with this lame attempt to draw a parallel. The main problem isn't the punishment, but how offensive the infraction is to the parent. A "good" parent doesn't let serious misbehavior..."serious" according to the standards of the parent, not the child...go unpunished. This is even more true if the parent is dealing with a repeat offender or one which constantly pushes against the standards of the parent. And let's not pretend a child doing something the child doesn't know is impermissible counts here for the purpose of this discussion. But even then, if the child rebels against correction in such a case, a parent is not "good" to let the kid get away with throwing a tantrum.
And thus, you side-step the point, which is how serious sin is to God, not to you. And clearly...as any truly serious student of Scripture can easily attest...that would be VERY serious and to a degree those like you don't want to believe is true.
Marshal...
I don't agree with your punishment, like you disagree with God's.
And...
And thus you insist He be no more offended by sin than you are.
You're question begging. You're PRESUMING that YOUR OPINIONS about how God feels about any and all sin are correct, then you're saying I'm disagreeing with God when I disagree with you.
PROVE that God views any and all sin as worthy of eternal torture. Prove that God views the teenager stealing a cookie from his friend's house as worthy of eternal torture.
I'll wait.
When you completely fail to prove it, show you have the intellectual integrity to admit you can't prove it, that it's just a hunch YOU have about God and not something God has told you.
Then we can talk.
From Proverbs...
"There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies..."
Does God view all misdeeds equally? We have NO rational reason to think so, and indeed, biblical verses that indicate otherwise.
Dan
Indeed, there are some biblical passages where God mentions hating sin, but WHAT IS THE CONTEXT? Do those verses mean that God hates all sin equally? Or were there some consistent messages about what sin God hates. Consider Isaiah 59:2, where God says God hates their sin? But WHO is God speaking to there? If we read Isaiah 58, we see God speaking to the religious folks of Israel who are pointing to their religiosity and wondering why God does not "see" it...
"Yet they seek me daily
and delight to know my ways,
as if they were a nation that did righteousness
and did not forsake the judgment of their God;
they ask of me righteous judgments;
they delight to draw near to God.
‘Why have we fasted, and you see it not?
Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it?’
Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure,
and oppress all your workers.
Behold, you fast only to quarrel and to fight
and to hit with a wicked fist.
Fasting like yours this day
will not make your voice to be heard on high.
Is such the fast that I choose,
a day for a person to humble himself?
Is it to bow down his head like a reed,
and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him?
Will you call this a fast,
and a day acceptable to the Lord?
“Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?..."
In THAT context, then, in the next chapter we see...
"Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save,
or his ear dull, that it cannot hear;
but your iniquities have made a separation
between you and your God..."
What iniquities? Any and all iniquities and shortcomings? No. it's speaking specifically of oppression and failure to side with the poor and marginalized.
Which is, of course, reasonable.
You read, but fail to understand.
Dan
Also, you fail to answer questions put to you in a clear, rational manner. In one attempt, you claim - without support...
"The main problem isn't the punishment, but how offensive the infraction is to the parent. A "good" parent doesn't let serious misbehavior..."serious" according to the standards of the parent, not the child...go unpunished."
But it SHOULDN'T be something considered serious to a parent if it's entirely divorced from reason. For instance, what of the parent who didn't want their daughter to learn to read? It doesn't matter if the parent is seriously offended by it if they're in the wrong. They would not be a good parent if they're offended tremendously about nothing. That's the point. Likewise, they wouldn't be a good parent if a punishment was wildly disproportionate to the misdeeds. And, indeed, a perfectly good parent or God would not be seriously offended by relatively minor misdeeds.
Marshal...
"I'm saying in Scripture God is described as being unwilling to tolerate sin or sinners in His presence. It's right out in the open where no deep diving is required"
Prove it. When you fail to do so, admit you were mistaken.
Dan
I suspect what is happening is that you are cherry-picking verses like the one in Isaiah 59, ignoring the context, then irrationally insisting that a woodenly literal interpretation if "the ONE TRUE INTERPRETATION APPROVED BY GOD (we know because Marshal is telling us it's so)."
"your iniquities have separated
you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you..."
In that instance, we rationally need to understand what "iniquities" and "sins" have "hidden God's face from them..."?
And is this poetic language, not a literal fact? These are important considerations.
So, if you read some random verse like this, REMOVE the context and INSIST upon taking it literally, well, that's not good textual consideration. It's not good Bible study.
I'm saying in Scripture God is described as being unwilling to tolerate sin or sinners in His presence.
And THAT line ("I, the Lord God, am unwilling to tolerate sinners in my Delicate Royal Presence.... ewww! sinners! They're so yucky! We are not pleased!") is literally not in the Bible. And your eisegesis of reading it INTO passages like this is just a rational and biblical failure.
Aside from that, Jesus - the premiere and clearest representation of God we have - LITERALLY welcomed sinners into his presence and if you believe that Jesus IS God (as I do), then well, you undo your very argument literally and clearly.
So, your human theory (your god is too delicate or vicious to allow any impurity into his dainty presence) is just not biblical or, you know, Christian and stuff.
Can you admit that this is a HUMAN theory, and not literally biblical?
One more...
you refuse to consider that God must really, really hate sin if He's stated so many times in Scripture how much He does
I literally have never said that God doesn't "really hate" at least some sin. Clearly, if one takes the Bible seriously, there ARE some sins that God hates. Oppression, refusing to help/side with the poor and marginalized, deceitful corruption, etc. That isn't in question. What is in question is does God treat all sin equally and view all imperfections as something that God can not tolerate? This is just not the case, biblically or reasonably. As I have abundantly made clear.
So, when you can't support your human theories as being "biblical" (ie, when you can't prove objectively that God agrees with your human theory from the words of the Bible), then begin by admitting it's NOT in the Bible, it IS something you are reading INTO the Bible and from there, take the next step in opening your eyes and admitting maybe you were mistaken.
Be a better man, Marshal. After all, God hates haughty eyes and a lying tongue.
I drew Marshal’s attention to his gutless and bastardizing need to embed Eric’s death in the only thing the two of them had in common, in fact, the only culture either of them have: hate. Marshal used Eric’s death to defame a world respected leader and praise a lying, cheating, scandal-ridden, convicted administration that was only a part of the current brutalizing authoritarian thug culture that, in our country, is the GOP. Racist, misogynist, bigoted hate. Eric and Marshal both have a sulfurous stink in the nostrils of god.
Marshal hates being confronted with the prophetic message of justice, dignity, and love for everyone. His hate is too brittle, too fragile.
You, Dan, have been screening the prophetic message in front of him. And he just screams in satanic protest, like Regan MacNeil.
...to be honest, I had to look up Regan MacNeil. But, yeah, maybe.
Also, I saw a post you made apparently, that came to my email but is not showing up here, Fyodor. Do you want me to post it in here? I don't know why it isn't showing up.
Pointed out that Trump is charged with 30 counts of business fraud, not campaign finance malfeasance as the discussion believes over in the upside down world.
As I see now, there are 34 felony charges (as opposed to misdemeanors which some Trump defenders are saying the most he'd be charged with).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-trump-to-be-charged-tuesday-with-34-felony-counts-but-spared-handcuffs-and-mug-shot-001241750.html
The brutalizing legacy of Scott Walker in Wisconsin was undone yesterday by citizen women and men committed to honoring the full equality of women and their right over their own bodies and lives.
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment because he has outstanding questions to answer which he has clearly NOT answered...
you reject without anything akin to actual evidence of your own, especially in support of an alternate understanding which you never provide. It's simply not enough to say I'm misunderstanding a verse or passage. What that demands is a solid alternative effectively supported. You never do this at all. EVER.
Not entirely sure what you're even commenting about, but the last I had addressed to you was your comment...
I'm saying in Scripture God is described as being unwilling to tolerate sin or sinners in His presence.
To which I responded...
And THAT line ("I, the Lord God, am unwilling to tolerate sinners in my Delicate Royal Presence.... ewww! sinners! They're so yucky! We are not pleased!") is literally not in the Bible.
I'm noting that the reality is that there isn't a verse in the Bible that says God is not willing or able to "tolerate sin..." It doesn't exist. Now, in THAT case, I'm recognizing a simple reality (That verse or that line or words to that effect are NOT in the bible, as a point of reality). And you're just saying, WITHOUT any support, "in Scripture God is described as being unwilling to tolerate sin or sinners in His presence."
Now, IF you have support for that claim (which once again and to be clear: IS LITERALLY not in the Bible), then all you have to do is provide that support. AND, if you find out the reality is that it's NOT in the bible, just as I've pointed out, then all you have to do is admit it.
If you're relying upon verses like...
"your iniquities have separated
you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you..."
You have to explain why that should be taken literally and why it means that God can't tolerate sin. What that passage is literally saying (whether or not it should be taken literally remains to be seen), is that OUR SIN separates us from God... BUT does that mean that God can't tolerate sin? In what sense? Where is the proof? Why should this not be understood figuratively?
As to WHY it should be understood figuratively, we're talking about an all-powerful, almighty, overwhelmingly omnipotent GOD OF ALL the universe and YOU think that such an all powerful God somehow can't "tolerate sin..."?
What a ridiculously impotent and wimpy little godling that would be! THAT is a reason not to take it literally... because it's ridiculous and insulting to the notion of an almighty God to suggest it literally. Now, you may ultimately disagree, but you can't say I haven't given you an "alternate understanding." That IS an alternate understanding. My GOD ALMIGHTY is tougher than your wimp-god.
Now, provide support or admit you can't, apologize for all your whining and admit that I DID give an alternate understanding. Or just move on. It's all the same.
Regarding the ONE verse that your source pointed to that even BARELY sounds like what you're saying. ONE verse in all the Bible. This verse:
"your iniquities have separated
you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you..."
You have to explain why that should be taken literally and why it means that God can't tolerate sin. What that passage is literally saying (whether or not it should be taken literally remains to be seen), is that OUR SIN separates us from God...
BUT does that mean that God can't "tolerate sin"?
Says who?
In what sense?
Where is the proof?
Why should this not be understood figuratively?
YOU, on the other hand, flee from your obligation to provide an alternative understanding of the proof I've provided. If my proof is flawed in some way, then there must be a more accurate interpretation you haven't the intelligence to explain or the ability to even identify.
1. FIRST, and read closely and use a dictionary if you need it, YOU must admit that your hunches and interpretations and opinions are SUBJECTIVE opinions, not demonstrated, objective facts. Admit it. Stop dodging the question. STOP refusing to answer the questions put to you, directly and clearly. ADMIT it. These are YOUR OWN DAMNED opinions, not the word of God.
Admit it.
I'm tired of your dodging. It is a way of lying and it shows an incredible amount of cowardice and childishness on your part.
Admit the reality that your opinions are your subjective opinions, not the proven word of God.
Who's fleeing from a rational adult conversation?
2. Now, as to this:
flee from your obligation to provide an alternative understanding of the proof I've provided.
I've done this and your inability to understand that I give REASONABLE explanations for verses and your preferred human opinions about it does not mean I haven't given alternative understandings. This Isaiah 59 passage, for instance, in context:
Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save,
nor his ear too dull to hear.
But your iniquities have separated
you from your God
your sins have hidden his face from you,
so that he will not hear....
WHOSE iniquities? The passage clarifies:
For your hands are stained with blood,
your fingers with guilt.
Your lips have spoken falsely,
and your tongue mutters wicked things.
No one calls for justice;
no one pleads a case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments, they utter lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
This isn't speaking of ALL people. It's speaking - according to the text itself - of those whose hands are stained with blood, who are guilty, who speak falsely and are lacking in integrity and who rely on empty arguments and utter lies (do those last two hit too close to home for you to acknowledge it?)
The point remains, this passage is LITERALLY not saying it's speaking of all people, but of a subset of people committed to lying and causing harm and evil. There's nothing to explain, that's just the reality of it all, literally.
Now, YOU might choose to READ INTO the passage that it's a reference to ALL humanity, but that isn't what the text says. Your subjective opinions of what you're adding to the text is not what the text says. It's an add-on, from you.
THAT, you see, is a reasonable alternative explanation for the verse. You don't have to agree with it (you can go with what you're literally reading INTO the text if you want), but it is reasonable, looking at the text.
Same for every other passage we've talked about - I HAVE given reasonable explanations alternative to yours.
"I'm noting that the reality is that there isn't a verse in the Bible that says God is not willing or able to "tolerate sin..." It doesn't exist."
And once again we see your desperate ploy of rejecting a concept because the manner in which it is expressed is not expressed EXACTLY in the same words in Scripture. That's so sad and pathetic an argument against the truth I repeat. But worse, you lie about what I said, adding a word I did not use (ironic). I never said God is "unable" to tolerate sin. It's not like he's Dan Trabue unable to tolerate my comments and the manner in which I express them. No. He's not petty. He's Holy. And there's no room for the unholy with the Holy. God could make room, but why should he? If even the likes of you won't tolerate that which you irrationally dislike (truth, facts, God's Will) in your comments section, why would the Most Holy need to tolerate the unholy and sinful? Scripture states, “Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven], nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Rev. 21:27). 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is another passage which speaks to the unworthiness of sinfulness to enter God's presence. So to pretend that God WILL tolerate sin in His presence is what is not taught in Scripture.
"Now, IF you have support for that claim.... then all you have to do is provide that support."
Which I just did...yet again!
"If you're relying upon verses like...
"your iniquities have separated
you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you..."
You have to explain why that should be taken literally and why it means that God can't tolerate sin."
There you go again...perverting my position. Where did I say God can't tolerate sin? That would be the same as your previous lie above, in which you stated I said God is unable to tolerate sin. But the verse (Isa 59:2) acknowledges his unwillingness to tolerate sin.
Maybe it's your poor reading and comprehension skills. In any case, it would serve you better to focus on what I actually said, rather than perverting what I said in order to better pretend my position is in any way flawed. Best of luck to you.
"1. FIRST, and read closely and use a dictionary if you need it, YOU must admit that your hunches and interpretations and opinions are SUBJECTIVE opinions, not demonstrated, objective facts. Admit it."
FIRST, and read closely and use your momma to help you understand plain English, YOU must accept that to do what you demand here is to pretend you're a source of truth and fact, as if one can assume they will know the truth if only they reference and cite Dan Trabue. But that's not the case. If you tell me you're a man, I'm not buying it without an outside source confirming it, because you've constantly proven yourself woefully lacking in the truth department. As such, my positions are not in the least subjective simply because you demand they are. And I ALWAYS demonstrate my positions to be true. Your "nyuh uh" response is NOT authoritative.
"Stop dodging the question. STOP refusing to answer the questions put to you, directly and clearly."
I don't dodge questions. EVER. I don't refuse to answer even the stupidest of your questions (which aren't much different than the rest as far as that goes). I go to great lengths to be clear, and I think the problem is that I'm not using really, really small words.
"These are YOUR OWN DAMNED opinions, not the word of God."
At worst, the are MY OWN DAMNED opinions informed by the clearly revealed Word of God as found in Scripture...easily understandable by honest people of even moderate intelligence like myself. And I'm here to help you who aren't so blessed.
"I'm tired of your dodging. It is a way of lying and it shows an incredible amount of cowardice and childishness on your part."
This from the guy who intentionally perverts my comments and adds to my comments that which I didn't say and then expects me to back up what YOU SAID I SAID, instead of what I said. That shows an incredible about of cowardice and childishness on your part and is intentionally lying...willfully, eagerly and with malice aforethought lying. Good gosh, all you have to do is stick to comments of mine you ACTUALLY FREAKIN' quote and YOU STILL immediately present a false and unrelated alternative of my words. So you're dodging my position by perverting it as you do.
"Who's fleeing from a rational adult conversation?"
Clearly, that's you. Adults don't routinely pervert the words of an opponent in discourse and then accuse the opponent based upon what the opponent didn't say. Non-adults like you evidently do. Adults also don't delete comments and then pretend the person whose comments you deleted failed to answer questions or is dodging. You ignore that which was in the deleted comments to make this rank bullshit accusation against me.
"I've done this and your inability to understand that I give REASONABLE explanations for verses and your preferred human opinions about it does not mean I haven't given alternative understandings."
This is not at all the case. It's not up to you to label your explanations as "reasonable", even if you truly believe them to be so. To use your own words more accurately against YOU, they are just your "preferred human opinions", and as they constitute alternative understandings, they alone do not include reasons to regard them as better or more accurate or at all intelligent. Worse, as we provide explanations for what the verses clearly teach, your "alternate explanations" require far better than YOUR word that they're reasonable and worthy of accepting as more accurate understandings. You insist our interpretations are wrong, flawed or inaccurate. But yours do not include any evidence to compel us to agree that is so, or that your alternatives make more sense. In short, one can throw out any crap against the wall, call it an alternative and it's still just crap on the wall. You give no reason to accept it as having any real value whatsoever.
And that's the point. We're not asking for an alternative. We're asking for a reason to agree with you we've got it wrong. THAT would make your alternatives "reasonable", not merely your labeling them as such. All that is is you asserting you have the status or authority to declare your "alternatives" more correct and ours not correct at all, simply because you say so. Again, that's not "rational adult conversation" on your part.
"The point remains, this passage is LITERALLY not saying it's speaking of all people..."
It's speaking of Israel. And if Israel has strayed to such a point that their iniquities have separated them from their God, and their sins have hidden His face from them so that He will not hear them, how much more so would those not God's Chosen People be suffering from that separation by the taint of their own sin natures?
So again, as I said from the moment I posted my links in support of my position, not every passage provided will by itself be a perfect example of that which supports the premise, yet this one still does and added to them all provide the support you demanded...even if you want to play games about just how specifically direct it is to the concept of "sin nature".
You don't really get how to argue against a premise, and it shows here as you fail in attacking this offering in a way that rebuts it as supportive of that premise.
Try again.
What I said...
"I'm noting that the reality is that there isn't a verse in the Bible that says God is not willing or able to "tolerate sin..." It doesn't exist."
What you said in response...
That's so sad and pathetic an argument against the truth I repeat. But worse, you lie about what I said, adding a word I did not use (ironic).
I never said God is "unable" to tolerate sin.
What you said earlier...
God will not tolerate sin or sinners in His presence. That's not remotely "non-biblical".
And...
I'm saying in Scripture
God is described as being unwilling to tolerate sin or sinners in His presence.
It's right out in the open where no deep diving is required to discern this Bible 101 revelation.
and...
You have to explain why that should be taken literally and why it means that God can't tolerate sin."
There you go again...perverting my position. Where did I say God can't tolerate sin?
What I said was that you had suggested that God was "unwilling or unable to tolerate sin..." YOU said God was not willing to tolerate sin (and other words that made the "not able" question a reasonable question.) Will not, can not... is there a huge difference?
But okay, in your personal head, you personally think that God CAN tolerate sin and is ABLE to tolerate sin, but that God WON'T "tolerate sin..." Is that better?
Now, PROVE IT. Last chance. WHERE in the Bible has God said that God "will not tolerate sin..." that God is "unwilling to tolerate sin..."?
Those are YOUR EXACT WORDS. Support them or admit you can't or run and hide and your refusal to answer questions directly will show that you don't answer because you can't answer because it's YOUR made up claim, not something God has told you.
Also, what does it mean to you in your head and in your opinion that God "will not tolerate sin..."?
I'm dealing with your 1-3 proof texts next where you (barely) try to make your case, so give me a bit of time.
There you go again...perverting my position. Where did I say God can't tolerate sin?
As I've already noted and supported, you've said God WILL NOT tolerate sin. Do you think it's better to say, "Well, God CAN tolerate sin, but my god is so petty that even though he CAN tolerate sin, he WON'T!..."? Do you think that HELPS your opinion about God look less petty and pathetic?
More to come...
Marshal...
why would the Most Holy need to tolerate the unholy and sinful?
Because God is not a petty dick? Because God is the perfect almighty God of love and welcome and grace and God is aware that we are mere mortals and, well, as already noted, God is not a dick. We all are imperfect, less than holy. We all make mistakes. God is not stupid, God knows this about us. God knows us perfectly, which is why (according to scriptural texts) God can love us so thoroughly and perfectly.
I mean, hell, presumably even YOU, Marshal, are able to love your family and loved ones, even though they are "unholy and sinful..." Are you suggesting that God is not/will not do what even YOU can do?
Do you recognize how ugly a picture you paint of your godling?
Now, as to your cherry-picked out of context proof texts. You cite THREE passages in the entire Bible:
Revelation 21
Isaiah 59 and
1 Corinthians 6.
“I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.
The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it.
Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven], nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life”
~Revelation 21
"The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers"
~1 Corinthians 6
"Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save,
nor his ear too dull to hear.
But your iniquities have separated
you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you,
so that he will not hear.
For your hands are stained with blood,
your fingers with guilt.
~Isaiah 59
Starting with the last, first.
Israel's iniquities, the passage says, has separated them from God. That is what it literally says. Does that insist that God can not - sorry, WILL not - tolerate sin?
No. It just doesn't. It's speaking to the harmful nature of serious sin (shedding of innocent blood, etc) and how it breaks down relationships. It does NOT say that God will not tolerate any and all sin. It literally doesn't. That's literally something that YOU are reading into the text that the text does not demand.
Let's talk a minute about God's omnipresence. Do you believe in it? IF God is everywhere, that would include being in the presence of sin, wouldn't it?
God literally can and DOES manage to tolerate sin, then, doesn't that suggest? Again, this really needs to begin with YOU defining what YOU mean by "will not tolerate sin..."
From the Psalmist:
"Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend into heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, you are there..."
IF God is truly omniscient - truly everywhere - that would include being in the presence of sin, would it not?
I'll wait a minute to give you a chance to explain by your human theory (which is literally no where in the Bible) of what YOU personally mean by your personal human hunch that God "will not tolerate sin."
Answer, please.
While you stumble your way to an answer, consider this from some conservative evangelical site...
https://faithalone.org/blog/gods-ability-or-inability-to-be-in-the-presence-of-sin/
"While you stumble your way to an answer, consider this from some conservative evangelical site..."
Consider what? Something I never said? Why would I?
did you suspend comments on the post prior to this one?
No. Now answer the questions if you want to comment here.
"Consider what?" The link I posted, where a conservative says that, of course, God can be in the presence of sin and chooses to be.
And as a reminder, I said:
As I've already noted and supported, you've said God WILL NOT tolerate sin.
You responded:
why would the Most Holy need to tolerate the unholy and sinful?
And I responded, because unlike you, God is not a dick, a jerk, a jackass. And there's a conservative saying the same thing... that of course, God can and does tolerate being in the presence of "the unholy and sinful..."
There is a "timer" on my posts where after sometime - 60 days? I don't know - the comments are turned off.
No. The conservative is NOT saying the same thing I'm saying. It's responding to what you needed me to say. He's responding to the question of whether or not God lacks the ability to be in the presence of sin. I never made that claim. I said He won't tolerate sin in His presence. This guy...like others...speaks of Satan being in God's presence in the Book of Job. But is Satan committing sinful acts there? Is Satan's sin nature tolerated for a purpose which serves God's agenda? I would say that exactly explains why Satan could be tolerated. But this goes to my point. It's not that God can't, but that He won't tolerate sin in His presence. It doesn't preclude it happening to serve His purpose.
As to your timer, don't be a dick, a jerk and a jackass and demand that your visitors live on your schedule. If someone posts a comment ten years after you published the last comment, so what? You're not obliged to respond. I've gotten random comments on old posts from people trying to push some product or money-making system or their own social media site. So what? For those of us with lives, we can't always keep up as we'd like to. But when you leave off with bullshit critical of my position and don't allow me to respond because of some timer you don't have to have in place, you're just doing more canceling and stifling of the opposing points of view.
Finally, the time is coming when God will NOT allow the sinful to exist in His presence. The rest of us enjoying His holiness likely won't even remember you existed.
And again, as you like to pretend you model your behavior after God/Jesus, you don't tolerate ANYTHING you randomly decide is against your sensibilities. No grace embracing there. No. You again don't understand the basic of God's nature which is easily understood from even a less than serious and prayerful study of Scripture.
As to your timer, don't be... a jerk and a jackass and demand that your visitors live on your schedule.
I didn't used to have the timer. I don't mind missing comments from actual people, but what started happening were ads and spam started showing up with dubious products and claims - nothing political or philosophical, just ads and spam. I don't want ads or spam to show up and I don't have time to constantly check twenty years worth of posts, so the timer.
It's not all about you.
responding to the question of whether or not God lacks the ability to be in the presence of sin. I never made that claim. I said He won't tolerate sin in His presence. This guy...like others...speaks of Satan being in God's presence in the Book of Job. But is Satan committing sinful acts there?
So, in your mind, God CAN tolerate sin... but the omnipresent, omniscient, all-powerful God WON'T tolerate sin in God's presence?
So, God ISN'T omnipresent, God is only in places with "no sin..."? Again, if that's what you're saying, it seems you have a pretty small god.
I said He won't tolerate sin in His presence.
Maybe it would help if you tried to explain what you mean by being in "God's Presence..." because it sounds like you're thinking of a time where God will be/is in a SPECIFIC geographic location and IN THAT PHYSICAL SPOT, where God is, God will NOT allow sin to be in that specific area.
You think (I believe) that God CAN tolerate sin being in that area where "God is," but that God WON'T.
So, that's one question. How are you limiting an infinite God to one (or multiple... but not all??) locations? And what is your reasoning for suggesting God is thusly limited - or chooses to limit God's self?
Then the other one is the whole, God's not a jerk problem. We don't love everyone. We mortals find some people very repulsive or disturbing AND YET, we often choose to be in their presence out of love for them (think of a parent who kicked their gay kid out of the family for being gay... but that same child comes back to take care of that parent when they're sick or in need). IF we mere mortals can choose to be in the presence of distasteful sinful people when they're in a time of need out of love - EVEN THOUGH our ability to love is certainly imperfect - then WHY is the almighty perfectly loving, perfectly grace-full God not willing to do the same?
It makes your notion of god out to be sort of an insufferable punk and weakling, certainly not perfectly loving.
" I don't want ads or spam to show up and I don't have time to constantly check twenty years worth of posts, so the timer."
Lame. Those unwanted comments on my blog showed up first in my email. For reasons I haven't been able to figure out (mostly from lack of effort on my part, because there's another way to deal with it), some people will try to post and their attempt won't come to my email. IF some troll shows up in my email, it's no more difficult to find and delete the comment as it is to ignore it, given the incredibly unlikelihood that anyone could care if they stumbled upon it for any reason.
Here, it's about you and your well-known inability to overcome superior points of view...which is why you delete.
"So, God ISN'T omnipresent, God is only in places with "no sin..."? Again, if that's what you're saying, it seems you have a pretty small god."
I'm saying God is Holy and He isn't keen on sin. Thus, it's hard to imagine that sin will find a way into Heaven. Do you disagree with this? If not, then what does it mean? Does it mean God eliminated sin? If so, why would He if He didn't want to tolerate it?
To whatever extent God might be where sin or sinfulness is, it's a stretch to suggest He has no choice in the matter. If He has a purpose for being near sin, that's not the same as having a desire to separate Himself from it.
"So, that's one question. How are you limiting an infinite God to one (or multiple... but not all??) locations? And what is your reasoning for suggesting God is thusly limited - or chooses to limit God's self?"
He's limited only by His own Will. Unlike us, He has complete control and authority with regards to being where He chooses to be. I'm saying that without reason, He chooses not to be in the presence of sin. He hates sin. Are you unaware of this?
"So, in your mind, God CAN tolerate sin... but the omnipresent, omniscient, all-powerful God WON'T tolerate sin in God's presence?"
Just as you refuse to tolerate that which you find offensive to YOU, God has the same right to deny that which offends Him. You really have a problem with this?
"It makes your notion of god out to be sort of an insufferable punk and weakling, certainly not perfectly loving."
No it doesn't. What it does is compel you to expose yourself as one who is not willing to accept God on His terms...which was already confirmed years ago by your very words. You demand that God must meet YOUR expectations for what makes a "good" God. Good luck with that.
it's hard to imagine that sin will find a way into Heaven. Do you disagree with this?
As a point of fact, we are given almost NO details about what "heaven" will be like, so there is NO biblical, authoritative way to answer this. I could offer opinions and guesses if you like, just as you are here. But we have no way of proving what heaven looks like.
If not, then what does it mean?
What does WHAT mean? That "sin will find a way into heaven..."? I don't know, those are your words. What do you mean? That there will be imperfection in heaven? That people will murder or slander in heaven? I don't know.
Does it mean God eliminated sin? If so, why would He if He didn't want to tolerate it?
I'm not hung up on "sin" the way that those in the evangelical tradition are. Your (formerly my) arguments on the topic have pushed me further and further away from thinking they are rational or biblical in any serious way.
When did God tell you that God doesn't want to tolerate sin?
Now SOME sin, God clearly hates. The oppression of the poor and marginalized, for instance. From the front to the back of the Bible, oppression, lack of support for the poor and marginalized, for immigrants and orphans and those with disabilities, for powerful, abusive wealthy people and rulers... God has a very low tolerance for such.
But the newborn who is merely born imperfect (and, in your opinion, with a "sin nature...")? There is NOTHING in the Bible that says God can't tolerate that. Indeed, Jesus made it clear that the children - not even just the babies, but the children in general with all their little greed and little lies and little selfishness - were BELOVED AND WELCOMED by Jesus (and by God). And Jesus says that "the least of these," the poor and marginalized, are WELCOME at Jesus' dinner table and in fact, HE IS the poor and marginalized. No suggestion that God can't abide by their imperfections and sins. None at all.
So where, precisely, Did God pass on this information to you?
Post a Comment