Bubba, who has re-appeared on Marshal's website, recently has been suggesting he wants to ask me questions and have a conversation on the notion of sin and morality and harm. He said:
what it is I really want to discuss -- sin vs harm, and whether calling an act sinful qualifies as harmful!
Let's take a look at what he probably means by "Sin." Even though I've done this repeatedly for their sake... I'll take a shot at it again. Not so much for their sake but for mine, to put down in words what I'm learning from what I consider their bad example.
"Sin" is a problematic word. It has all kinds of baggage. Humans have been using their preferred notions of "sin" to beat up on and further marginalize people for a very long time. "Sin," in relatively modern conservative religionist's circles has been used to heap guilt upon people and as a tool to say, "YOU are not one of us, YOU are not a decent human in "god's" eyes. YOU are "totally depraved."
LOOK at that. TOTALLY depraved. AAAGH! That sounds horrible! What do they mean by it?
According to the conservative religionists at "Ligonier Ministries..."
"The doctrine of total depravity
does not mean that all humankind is as evil as it possibly could be.
Phew!
Rather, it means that sin affects the whole person. We are born
corrupted,
poisoned, and
polluted by sin.
Our minds are darkened and we
cannot see or understand the truth.
Our hearts are defiled so that they do not love the truth.
We love what we should hate, and we hate what we should love.
Our wills are in bondage to sin, and we cannot believe the gospel in and of themselves.
Ugh.
Sin, the word typically used in the New Testament... the word used by Jesus... is literally translated as
missing the mark
as in shooting for a target and coming up short. Not being perfect. Not achieving perfection.
Well, of course, humanity is not perfect. No one who is human and self-aware suggests that.
But merely "missing the mark of perfection" is not the same, in any way, as DEPRAVED, much less TOTALLY DEPRAVED.
It is not the same as being "corrupted, poisoned and polluted by sin" (by "missing the mark..."?)
The word SIN has been stained, it seems to me, by the human traditions found in conservative evangelical Christianity and other more repressive religious traditions. So, I'm reluctant to use the word, "sin." It has become a mark of abuse and oppression. It causes nightmares and PTSD in people who have been terrorized by the use of the word, "sin."
But biblically, "missing the mark..."? Failing to be perfect? That, I'm fine with. We humans are, after all, imperfect. We miss the mark of perfection. But what of it? Does that make us actually evil? Worthy of the hatred and punishment of God? I do not think that is rational or biblical.
I'd suggest that it's when you add all these human interpretations, opinions and traditions that "sin" becomes problematic.
This is why I prefer to deal with notions like, "Is this harmful or helpful? Does it promote wholesome healing and community... or division and hatred?" That which is harmful is wrong, is a "sin," in the more negative sense that some human traditions and opinions suggest.
Further, "the Bible" has made no "opinion" on "sin." Rather, human writers and thinkers have offered opinions, in the Bible and afterwards. And those opinions are sometimes helpful and sometimes harmful.
As a starting point.
121 comments:
To be clear: Where the legalists/magic rule book believers say:
We are born
corrupted,
poisoned, and
polluted by sin.
Our minds are darkened and we
cannot see or understand the truth.
I do not believe that ANY of these opinions are biblical or supported by the data we find in reality/in reasonable observation.
Do the legalists have ANY data to "prove" their opinions objectively or can they admit it's just a subjective opinion, one they can't prove.
I have no interest in following multiple threads to have a single conversation, Dan, so for anything more I have to say, I'll probably post at Marshal's original comment thread even with the delays in admin approval.
Here, it suffices to say this:
- I would prefer that you ASK ME what I mean rather than have you tackle what you THINK I "probably" mean.
- I understand the position that (some? all?) harmful acts are sinful, but that doesn't address the question I raised, whether some sins AREN'T harmful. We're talking about different parts of the same Venn diagram.
- And, I appreciate an alternative to what you think is a tainted word, but sometimes the word fits quite well.
> Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight. - Ps 51:4a
This was King David confessing the Bathsheba affair, where idleness led to lust then adultery and then deceit and finally murder. "Missing the mark" kinda sells short what the man did, breaking roughly half the Ten Commandments in one fell swoop!
And that's to say nothing about your suggesting a clunky three-word phrase for an elegant three-letter word, but as long as we're clear WHOSE mark is being missed, I think I'm okay with the euphemism even if my question is clearer without it.
Jesus! This isn’t hard. All sin is harmful. The question is to whom? 1. To self only. 2. To self and others. 3. To others only - meaning cultural customs, laws, corrupted values that the hegemony systemically impose on targeted groups. 4. To the community as a whole - meaning cultural customs, laws, corrupted values by which everyone is harmed.
The distinctions are governed
The real difficulty is understanding that culpability for sin is mitigated by social forces arrayed against some groups and not others, or bear upon all persons. Typically this a failure in compassion by so-called White people who carry a blithe, unmerited, unconscious privilege to judge others. And so, #’s 3 & 4 above are corrupted by people like Bubba.
Indeed, Sin is what is harmful. AND, just for clarity's sake, probably most sin is the "missing the mark" sort... the, "I haven't been perfect" part.
I think they are guessing that sin isn't that which is harmful, but rather, "that which disagrees with my personal opinions of what I think the Bible says about what I think God thinks."
Which is problematic.
Problematic as hell. Which is where their minds are living.
Dan, the benefit of our discussion is that you might no longer need to "think" that we're "guessing" anything. I've addressed the issue in part of a lengthy, 5-part response, and I'm sure Marshal will approve the posts as soon as he can.
To summarize it, though, in a way that I didn't put there: I believe sin is anything that violates God's law, regardless of whether it results in harm.
Sometimes it DOES result in harm (murder & theft), sometimes not (lust & idolatry), and sometimes harm isn't sinful (capital punishment).
In other words, my view is that sin and harm are overlapping concepts BUT NOT SYNONYMS.
God's law. Which of them are still in effect and which are not? Making a shirt from two kinds of plants, still a sin? Touching a woman during her period? Wall Street insider trading, not mentioned in God's law. Trying to get a democratic election overturned by asking governors to make up voting numbers on the spot? Not in God's law.
Bubba cannot list what is or is not on God's law sheet. Sin is whatever is harmful to the human person or persons. Such harm could be as minimal as clouding hope, will, love, discernment, compassion, etc. At one time, making clothing out of two kinds of plants or touching a woman during her period seemed unnatural in the ancient world. They worried that it created a spiritual confusion. For them, it was harmful. Now... not.
It's pretty simple. Bubba makes it incomprehensible because he rigidly follows a 17th century radical protestant playbook.
AND! because he wants to brutalize groups of people toward whom he's bigoted. Or, in other words, Bubba wants to be like a Nazi.
Bubba, I do not believe that sin and harm are synonyms, for what it's worth. You said:
I believe sin is anything that violates God's law, regardless of whether it results in harm.
I disagree with that opinion, as far as it goes. Let me try to be even clearer:
I do not think that God scooped God's holy hand into a big ol' pile of rules and said, "Here! Here are some rules that I expect you to abide by. I'm going to put them in the Bible so that you will KNOW I expect you to abide by them."
Perhaps you don't think that's rational, either.
I don't think God "created" any "laws" or "rules" just to be creating laws and rules.
Rather, as one who believes in a creator God, I believed God created a world and humanity... and in that imperfect world and those imperfect humans, SOME things and actions cause harm.
Now, some things are natural or inevitable. A tornado, for instance, or someone accidentally burning dinner by a simple human oversight. Those harms are not "immoral" or "bad" or "sin." They just are.
But, other actions are things that we do or cause. The man who drives will drunk is literally putting other people's lives at risk due to his impaired driving. There is some degree of wrong in that.
The person who chooses to drive a gas consumption car in a responsible manner is probably doing no great harm alone. BUT, a policy that promotes most people relying upon a gas consumption car WILL predictably cause some degree of harm. But, there are some benefits as well. It's nuanced, but there is a deliberately chosen set of actions that WILL cause harm so there's some degree of cupability there. Some degree of "sin" or "missing the mark of perfect" there. Wrong will happen... but it's more nuanced.
I think morality is like that. God generally wants us to love, be kind, be helpful and NOT to choose deliberate harm (that is, if we affirm a God of love and grace, as I do). But the point is not about a set of one million rules and pre-conditions around driving (for instance). It's about trying our best to do the good, and trying our best to minimize the harm.
The Pharisees and others in our history have tried out the process of "Let's create a million rules and ten million sub-rules and it inevitably leads to a lack of grace and harm, itself.
That's what makes sense to me.
Dan:
"I don't think God 'created' any 'laws' or 'rules' just to be creating laws and rules."
I don't think so either, the Bible is quite clear that God is anything but capricious, and I think He had very good reasons to create the laws that He commanded us to obey. But I'll elaborate in the other thread, in part because here Feodor just called me a wannabe Nazi who wants to brutalize the Other...
...and you have said nothing in response, neither asking Feo if he really doesn't see how unhinged he sounds nor telling him he's being an asshole and should knock it off. It makes me wonder if your little attack chihuahua is practically your unrestrained id: maybe your silence indicates your agreement, it almost certainly indicates that you don't object enough to say something.
It should be no wonder that I'd rather have our quite productive conversation somewhere else.
God is not capricious, Bubba. The Lord of Love and Master of the Universe does not make people who come to believe in Jesus Christ more fragile. Rather, faith, by God's grace, makes us stronger than anyone: strong enough to live in the real world, to face the present world with love on our lips and not judgement. God calls us to live by the Holy Spirit - which is difficult and challenging to discern and humbles our inability to see the depth and breadth of grace. God's forthright and directive rule does not ask us to live by a book, not even scripture. That way was the way of the Torah. And while it served its purpose, it did not suffice for God's full plan in the Incarnation of his Son and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
"“I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything..."
Notice that the Lord did not say a book would come. We have long understood that Scripture serves to point us to the One who can teach us everything: God the Holy Spirit. A book, not even scripture, can teach us everything. It is a co-creation of God and human beings, at a certain time. It is dangerously and disastrously capricious of you to live by a book rather than the living God. Especially when you squeeze Holy Scripture into a 17th century dogma.
These are the principal reasons you cannot stand in the world like a man. You say you need to retreat to your safe space. The Holy Spirit does not weaken a man. The Spirit gives him such courage that he is home everywhere with everyone, sharing the gospel of God's grace. Without judgment. It is weak faith, like faith in a book, that must be on guard from God's own free and spirit-filled creation.
And so, you've become brutal. But cannot see it.
Feodor, you might be shocked to discover that I agree with almost literally every word you just wrote: my ONLY objections are about how you characterize me (without judgment on your part, no doubt!) and about your interpretation of John 14:26.
If you don't mind, could you tell me why you didn't quote the entire verse?
I'm not shocked at all Bubba: when one stands reading Holy Scripture with his back to the Holy Spirit, one is taking in the Truth and very, very close to turning toward it in order to mature in faith.
I would be shocked, though, if you thought you had read about the Bible in the rest of the verse. In simplest terms because the Bible doesn't come along for another three centuries. In more important terms because Holy Scripture, in Acts 10, reveals to us that even spending a few years with Jesus does not prepare one for everything. That even the apostles and elders were "shocked" to discover that the Holy Spirit would teach them new things. As the living God does still.
In fact, repeatedly for the rest of scripture after Acts 10, there is the thread of Peter's indecision and Paul's disappointment in and anger at him to fully accept that Gentiles are drawn and welcomed to full faith on their own terms - and decidedly NOT after meeting some Judaizing requirements. This battle is one of a weak need for outward conformity to feel secure vs recognizing that the Holy Spirit is in control and trusting the signs AND the freedom of God the Holy Spirit. Paul is clear that he detests Judaizers as entirely opposed to the gospel promise held out to all people. When believers require the right ethnicity or the right genitalia or the right use of genitalia to believe minister or lead... they have their noses in pages written with ink, idolizing the book, and not believing in the Spirit of God.
You didn't answer my question about why you only quoted part of John 14:26.
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."
Why did you omit those last 12 words?
Bubba...
I'll elaborate in the other thread, in part because here Feodor just called me a wannabe Nazi who wants to brutalize the Other...
...and you have said nothing in response, neither asking Feo if he really doesn't see how unhinged he sounds nor telling him he's being an asshole
1. Feodor would probably be glad to tell you that I've deleted far and away more of his comments than I have of Marshal or other conservatives. I give Feodor some leeway because those other blogs don't allow him to make his comments there. I'm giving him space and some bit of grace to comment here because they don't allow it there.
2. It would be easier to take your concerns about Feodor HERE more seriously if you also criticized the over-the-top demonizations and vulgar attacks that Marshal and others make on their blogs about liberals.
As some chump who was brutalized and eventually killed by the conservative legalists once said:
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged.
Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.
Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Give, and it will be given to you.
A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over,
will be poured into your lap.
For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
You ARE right, Dan -- or almost right. Christ wasn't married in any conventional sense, but He did model being a perfect husband. I agree it would be inaccurate to describe Christ as a capitalist even though He did implicitly affirm property rights, but He sure as shit wasn't a socialist, either: His concern wasn't political or parochial, He had bigger fish to fry, His kingdom is not of this world!
And the Bible itself is clear that it does not and indeed could not contain everything about God: see Dt 29:29 & Jn 21:25! But it's possible that God could reveal Himself through the Bible, and it certainly seems that Jesus reflected a belief in the divine authorship and inerrant message of Scripture.
But otherwise, yes, amen many times over! As I've already said, Feodor is capable of a remarkable amount of insight, it's just a damned shame that he smears me as a Nazi.
You're right that I haven't defended you from Marshal's invective either -- NOR have I defended him against you! -- but I might start doing so. I understand why he calls you a pervert, for instance, and I agree that it's perverse to celebrate what the Bible clearly sets outside of God's will for human sexuality, but I've never thought that particular slur was all that apt OR useful, for you OR anyone else. It's just not in my lexicon.
But your silence in the face of Feodor's unhinged attacks is still deafening, and I'm inclined to believe that it reflects your assent. AFTER ALL, in that single thread at MA's, you've called me a religious extremist AND argued (absurdly) that Christ was a moderate who was murdered by religious extremists.
Marshall writes about the Molech worshippers on the left, and you balk: "Do you not see how bitter and repugnant and conspiratorial/insane your side sounds?"
Feodor calls me a wannabe Nazi, and you don't say a word, even though our recent conversations have indeed been productive and even polite to an astounding agree -- and I'm a guest here at your blog; let's not forget that Macbeth's regicide was doubly offensive because of the moral obligation of hospitality.
And why shouldn't you be silent? You've compared me to Christ-killers.
It's not hard to see that two and two is four.
Well, Ben, you're still avoiding addressing my main point: the Bible is entirely capable of revealing God to us (that is it's central, preponderant role in christian faith), but only as... a) empowered by God the Spirit and not as a bound book that is sacrosanct apart from divine life, and b) interpreted during ongoing time, which interpretation can only be carried out - however imperfectly - under the guidance of the living Spirit and the reasoning/spiritual reflections and consensus of the body of Christ, the church (i.e., not by sole individuals).
All of which is made clear by “I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything..." This truth, of course, infers that there will be surprises to us. Shocks even. Astonishments. You think you find inferred signs of capitalism and marriage, but you have not acknowledged the implications of Peter and his entourage and the Jerusalem elders being "astonished" that God was now extended the promises of grace to all Gentiles of the known world.
You think you find models of a husband in Christ but elided the model of the church being taken by surprise by those, previously thought disgusting and outside the promises, now shown by the Holy Spirit to be fully welcome as equal brothers and sisters. Africans, Asians, previously denied by the Church, now in. Women, previously denied leadership, now leading whole communions of Christ's body.
And all the above is my agreement with you: God is not capricious. God is living, indwelling us, guiding us, teaching us "everything" as live and move in the world as members of Christ's church.
But not in agreement as you would demand it.
You recent diversionary snippets of half-thoughts don't suffice to be an answer or an argument.
- Paul does metaphorize Christ's love for the church as the love of husband for wife. Which puts the church metaphorically in the role of the wife. Inference by your application (Christ was marriage-adjacent): women are perfect, then, to lead the church.
- Christ implicitly affirmed property rights? "Do not steal" is a specious attempt to import the idea of property on to one who had nowhere to lay his head and depending on others. Christ also fed the masses for free. And healed them for free. And the rich man was not in his circle. And you forget this from the earliest of days of the church: "When they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness. Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common." Be warned, though, I do not presume to say the Jesus, the Spirit, and the first church implicitly requires socialism. Socialism is a moral construct of theory and practice that arose in the 19th century. Since then, there have been hundreds of thousands of Christian socialists. But it is anachronistic to import modern ideas into the history of antiquity. We can ground our faith convictions in models of the ancient church, but our convictions must be lived in the context of our time. Things change since the time of scripture, antiquity, medieviality, the Renaissance, early modern Reformation/Englightenment, and even the 20th century.
It's also spurious to claim that Jesus attributes inerrancy to Moses. What a nonsense, ideological stretch that is. The Sermon on the Mount is a radicalization of the Torah beyond anything found in the Pentateuch. And, "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," is a reversal of Torah and, inferentially, a take down of the hierarchy of a scroll (a book) over human beings.
The same inference is found in my point, with which you cannot deal. Christian Scripture as revelation and inspiration acts out revelation and inspiration by faithfully pointing our attention and meditation and commitment away from itself and toward the living God. The Spirit came, and is in the process of teaching the church everything. Not a book, bound in imitation leather, printed in black and red ink. Those are inanimate things. Used by living faith, by themselves agents of death in dead dogma.
And when your dogma, Bubba, calls you to coercively take away rights of human beings in the 21st century, it is precisely there that you replicate Nazi fascists.
Bubba...
His kingdom is not of this world!
Well, the realm of God is not reflected in the oppression and greed of this world, BUT he did pray and expect us to act out that God's realm WOULD come and God's will WOULD be done on earth, as it is in Heaven. For, as Jesus said, he had come to preach literal good news (not the horrifying bad news of modern evangelicalism where the "news" is that most people will be punished in a torturous hell forever! some "good news!") to the poor and marginalized, to proclaim the Day of Jubilee. Here. Now.
As a rather important aside.
Also Bubba, I have a hard time getting your colleagues to answer this directly, but I know in conservative evangelicalism that different conservatives answer this different ways, but tell me, for you: Do you think that the vast majority of humanity is "going to hell for their sins" and that God isn't even "calling" for them to be saved because "only those who are called/elect" can be saved.
While I get your all's theory that it's "because of their sins" that they'll be tortured for an eternity, but
1. Do you think that this is the vast majority of humanity (maybe 3/4th?)
2. Do you think they never could even CHOOSE to repent and jump through the hoops necessary to be "saved" because God didn't "call them," so they never even had a chance? That God created them specifically to be punished "for 'god's' glory..."?
Who said anything about oppression and greed? Here again, you don't seem to understand the political conservatism you left: capitalism is NOT about oppression, it's about individual liberty, and it's NOT about choosing to be greedy but merely about being free to choose. A proper libertarian can be quite generous with his money, he just abstains from being generous with OTHER PEOPLE'S money.
You ask good questions, but I wish you would direct these questions to me over at Marshal's, as it's exhausting to try to have the same conversation in multiple venues, but briefly:
I disagree with the Calvinists who think that God calls only those who respond. Quite the contrary, God isn't willing that any should perish (2 Pet 3:9), and He calls to us that, WHOSOEVER WILL, let him drink freely from the water of life (Rev 22:17).
For God so loved the world, that WHOEVER believes shall have eternal life.
I believe God means it, that the call is universal even though not everyone responds, that the freedom to respond is no illusion.
I do tremble to think that few will find eternal life, it's certainly not my preference, but it's not my decision to make.
> Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. - Mt 7:13-14
Notice that we see this warning echoed in Luke 13:24, even though Luke's is arguably the gospel most focused on universal salvation extending even to the materially poor.
What you call "the horrifying bad news of modern evangelicalism" is really the dire but trustworthy warnings of Christ Himself. Contra Feo, I'm not stuck in the 16th century, I'm happily committed to the dominical and apostolic teaching of the 1st century.
Bubba cannot stand up to my questions.
Bubba...
Who said anything about oppression and greed?
Jesus. Repeatedly throughout the Gospels. I'm surprised you missed it. It's right there with the first words out of the adult Jesus' mouth.
Bubba...
you don't seem to understand the political conservatism you left: capitalism is NOT about oppression, it's about individual liberty, and it's NOT about choosing to be greedy but merely about being free to choose.
I didn't say capitalism or political conservatism are about oppression, did I?
Here, I was clearly speaking about Jesus' teachings as we find them in the gospel records.
I was speaking to the theory that you advanced about Jesus...
His kingdom is not of this world!
...Where I clarified that in the biblical record, Jesus literally said that he prayed for and expected God's realm here and now on earth. Right? So, suggesting that Jesus only said his realm is not of this earth is not looking at the full gospel record.
Hope you can see that point.
Dan
Bubba...
I wish you would direct these questions to me over at Marshal's, as it's exhausting to try to have the same conversation in multiple venues,
Thanks for the answer, I appreciate it. This question seemed to be off topic for the conversation at Marshal's, which is why I asked it here.
I suspect that when I ask conservatives and they don't answer this question or don't answer it directly, clearly, it's because they are the ones who believe that God creates most people for "damnation" for "god's glory" and that's an icky thing to say/write.
Bubba...
What you call "the horrifying bad news of modern evangelicalism" is really the dire but trustworthy warnings of Christ Himself.
Well, clearly, I disagree with that opinion. To say that most of humanity "deserves" to go to hell to be punished for an eternity due to the "evil" or "totally depraved" nature of their typical sins and their "depraved" "sin nature" is neither rational, nor Biblical, nor in keeping with the teachings of Jesus.
It's not sufficient to pull a line out of the context of the whole of Jesus' teachings to say, "but look, here..." That principle is one I imagine you would agree with, but you can tell me.
Feo, I've only been skimming your replies, and I haven't bothered to answer your questions. If there's a particular question you want answered, shoot: and if you can abstain from the bullshit accusation of crypto-fascism, I might just answer you.
---
Dan,
About "oppression and greed," I took it that you brought up the concepts in the context of your saying that Jesus isn't a capitalist, but since capitalism neither entails oppression nor requires greed, it's a complete non sequitur.
(Here's another example of why I don't think you quite grasped political conservatism in your past life. "Capitalism = greed" is a smear from the left, but it's a smear that any student of Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman would know is a damned lie.)
You write, "Jesus literally said that he prayed for and expected God's realm here and now on earth. Right? So, suggesting that Jesus only said his realm is not of this earth is not looking at the full gospel record."
I see what you mean now, thanks, but even that prayer is ONLY that the Father's kingdom be IN this world, but that doesn't mean it would be OF this world. Same sermon, Jesus taught that we His followers are salt and light, that we're supposed to remain distinctive FROM this world while we have an impact IN this world.
My only point is that God's kingdom being made manifest on earth might not necessarily or primarily be focused on politics. Then again, there logically could be -- and I believe, SHOULD BE -- a political component in a Christian's political beliefs. THAT is why I reject your position that one's politics should derive from reason entirely apart from faith.
...I've come to learn that not all religious faiths are as radically honest as evangelicals: Mormons believe we're all apostates but present themselves as just another Protestant denomination, and Muslims have the despicable doctrine of taqiyya. One thing I like about Calvinists (or "extreme Calvinists," there may be a distinction) is that they're quite honest about their beliefs, "icky" as they may appear to be.
A real Calvinist will quite happily quote Romans 9:22.
Since you ask, I DEFINITELY agree that we shouldn't pull verses out of context. The phrase is that we "let Scripture interpret Scripture," and the most biblical position is the most HOLISTIC position, the one that accounts for...
- the immediate context of the book in question
- the larger collection of writings for the more prolific writers like Moses, David, Luke and Paul
- the overall dominical teachings of Jesus and apostolic teachings of His hand-picked emissaries
- the context of the covenant in question, whether it's the pre-Israelite time of Noah and the Patriarchs, the law of Moses for ancient Israel, or the "new covenant" promised in Jeremiah 31:31 and explicitly inaugurated in Luke 22:20
- AND, ultimately, the context of all 66 books, since the various covenants were all made by the same, unchanging Lord!
"To say that most of humanity 'deserves' to go to hell to be punished for an eternity due to the 'evil' or 'totally depraved' nature of their typical sins and their 'depraved' 'sin nature' is neither rational, nor Biblical, nor in keeping with the teachings of Jesus."
Here you mention three categories:
1. Rational (human reason)
2. Biblical (the 66 books)
3. Domnical (the Lord's teachings, MOSTLY found in the Gospels)
I actually think the doctrine is rational, and that's where CS Lewis comes in, but it's not my main interest in the context of our conversation.
Categories 2 and 3: REALLY, Dan?
What specific passages convinced you that the doctrine of Hell -- or the variation you describe above; quite accurately, the quotes are fair summaries of the Calvinist position, without any "magic rulings book" nonsense -- is contrary to Christ's teachings specifically or the Bible more generally?
I'm GENUINELY quite curious.
Bubba, start by ending your desire to take away rights from other people and your progress toward fascism will stop. Start by attributing my comments to me and things will improve in our discussions. You have more than enough argument from me just based on scripture that you've avoided. Stop deflecting because of your anxiety. You asked about John 14. I answered. Apparently you had a thought that died. You cannot respond.
Bubba:
Categories 2 and 3: REALLY, Dan?
What specific passages convinced you that the doctrine of Hell -- or the variation you describe above; quite accurately, the quotes are fair summaries of the Calvinist position, without any "magic rulings book" nonsense -- is contrary to Christ's teachings specifically or the Bible more generally?
Let me first offer this (one of many) website that offers a more full-throated explanation of how "hell" is simply not biblical. Period. That is, HELL as imagined by religious evangelicals. Then I'll offer my own much shorter explanation:
https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/hell-a-biblical-staple-the-bible-never-actually-mentions-c28b18b1aaaa
1. Hell - as the Dante-era religionists mean it - is not in the OT at all. Full stop.
2. There are four terms/words that get conflated to Hell (or something like it) and none of them are talking about eternal torture for the lost. Not one.
3. The ~12 times that Jesus mentions "fires of hell" beg the question immediately: Is he speaking figuratively or literally? The text literally doesn't tell us. Period.
4. The key point that I (and others) think we need to understand about Jesus' use of such extreme language is that Jesus was not in a vacuum. He was talking to a people under the thumb of powerful oppressors in the gov't and in the religious establishment, especially the Pharisees. In the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5, we see "burn in hell" three times. And who is Jesus teaching to and who is Jesus teaching against? He's preaching TO the oppressed and marginalized, just as he said he'd come to do. The "sinners" and "unclean" so loathed by many of the religious leadership.
And he's preaching AGAINST the Pharisees and other powerful oppressors.
I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven
Jesus makes these points about the warning of the "fires of hell" specifically for the benefit of the oppressors, the Pharisees. At least, that's what makes sense to me and how I read it.
So, in summation: "Hell" as Dante and modern religious conservatives view it, is literally not a biblical idea. When it does appear (about a dozen times), clearly it's speaking figuratively or hyperbolically, not literally.
Why?
Well, that's where reason also comes in play, as well as larger biblical themes.
Biblically, God is a God of justice and a God of love, forgiveness and grace.
Biblically, God's justice (in the sense of punishment) is almost always directed towards the rich and powerful oppressors in protection/defense of the poor and marginalized. Overwhelmingly.
And rationally, we know that for Justice to BE Just, any punishments can't be disproportionate to the crime committed. So, given the reality that for most of humanity, our sins are of the "missing the mark/falling short" sorts of misdeeds... being mean in. your anger towards a loved one or a stranger, taking a piece of candy from a candy jar that didn't belong to you because it was tempting,etc.
Now, given that reality (and it is an observable reality that these are the "crimes" of most of humanity - not murder, rape, war, mutilation, etc), then in what possible sense does it make sense to punish someone with an eternity of torture for relatively minor failures and misdeeds?
A being that would dole out that sort of "punishment" would be monstrously unjust. And biblically, God is just not portrayed as being monstrously unjust.
That's my relatively short answer.
"Hell" is not in the Bible. Period.
"Hell" is an extreme assault on justice.
God IS just.
Another site presenting the rational, biblical case against "hell" as envisioned by evangelical conservatives.
https://www.umc.org/en/content/ongoing-history-of-hell-compass-96
Also, those ~dozen times that "burning hell" imagery is used are referring to place where "body and soul" are destroyed, so that wouldn't be eternal torture, would it, even if you wanted to take it literally.
Also, again, neither hell or the afterlife appear in the OT because Jewish folk had no significant belief in either. It just wasn't a thing. At best, they were agnostic about it ("What happens in the afterlife? Who am I, God? I don't know and God hasn't told me!") That's certainly my view.
"The Bible" has all kinds of words and ideas and some that seem to touch on notions of an afterlife, but we're never told exactly what any of it means, not in the Bible.
Given that reality, and that the Jews (like Jesus) had no religious opinions of an afterlife, if THEY were to have taken Jesus literally to be speaking of some afterlife, wouldn't there be questions? "What is this afterlife you're speaking of, Jesus?" But in the text, we see none of that. One would presume that they were taking Jesus metaphorically.
And just to preempt the questions: I tend to believe in an afterlife, a "heaven" with God. But like the Jews of old (and today), we have no hard data on any of it. No eye witnesses to tell us what to expect. Any opinions about any afterlife are going to be, perforce, speculation. I'm much more concerned with "thy will be done, on earth... as it is in heaven," where we have much more ability to recognize what it means to love, to be kind, to share, to support, to work for justice (actually justice), to ally with and alongside the poor and marginalized. THAT, we can take action on and form reasonable data-based opinions on here and now.
I'm an agnostic on all matters that can't be proven objectively, which is reasonable.
Early Jewish beliefs about any afterlife (and to be clear, there are a range of beliefs... just not really any that correspond to evangelical theories about hell and heaven):
https://lithub.com/on-early-judaism-and-its-conception-of-the-afterlife/
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/afterlife
And, I like the way this one begins:
Ask Jews what happens after death, and many will respond that the Jewish tradition doesn’t say or doesn’t care, that Jews believe life is for the living and that Judaism focuses on what people can and should do in this world.
https://momentmag.com/is-there-life-after-death/
Bubba...
What specific passages convinced you that the doctrine of Hell -- or the variation you describe above; quite accurately, the quotes are fair summaries of the Calvinist position, without any "magic rulings book" nonsense -- is contrary to Christ's teachings specifically or the Bible more generally?
I'm GENUINELY quite curious.
Just to try to further clarify in a briefer manner: ALL the passages. Which is to say:
1. I believe that the Bible is far and away abundantly clear that God is a God of Justice and Love.
2. And that a just God will not act unjustly.
3. And that for a punishment to be just, it must be proportionate to the misdeeds.
... ALL of which is based on the general theme of God found in the pages of the Bible as a God of justice and love, especially with concern for the poor and marginalized, biblically speaking.
4. And so, where there are a couple handfuls of phrases in the Bible that use terms like "burning fire," that those few passages can NOT rationally or "biblically" mean that God is going to act in a way that is unjust, and
5. That we can rightly understand Justice as having proportionate punishment.
6. And, given that, such few phrases (which never say that all of humanity is deserving of eternal punishment and torture for typical failures of humanity), can't be reasonably or biblically taken to mean, "AND SO, NOW God is going to whimsically punish most of humanity with an eternity of torture."
That would be contra-biblical and against basic common sense and moral reasoning.
Do you actually disagree? And if so, why/based on what?
For me, when I used to disagree with that notion, the answer came down to, "Well, that's what I've been taught forever and just accepted it..." But not that I had an answer to the "How is that Just OR Loving?" questions.
So, the questions that I could not answer that pushed me away from those conservative theories and traditions were:
IS it possible to punish people for an eternity for relatively minor, temporal failings of humanity OR does that conflict with the justice notion that any punishment must be proportionate?
Do you have any way to explain how typical "missing the mark" failings of imperfect people are somehow deserving of an eternity of torture?
Having NO biblical or rational or moral answer to that, I had to abandon the conservative opinions on the matter, recognizing that they are just opinions and theories and traditions, and NOT the "word of God."
Feodor, I stopped responding to you because I could no longer see the point in responding, but since you asked...
This is the complete sentence in John 14:26:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."
Diagram the sentence, and you will see that the Holy Spirit will do two things: TEACH and REMIND, more specifically:
- teach all things, supplementing what Jesus had already taught
- remind them of "all that I have said to you"
I think many of Christ's teachings apply to all His followers, but this particular promise is only for the people being directly addressed, namely the remaining Eleven in the upper room: after all, they have actual memories of Jesus' oral teachings, we do not.
Thus, the Apostles are uniquely equipped to teach authoritatively in Christ's name.
"Notice that the Lord did not say a book would come."
Indeed He didn't, but the Spirit that did come equipped the Apostles to teach, and we are blessed in having at least a partial record of their teaching preserved in Scripture. As Paul would elaborate in I Cor 2:6-16, the Spirit gave the Apostles the very words they used, and the Spirit illuminates those words and allows us to understand them, but the words are preserved and communicated in writing.
Dan,
Dante is a red herring; I'm not asking about whether the popular modern conception of hell is biblical but whether the biblical conception of hell is biblical.
Since I believe in progressive (but not corrective) revelation, it doesn't mean much to say that the earlier Jewish perspective on the afterlife is less complete than the fuller picture we have in the New Testament.
And even granting that Jesus focused on oppression, that fact might limit the population of hell, but it doesn't eliminate the doctrine.
On the contrary, there are too many warnings to ignore, many from Christ's own lips: Mt 8:12, 13:42 & 50, 25:26; Mk 9:42-48; Lk 12:5; Jn 3:18.
(It's only frightening that a fire is unquenchable if the fuel is never completely consumed.)
"So, given the reality that for most of humanity, our sins are of the "missing the mark/falling short" sorts of misdeeds... being mean in. your anger towards a loved one or a stranger, taking a piece of candy from a candy jar that didn't belong to you because it was tempting,etc.
"Now, given that reality (and it is an observable reality that these are the 'crimes' of most of humanity - not murder, rape, war, mutilation, etc), then in what possible sense does it make sense to punish someone with an eternity of torture for relatively minor failures and misdeeds?"
I know somewhere, some popular Christian author taught that mere hate was as bad as murder and mere lust as bad as outright adultery. By those standards, we all fall WELL short of the mark.
But, I wonder, what's your position? That there is no hell, or that hell is reserved for the truly heinous villains, the Hitlers and Dahmers of the world?
If you're saying there is no hell, don't bother arguing that common housewives don't belong, argue that NO ONE belongs.
I'm not sure your actual position.
But in the meantime, I can say that you distort MY position, and here's another piece of evidence that you don't understand theological conservatism, the second exhibit that has arrived in less than 24 hours.
You write that the Bible's passages on hell "can't be reasonably or biblically taken to mean, 'AND SO, NOW God is going to whimsically punish most of humanity with an eternity of torture.'"
No conservative would EVER use that adverb "whimsically." We believe that God always acts purposefully even when we cannot understand His purposes, and so we believe that, if His judgment entails eternal damnation, it is ONLY because such punishment really is just.
So, Bubba, you believe that the living God who is the Spirit is limited to act with 11 people only throughout time. Pretty unusual. Sounds like a heretical sect.
Three problems:
1. Immediately preceding, Jesus promises this: "They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me, and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."
And within this problem are two sub problems: obviously that Jesus is imaging a much larger community beyond; and Jesus doesn't teach Judas or any other them where he is going. Your bizarrely severe number limit on the Spirit's activity assumes, I guess, that the Spirit will teach them later where he is going, even though that is never attested in scripture. Jesus' appearance after the Resurrection also troubles your containment theory: the women were the first to be taught - by two men in clothes like lightening - that Jesus was risen and they come back and tell "the Eleven and *all *the *others. Further, on the road to Emmaus, Jesus, in disguise, tells two people, one Cleopas and one named Simon, maybe, "'Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory'. And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." Then, of course, Jesus appears to a gathering of your eleven and "all of the others" where "he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." All of them. Finally, "When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven." All of them. He did not answer Judas and he did not teach only the 11, but he taught all of them. And then, before your 11 and "all of them," he promises this: "I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Oops
2. The reason that the events at Cornelius House are so pivotal to me (and this is where you must have stopped reading my comments in addition to responding - perhaps too much scripture for you) is because this is the first scene where the Holy Spirit demonstrates a new thing to Peter and... all those with him. "While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the gentiles." Peter and the "six brothers" who accompanied him returned to report to the Jerusalem elders where Peter admits his astonishment, too. "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”
It's the same gift. As Jesus said back in John 14: "They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me, and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.”
3. All along these passages, Peter and several others remember things or are reminded by angels or Jesus himself as to what he taught. But he never taught them that Gentiles would be included in the promises of God. The Holy Spirit taught them that. All of them. Oops.
The Holy Spirit teaches us new things, Bubba. For what book or what law or what dogma or what theology or what church can teach us everything?
I pray you learn new things by the Spirit. God is love. Jesus is love. The Holy Spirit moves where it wills.
I agree with you that God is not capricious. Therefore, it is the understanding of the Holy Church throughout time - and the apostle Paul - that faith will not grow fragile Christians. Fragile Christians tire from being confronted by the world. Fragile Christians tire from the work of love. Fragile Christians find it hard to love God's creation of the cosmos and even human beings. Fragile Christians find hard to keep up in thought. The hearts and minds of fragile Christians tire and wear out easily. And then resentment sets in.
God is not capricious. Faith does not develop fragile Christians. Because the Holy Spirit teaches us everything, there is nothing to fear, nothing to be anxious about, nothing to lose. And all this is there in the book, pointing away from itself and toward the living Triune God.
Feodor, I have work deadlines, so I'll have to be brief.
"So, Bubba, you believe that the living God who is the Spirit is limited to act with 11 people only throughout time."
Absolutely not. For one thing, the Apostles include Paul as #12, albeit as one who was "untimely born," and for another, I would include the numerous Old Testament authors, as well.
But I DO NOT believe that the Holy Spirit reveals (revealed) things only to the Bible's authors, nor do I believe that the Spirit has ceased to reveal things to His people. On the contrary, the Spirit speaks to all of us, sometimes in quite extraordinary ways, and on this score I have a LOT in common with the Pentecostals in their view of divine guidance.
It's just that I believe that the Bible's authors wrote authoritatively, and that revelation is progressive and NEVER corrective, and so personal revelation will always conform to what has already been revealed in Scripture. The Spirit would never tell a soul to do what His inspired written word has already forbidden, nor would the Spirit prompt us to doubt what He was already revealed.
"The Holy Spirit teaches us new things, Bubba." Amen!
"The Holy Spirit moves where it wills." Amen!
"Because the Holy Spirit teaches us everything, there is nothing to fear, nothing to be anxious about, nothing to lose. And all this is there in the book, pointing away from itself and toward the living Triune God." ABSOLUTELY.
There are areas where I think evangelicals don't quite express themselves in a way that is consistent with Scripture, and one way is a view of Scripture that is frankly TOO high -- that it's seen as an end unto itself and not merely means to a greater End.
> You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. - Jn 5:39-40
We ought NEVER to conflate the merely written word with the living Word!
Dan, perhaps it would be helpful to ask...
Q. What is your view on the afterlife?
Historically, Christians have affirmed the belief in eternal life ("EL") and eternal damnation ("ED"), and I suppose there are four possible positions:
1. Both EL & ED are true - the small-o orthodox view
2. EL but not ED - I believe this would be accurately labeled as "annihilationism," that the damned are destroyed rather than punished for all eternity
3. ED but not EL - I don't know of anyone who believes in eternal damnation but a time-limited paradise
4. Neither ED nor EL - this is the atheist view, that "nothing" happens when you die
Is it possible that you hold to view #2? I'd love to know more about what you personally believe.
As I've said somewhere recently, I'm agnostic on any afterlife, and all other notions with so very little data on which to base an opinion.
So, I don't agree strongly with any of your four options.
I tend to think/guess that, yes, there is an afterlife in/with the realm of God/beloved community. But we have not much data to prove it or any details about it.
And I tend to think that a loving and just God would not force anyone to be part of the realm of God and so, people can select out by deliberately choosing to reject grace. Which would be hellish, it seems to me.
I do not think there is a burning hell of eternal torment.
But those are just guesses based on very little helpful, hard data.
The Bible doesn't "tell us" anything definitive about an afterlife in the way that evangelicals have tended to form opinions about.
Now, can you answer...
IS it possible to punish people for an eternity for relatively minor, temporal failings of humanity OR does that conflict with the justice notion that any punishment must be proportionate?
Do you have any way to explain how typical "missing the mark" failings of imperfect people are somehow deserving of an eternity of torture?
Dan
Jesus: "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything…"
Bubba: "this particular promise is only for the people being directly addressed, namely the remaining Eleven in the upper room"
Feodor: "So, Bubba, you believe that the living God who is the Spirit is limited to act with 11 people only throughout time."
Bubba: "Absolutely not." [We'll excuse Paul and Moses etc as not being in the upper room because I don't think you're tracking that claim of yours and the anachronistic faux pas of cleaning that Jesus was talking to Moses in the upper room.]
___
So, this particular promise of, in your words, teaching "all things, supplementing what Jesus had already taught" and reminding "them of 'all that I have said to you'.
This is why I went through the appearances after Jesus' resurrection:
1. Two men in clothes like lightening: "Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’" Then they remembered his words. When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles."
Notice the sequence. It was the women who told the apostles. It was the women who were taught by what we must assume are angels, and the women who remembered what Jesus had said, and the women who taught the Eleven AND TO ALL THE OTHERS.
2. Jesus in disguise to the two on the road to Emmaus: "He said to them, 'How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke itand began to give it to them.Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?" They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.”
Notice the sequence. It was Cleopas and someone (named Simon?) who were taught by Jesus, and it was Cleopas and friend whose eyes were opened, and Cleopas and friend who were reminded of the scriptures, and Cleopas and friend who taught the Eleven… AND THOSE WITH THEM, ASSEMBLED TOGETHER.
3. Jesus appears to the Eleven and the disciples. "While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among THEM." Jesus reminds them of what he had taught them, Jesus "opens THEIR minds so they can understand ["the Eleven and AND THOSE WITH THEM, ASSEMBLED TOGETHER], and then says this about the promise you limit to the Eleven in the upper room:
"I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
You've not thought this through, Bubba, because you don't know or understand scripture's testimony to the authority that is outside the book, the only authority, Jesus teaches, that has the capacity to teach us everything: the living Holy Spirit.
Clearly Jesus did not teach them everything. For even after all this, we find Peter AND THOSE WITH HIM astonished that the Holy Spirit would fall on Cornelius and his house, delivering the salvific and sanctifying grace of God. Because Cornelius and his house were unclean in the theology of Peter and the circumcized from Jerusalem.
You have a theology that claims there are unclean people for whom belief is not enough. But millions of us have seen the Holy Spirit indwelling the neighbors in our pew… or at the altar in priest's and deacon's robes… or in the seat of the Bishop.
___
This issue of clean Jewish practice vs unclean Gentile barbarianism is never fully resolved in the early church. Paul keeps trying to bat down Judaizers who add burdens and complications to belief being the sole requirement of receiving god's promises. Upon baptism, the Holy Spirit lives within the Christian, but not as a sole proprietor: as a member of Christ's body. Peter never seems to quite nail this down for himself, and Paul angrily confronts him. In Galatians, Paul wished Judaizers would castrate themselves. Judaizers, again, add requirements before receiving the promises of God beyond the act of believing. Take a hint, Bubba.
Peter's behavior infers that the Apostles were never perfect, not perfect in what they said, did, or wrote. Scripture is a witness and testifies: only the Holy Spirit can teach us everything, not least because the Spirit of God is eternal yet speak anew in all epochs.
Bubba, regarding Heaven, I guess it's safe to assume you know what the biblical authors did and didn't say about heaven?
That the vast majority of times that heaven is used, it's referring either to the skies up there or the place where God exists (as in, "our heavenly father..." and "God who is in heaven..."). Right?
Then, the next most common uses are phrases like "your reward in heaven will be great," and parables like, "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold..."
All of which are completely vague and non-specific vague references, no indication if the speaker is using it literally or figuratively. I don't have the numbers, but I would guess that those type of references are 98, 99% of uses of the term in the Bible?
Dan
If my reward in heaven will be great, does that not imply that I'll eventually be in heaven to enjoy it? Or what are you suggesting, that Jesus didn't repeatedly promise eternal life for those who would be saved?
What exactly IS your belief regarding the afterlife?
Well, those are the questions, aren't they? And people have various opinions that they can't prove in any definitive or authoritative manner. I happen to believe in an afterlife within the realm of God and that it would be good (given that God is good and the beloved community is good). What many would call heaven.
Beyond that, I don't know how else to say it: I'm agnostic. I simply don't know what the afterlife will be like any more than you do.
Am I mistaken?
Now, I'm repeatedly answering your questions. I'd ask you to please answer mine to you:
IS it possible to punish people for an eternity for relatively minor, temporal failings of humanity OR does that conflict with the justice notion that any punishment must be proportionate?
Do you have any way to explain how typical "missing the mark" failings of imperfect people are somehow deserving of an eternity of torture?
As you can see in the varied verses cited below about "eternal life," they are very much like the "heaven" passages. There are no details and the specifics change.
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.
Note: In the passage above, "whoever hears and believes" HAS eternal life, there will be NO judgment, but they've already cross into life.
Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Note: So, here, we have a slightly different thing. NOT to believe in Jesus, but "sowing to please the Spirit"... will reap eternal life. In the Sheep and Goats parable:
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
At a judgment day (apparently they ARE being judged) it is the "righteous" who go to eternal life. Not specifically those who believe in Jesus. Again, slightly different (or potentially different, at least) notions/rubrics.
As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—eternal life.
So, IF we continue to hold what we heard from the beginning, THEN we will get the promised eternal life. And presumably, if we don't hold to what we heard, we won't get eternal life. But then, is that works-based, not grace-based?
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-eternal-life/
And so on. The point I'm making is this: "The Bible" "says" a lot of things and it is up to human reason to interpret them and unfortunately, none of us has the perfection necessary to perfectly understand them all. We're all holding opinions about all these things about "heaven" and "eternal life" and there just is no hard data on which we can authoritatively, objectively prove our opinions.
And so, regarding the afterlife, I'm agnostic. I believe in eternal beloved community, but it's an unsupportable opinion, as are yours, at least in an objective manner.
Can you agree to that?
As to the questions about the justice problem that conservative evangelicals have, you don't even have to answer yourself. This is a huge topic and surely someone would have answered it already, somewhere... right? Just give me a link.
But let me tell you: What I inevitably see/find/read when conservatives TRY to make their case on this point, they all (that I've read thus far) do the very same thing: They offer their opinions and interpretations and say, "see? God HAS to punish everyone with eternal torture to be just..." But it remains only their opinions and very shaky opinions, at that.
Consider:
https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-hell-fair.html
Some excerpts:
Since David had sinned against Bathsheba and Uriah, how could he claim to have only sinned against God? David understood that all sin is ultimately against God.
Well, hold on. YOU (the author) PRESUME that David "understood that all sin is ultimately against God" (and in that case, very clearly the sin was at the least also against Bathseeba and her husband) and he further presumes that he (the author) is correct in making that presumption and conclusion. But says who? Because he found a line in the Bible and he interprets it that way, that makes it authoritatively correct? Of course, not.
As a result, all sin requires an eternal punishment.
Holy shit! Says who?
God’s holy, perfect, and infinite character has been offended by our sin.
Ibid.
Of course, the rich man [rich man and Lazarus PARABLE] was aware that his sins were only committed during his lifetime. But, interestingly, he never says, “How did I end up here?” That question is never asked in hell...
Like the rich man, every sinner in hell has a full realization that he deserves to be there.
ibid.
And on and on I could go. This guy (and the many others before him like him) is just making proclamations as if his personal opinions and conclusions are the Word of God and Settled Fact. They're not. They are and remain dubious and irrational conclusions and opinions, subjective as, if you'll forgive me, hell.
Do you think I'm somehow mistaken? How?
Bubba, the Bible believing Christian, has found too much scripture unbearably intimidating and overwhelming all his capacity to defend himself. But! Good news! The Holy Spirit can teach him everything, if he gets his nose out of a book.
Feodor, you're welcome to think I find the Bible overwhelming, and if you have something specific in mind, I'd appreciate the assist.
---
Dan, though I think CS Lewis does an admirable job of it, I think the doctrine of eternal damnation is one of the hardest to defend, but I'm less interested in defending it as reasonable than I am exploring whether it's BIBLICAL.
After all, I personally don't much like the doctrine of eternal damnation -- I'd prefer annihilationism -- but the question isn't whether I like it, but whether Christ & His Apostles taught it, and I find that it's a doctrine I cannot get around, "for the Bible tells me so."
The 144,000 of Revelation 14:4 and the sheer size of the New Jerusalem may suggest that a large number of people will be saved, but then again, taken literally, 144K is less than 5% of the current U.S. population and is an even smaller percentage of the literal billions who have ever lived and will ever live.
But I'm not the one who taught us about the narrow gate leading to life and the broad gate leading to destruction.
What passage of scripture mitigates against the doctrine of Hell? You tell me.
Bubba...
What passage of scripture mitigates against the doctrine of Hell? You tell me.
I've already answered this multiple times and I think you're just not "getting" or even seeing my answer.
1. The Bible has a wide variety of authors saying many things about many topics.
Agreed?
2. There is no one place anywhere in the Bible (or outside of it) where we have a rubric that says something like, "Take THESE verses (about sheol/hades/gehenna, for instance) to mean THIS and prioritize them over the verses that speak to the notion of a perfectly just God."
Do you get what I'm saying? We can't just "appeal" to some random verses in the bible to reach a conclusion about hell. Because, why? Why would we? On what authority? Which verses get priority? Which ones should be taken figuratively and which ones literally? Based upon what?
Do you see what I'm getting at? Because I'm not sure you are, or you wouldn't keep coming back to this same already answered question.
3. Again, beyond just plain reasoning, I also am inspired by and take seriously the many passages that speak of a perfectly just God.
Psalm 33: He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord.
Isaiah 30: For the Lord is a God of justice
1 John 1: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins
John 5: “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just"
Deut. 32: The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice.
For instance.
Do you agree with the various authors (including Jesus) that God is just?
THEN, you still have the problem of answering the still-unanswered questions about what do you do about the grossly unjust picture of a "god" who lets their children be tortured for an eternity.
“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
If you, then,
though you are evil,
know how to give good gifts to your children,
how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"
~Jesus
Yes Bubba, you do pick arguments. If only you could sustain yourself in one, maybe you could learn their limits and blindnesses.
Bubba...
I personally don't much like the doctrine of eternal damnation -- I'd prefer annihilationism -- but the question isn't whether I like it, but whether Christ & His Apostles taught it, and I find that it's a doctrine I cannot get around, "for the Bible tells me so."
I get that. I couldn't get around it for a long time, either. Ultimately, I find it completely inconsistent with the notion of a perfectly just God OR a perfectly loving God and don't buy the many hoops that conservatives put in place to try to make it a rationally sustainable theory.
Can you recognize, though, that eternal torture of humans IS a human theory, not settled science?
Can you recognize that many believers in good faith just "can't get around it" either, because God has not told us so and reason rejects it?
"if you have something specific in mind"
The fruits of the Holy Spirit you pretend you pay attention to are replete in many Christians in my life, in my denomination, in perhaps all denominations though anonymously in some, and in our nation. They are gay, lesbian, straight, trans, uninterested in sex, celibate, nonbinary, etc. They worship in syncretic fashion according to culture. The Coptics inscribe Christian symbols on their rings, painted on their walls, doors, cups, plates, chairs, and the like. The Orthodox, Catholics, and some Anglicans bless homes with incense in every room, just as in worship. The Anglicans and Lutherans and others ordain women, women of all ethnicities, and lesbian, gay, trans people. The Anglicans consecrate gay and lesbian Bishops. Catholics receive already married priests from the Episcopal or Lutheran or Orthodox Church (who allow married priests, but the Orthodox do not allow married Bishops) but wont ordain married men.
There are a thousand permutations to the identities of Christians and Christian leaders.
Because identity is not about moral or ethical behavior. Everyone is clean as God made us. Being unclean only follows willed action to sin with determination.
And in my pew and in my parish there are a few hundred you would not open the gates of heaven to. They are committed Christians who represent and demonstrate the love of Christ in a hundred gifted ways. Law abiding, moral, supremely ethical, leaders, healers, teachers, singers, actors, lawyers, Wall Street workforce, coaches, politicians, philanthropists.
The Holy Spirit is upon them and none of us can deny them.
My community finds that we must agree with Jesus that the Holy Spirit continues to perfect an imperfect church and does so always in the direction of discovering deeper ways of love that transform our world and aid the suffering and the oppressed. We all belong in the house of Cornelius.
I don't know where you sleep. But a vision of heaven isn't nearby I know that. Just some raggedy old pages, maybe splotched in red in, largely unread and unattended to.
Dan,
"I get that. I couldn't get around it for a long time, either. Ultimately, I find it completely inconsistent with the notion of a perfectly just God OR a perfectly loving God and don't buy the many hoops that conservatives put in place to try to make it a rationally sustainable theory."
I don't care whether YOU find eternal damnation inconsistent with the doctrine of God's justice. My question is, where does the Bible teach that they're inconsistent?
Indeed, I John teaches, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins," but what if we don't confess? The same letter teaches that the world doesn't know us because it doesn't know God. (3:1)
Indeed, the Father in heaven gives good gifts to those who ask him, but that tells us nothing about the rebels who refuse to go to God in humble prayer -- and this is teaching is almost immediately prior to the warning about the narrow gate that leads to destruction.
There's NOTHING in the Bible to suggest that Matthew 7:11 is incompatible with 7:13!
Look, the Bible teaches many things that are hard for our limited human minds to comprehend:
- God is three distinct Persons but also one unique Being
- Jesus is fully man but also fully God
- God is sovereign and yet (so it seems) we are beckoned as if we really do have the freedom to choose whether to respond
- And God is timeless, but He answers prayers
God is just and loving, and it may be hard to accept how the Bible's teachings about hell fit in with His unchanging character, but it seems that we are asked to accept those teachings even if we don't understand them.
FWIW, Dan, I don't get what you're saying.
"Do you get what I'm saying? We can't just "appeal" to some random verses in the bible to reach a conclusion about hell. Because, why? Why would we?"
Who said anything about "random"? I'm suggesting we read THE VERSES ABOUT HELL to discover what the Bible teaches ABOUT HELL; radical notion, I know.
"On what authority?"
No authority is needed to point out what's on the page, just like the little boy didn't need any authority to point out that the emperor was naked.
"Which verses get priority?"
NONE do, they all have equal priority because all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for godliness. Our job isn't to pick one passage over another but to reconcile them all -- or at least to TRUST that they can be reconciled.
"Which ones should be taken figuratively and which ones literally? Based upon what?"
The figurative verses should be taken figuratively, and the literal verses should be taken literally, based on our understanding of language, not limited to questions of context and genre. I notice that you ask about how we are to "take" verses, but we don't physically "take" them anywhere: you understand figurative speech even when it's inconvenient for you to admit it.
Feodor, it amazes me how much you celebrate the "thousand permutations" of Christian identity but still draw the line at those who dare to believe that God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife.
You mean believe something written by those who would deny Gentiles the promises of God? How could I not examine all that ancient Israel believed when included in their belief is the denial of God’s salvific grace to you and me?
Pretty simple.
Having examined Torah, there are many things perhaps you reject as well. Touching a woman during her period. Eating pork. Making a shirt from two kinds of plants. Not eating a cheeseburger (meat with its own milk). How do you make sense of that?
You won’t answer: it implicates your position.
Besides, I find make and female an exceedingly powerful force in human identity. And like the intimidating wolf, whose nature and physical capacities are unequally diffused throughout dogs, the power of maleness and femaleness undoubtedly has changed and diffused in many ways. After all, God’s creation is not stagnant. It’s dynamic. Infused with the Spirit.
I keep overwhelming your objections but you don’t seem able to deal with my answers on their own terms. You run to another - vain hope - of an issue you hope sticks. You’ve not brought yourself to acknowledge the clear mistake you
made thinking that the John 14 promise was made solely to the Eleven, a mistake revealed by the resurrection appearances on Luke.
You’ve not acknowledged that the Holy Spirit cannot be contained by your radical Protestant, 17th century dogma.
I am becoming bored with you’re ungenerous diversions and ungenerative stupefaction. These are aren’t fruits of any good spirit.
I had no idea that Matthew 19 was part of the Torah, just as I had no idea that Jesus Christ would deny Gentiles the promises of God. I guess I really do learn something every day.
...I still don't follow how Luke's resurrection appearances mean that John 14:26 applies to the entire church and not its apostolic leadership, especially since Luke's gospel explicitly precedes the Holy Spirit's arrival in Acts.
First of all Bubba, I would respectfully insist that at this point, you answer the questions I put to you (and will repeat now) multiple times before commenting further. I've been quite patient and I've been answering many questions and these are relevant and important questions dealing with the topic at hand. Please answer:
1. IS it possible to punish people for an eternity for relatively minor, temporal failings of humanity OR does that conflict with the justice notion that any punishment must be proportionate?
2. Do you have any way to explain how typical "missing the mark" failings of imperfect people are somehow deserving of an eternity of torture?
Bubba:
Who said anything about "random"? I'm suggesting we read THE VERSES ABOUT HELL to discover what the Bible teaches ABOUT HELL; radical notion, I know.
Well, again, I don't think the Bible teaches ONE THING about hell as you all envision it. Not one thing.
There are a handful of verses (out of all the verses that might be considered to be possibly talking about an afterlife) that might be considered to be possibly speaking of some kind of "hell" but then, the question is, But are they to be taken literally?
That is what I mean by randomly. There are many verses and passages in the pages of the Bible where various authors speak to notions of punishment, grace, "the heavens," Sheol, lake of fire, justice and other potentially related topics. To select a handful of verses that say something like "Tossed into the fires of Gehenna" and say THOSE verses are the ones that determine the "right" answer on eternal torture is random. WHY those verses? Why don't the verses that speak of God's just and loving nature to help us take guesses about an afterlife (which, as I've noted, NONE of us can prove anything about)?
Random in the sense that you are choosing those handful (or two) of places but ignoring all the other messages that might apply AND ignoring the problem of just common sense moral reasoning that recognizes that of course, a Just God would not punish someone with torture for an eternity for the sins of stealing ten pencils, telling 200 lies and punching one's brother when you were 18. And rolling your eyes at your parents and teachers 2,000 times.
THAT is why you need to address the answers I'm now insisting you answer, because they matter to the topic.
Believe it or not, Bubba, but there are Bishops and elders who have no children to their name. And women who teach. Even in the radical Protestant church, the NT as well, has been superseded in many ways.
To answer your questions:
1. The gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
2. The gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
Bubba, you're not unintelligent. You KNOW those are not answers to the questions I'm asking. You seem to want to engage in real conversation, this is your chance.
Or you can leave choosing to NOT engage in respectful adult conversation and that will be your choice.
I stand as always ready for good faith conversations.
And that includes answering reasonable questions, especially ones so central to this specific topic.
Is it the case that you can't answer them... that you have no answers? Don't let that trouble you! I didn't either. It's why I had to abandon those human theories.
Peace, dear beloved one of Christ, the one who came to end oppression of the poor and marginalized... and give them actual good news.
I wonder, Bubba, if you can repeat back to me why this is something I consider a basic moral, rational and biblical point... why it's vital to good biblical understanding and exegesis?
Or are you confused somehow by the questions?
I can't figure out why you - none of you, I believe - even try to answer the question or acknowledge them, even.
Help me understand.
Dan
I believe those were adequate answers to your questions, Dan, but I can elaborate if you'll clarify your questions.
Is your problem with eternal punishment for ANY sin or for MINOR sins only?
Is it eternal punishment acceptable to you for, say, murder?
I would think you would say no, because eternity is LITERALLY infinitely longer than any span of time, including any span that you would consider a proper length to punish a man for murder. IN WHICH CASE, you need to argue that Hell is too much even for extreme evil, not just mundane evil.
You write, "of course, a Just God would not punish someone with torture for an eternity for the sins of stealing ten pencils, telling 200 lies and punching one's brother when you were 18. And rolling your eyes at your parents and teachers 2,000 times."
Well, would a just God punish someone with eternal torture for murdering his brother, like Cain slew Abel? Or for murdering three school girls like what happened in Southport, just a few weeks ago? Or even murdering six million Jews in a war that caused some 15-20 million deaths in Europe alone?
About the last, let's say the afterlife's just punishment is 120,000 years -- 120 is about how long a human can currently live, and the factor of 1000 is for good measure.
Someone like that Austrian painter would deserve 120K x 20M = 240 T.
He would deserve 2.4 trillion years of Hell, when it's believed this universe is only 14 billion years old. Problem is, this span is STILL infinitely less than eternity.
To coin a phrase:
When he's been there ten thousand years,
Burning hotly as the sun,
He's no fewer years to writhe in his fears
Than when we'd first begun.
Is this okay because it's Hitler? Or is this unjust?
...FWIW, the math equation should equal 2.4 T or 2,400 B. I got the final number right in the subsequent sentence after checking my math, but I didn't correct both sentences where the answer appeared.
And FWIW, I think this discussion ties into our conversation at Marshal's. At some point I'll tie the two together, probably over there.
I DO think I understand your position, Dan, and I think it's reasonable from the POV of humanism, it's just incompatible with the holistic teaching of Scripture, where the "eternal fires" of judgment are presented as wholly reconciled with a just and holy God.
There are times where I think it would be more honest if you presented yourself as a humanist, even perhaps a post-Christian humanist in particular, than as a Bible-believing Christian.
I can and am answering your questions, Bubba. But still, I wonder: IF you're engaging in a good-faith discussion (and truly, I think you're trying to do that), then WHY are you putting off answering these specific questions? Can you see how hard to explain it is?
Is your problem with eternal punishment for ANY sin or for MINOR sins only?
Is it eternal punishment acceptable to you for, say, murder?
As noted: We literally do not know anything significant about any afterlife, any guesses we make are literally guesses with no proof and no way of proving them. I can answer those questions and I can also answer the question: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?...
We don't know what will happen to sinners whose sins were more egregious. We literally, simply do not know. The Bible has not told us, God has not told us. We literally do not know in ANY objective manner. ANY guess we might make would be guesses.
But we CAN make reason-based conclusions based upon logic.
WILL a perfectly just, perfectly loving almighty God punish anyone with eternal torture regardless of the sins? It may be more difficult to say about a Hitler level evil, because how does one measure that level of harm and evil?
But for typical misdeeds? It's rationally inconsistent to punish someone in a disproportionate manner and rationally inconsistent to punish someone in a grossly disproportionate manner.
IF we read the Bible and assume a belief in a perfectly just and loving God, then know, rationally speaking, God would not torture typical sinners for an eternity.
Do you think God would forcibly rape 10 million women and men and then, once the babies were born from those rapes, that God would EAT those babies?
No, it's a ridiculous question IF we assume a perfectly just, perfectly loving God.
Where am I mistaken?
DO you think we can rationally infer some things IF we presume a perfectly loving and just God?
Now stop stalling, please. These are reasonable questions because they get to problems with conservative eisegesis of the Bible and what I consider poor biblical reasoning (and offensive-to-the-nature-of-God) by conservative religionists.
OR, if you don't think we can rationally infer anything, well, then how do you make ANY conclusions about God?
Bubba...
I DO think I understand your position, Dan, and I think it's reasonable from the POV of humanism, it's just incompatible with the holistic teaching of Scripture, where the "eternal fires" of judgment are presented as wholly reconciled with a just and holy God.
You're begging the question. That is, the question IS, "is eternal torture for typical sins presented as wholly reconciled with a just and holy God within the pages of the Bible?"
I say, of course, they're not, that it's very poor biblical eisegesis and biblical reasoning to reach that conclusion, but that's the question at hand. You can't rationally beg the question, Bubba, which is why this is a (THE?) question for you to answer.
As to me being a humanist, not a Christian, but I AM a Christian. I do believe in the teachings of Jesus and what I believe to be the Way of God as best represented by Jesus who I believe to be the Son of God.
Why must I surrender the reality that I'm a Christian because in your human opinions, you would prefer to define Christianity slightly (largely?) different than I do? You all don't own Jesus and your arms are too short to box with God, as they say.
In what sense am I NOT a Christian, even by typical conservative religious opinion?
I believe in God the creator
I believe in Jesus, the son of God
Who came teaching us God's way
Who was killed by the powerful and religious
and three days later rose from the dead.
I recognize my failings as a human
and I confess my sins and
"ask Jesus to be Lord of my life."
What more would you require as "proof of salvation?" What additional beliefs must I hold/ideas must I agree with in order to be saved?
Further, when various biblical authors offer opinions about who is amongst God's people, they make claims like, "You will know them by the love they have for each other..." and, poor and failed though my efforts may be, I do love God's Beloved Community. My life and the lives of people like me have been poured out in service to humanity (not like it's any big sacrifice, it's just reasonable, as I believe Jesus' way is, if you confess to ideas like love and justice). We are teachers, social workers, health workers, mental health workers, parents, spouses... we work with and alongside the poor, the homeless, the disabled, the marginalized, refugees and immigrants. And we love these, the beloved community of God. IF "they will be known by their love" is a correct assessment/measure for who is and isn't a Christian, well, we see that in the lives of people like me, including me (poor, flawed human that I am).
None of which is to puff me up or boast (as Paul famously noted), but just to point to the reality of the love and good in the lives of people that many conservatives appear to want to reject as "not Christian."
Does my Christianity cause me to believe in and act on behalf of humans (Humanism: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values), well, I stand with Jesus on that point, the Jesus who came to preach good news to humans, beginning with the poor and marginalized. I do not view humanism as incompatible with Christianity (depending upon how one defines humanism).
cont'd.
Now, sadly, I don't expect you to answer the questions put to you or even try. I don't know why you're not, but I wouldn't be surprised because so few conservatives ever even try to answer those questions or even acknowledge them.
When they do, it's typically in a circular argument/question-begging manner, like "Well, you don't understand God's justice..." Which is FINE as a starter, but then you would still need to explain what about God's justice I don't understand. Which is - if they even attempt to answer - occasionally answered by, "Well, I think God's justice includes being able to tell humans to stab babies - and the rest of a city - to death because that's Just, to God, and we know this because we find that story in the Bible."
But that's begging the question still. WHO is to say that those stories represent literal history and that the human author got the details about God correct?
But we'll see if you even try. I hope so, for your sake.
That's no answer as it is, Bubba, you're evading because you cannot answer to John 14, Acts 10, and, pathetically for a so-called "Bible based" Christian you cannot admit your mistake about the promise of the Holy Spirit to teach being only delivered to the Eleven, as the Lucan narratives make clear, as well as Acts 10 and 11, AND as well as Paul demonstrating how Peter's teaching was corrupted.
But... I'll take you answer if you can put more scriptural context to you cherry picking.
"Pride goeth before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall. Better it is to be of a lowly spirit with the poor, than to divide the spoil with the proud.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
The gate is your challenge. You don't know God's mind about anyone else. The gate is where you are standing right now. Wake up. Do not keep moving forward.
Feo, I absolutely agree that the Holy Spirit teaches each individual believer, that He has taught me "great and hidden things" that I have not known. I'll even stipulate that Jn 14: 26 has a secondary interpretation that applies to all believers.
Nevertheless, I believe the primary message of that verse was to communicate to the Eleven (+ eventually Paul) the promise of a supplementing-and-reminding ministry of the Spirit that applies to the apostles alone and not the saints more generally.
We can, I hope, agree to disagree: unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, charity in all things.
[1/2]
Dan,
It amazes me how you think justice requires light sentences for minor offenses but you refuse even to speculate on whether a literally eternal sentence is just for more serious offenses. It's almost as if you know where the argument is heading, but you don't want to "go there."
I've answered quite a few of your questions at Marshal's, and I wish you'd give me the credit for doing so. The reason I haven't answered these most recent questions here is because I think they're malformed questions. As I've said repeatedly in our recent dialogue, I STRONGLY dislike misleading questions like "have you stopped beating your wife?"
1. IS it possible to punish people for an eternity for relatively minor, temporal failings of humanity OR does that conflict with the justice notion that any punishment must be proportionate?
My position is NOT that God judges and punishes sinful man primarily for individual sinful acts, minor or otherwise, so I cannot honestly answer your question with either option you've given me, either "the former" or "the latter."
Instead, I believe we are judged primarily for our rebellious hearts, hearts that would not -- barring repentance and faith -- be reconciled with God even after an eternity of waiting. I think CS Lewis puts it very well indeed.
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”
(I would strongly recommend The Great Divorce generally, along with Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain.)
2. Do you have any way to explain how typical "missing the mark" failings of imperfect people are somehow deserving of an eternity of torture?
This is essentially the same question, restated. You're not asking anything new here, which is why I quoted the same Bible verse in response to both questions.
That verse, Matthew 7:13, remains quite relevant. Jesus warns us, "the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many," and in the same sermon -- a sermon you supposedly revere quite highly -- Jesus taught that our righteousness MUST exceed those religious leaders whom you mistakenly describe as religious extremists or we will "NEVER" enter the kingdom of heaven.
(And FYI, about that last phrase, you might notice that Matthew uses "kingdom of heaven" where the other evangelists write "kingdom of God." The theory is that, as he was writing for a Jewish audience, he deliberately used a euphemism so as to avoid their overly sensitive attitude regarding the name of God.)
[2/2]
"As to me being a humanist, not a Christian, but I AM a Christian. I do believe in the teachings of Jesus and what I believe to be the Way of God as best represented by Jesus who I believe to be the Son of God."
It doesn't seem to me that you believe in ALL of Jesus' teachings, neither the claim that His blood was being shed for the forgiveness of sin, nor the teaching that God's intent for marriage is one man and one woman, nor the warnings about eternal judgment.
You've even said that "Love your neighbor" is obligatory, NOT because Jesus taught it, but because you think it's reasonable.
You agree with Jesus when His teachings align with your modern/post-modern humanist assumptions. When they don't, you don't, and that's why I think you would be better described as a humanist -- a post-Christian humanist, as opposed to, say, a post-Hindu humanist, a man who holds on to the parts of orthodoxy that he hasn't (yet) discarded but who couldn't accurately be described as committed to the whole of Christ's teachings, to say nothing of the OT prophets He endorsed and the NT apostles He commissioned.
Even your creed has its noticeable omissions: you believe Jesus "was killed by the powerful and religious," but Jesus was equally clear that God sent Him to die and that He voluntarily came to die -- and He and the Apostles are equally clear that He DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES (I Cor 15:3), and that's something that I do not think you have ever or would ever affirm.
You're trying to squeeze into a bare-minimum definition of Christianity, and you're still leaving out crucial doctrines.
Bubba:
It amazes me how you think justice requires light sentences for minor offenses but you refuse even to speculate on whether a literally eternal sentence is just for more serious offenses.
1. I don't think justice requires "light sentences" for minor offenses. I recognize that we theories of justice include that minor offenses get APPROPRIATE punishment. You and I both recognize that it would be a horrible atrocity if we cut off our 18 year old's hand for stealing a cookie from the cookie jar that wasn't his. It may have been wrong to steal the cookie, but it is EVIL to cut off a hand in response, the punishment being so over-the-top.
Do you disagree?
2. I get that it amazes you, personally, that I don't have any opinions on theoretical eternal life matters which we can't prove one way or the other - that YOU can't prove one way or another - but that's just the reality of it. What's odd to me is why you find that amazing? Do you have an opinion on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Feel free to clarify.
Bubba:
Instead, I believe we are judged primarily for our rebellious hearts, hearts that would not -- barring repentance and faith -- be reconciled with God even after an eternity of waiting.
And I get that this is your opinion. You believe that all of humanity has "rebellious hearts..." Hearts that "would not" in your personal human opinion, "be reconciled with God."
But what difference does it make that you personally hold that theory? What makes that personal theory worth anything?
Do you recognize that you can in no-wise prove that rather astonishing claim.
Perhaps it would help if you would define what you mean by "rebellious heart," given that this is surely imagery, not that you literally believe our heart in our chest is somehow "rebellious."
Let's assume that you mean something like "Humans are imperfect and, in my opinion, humans would not willingly accept God's grace and God's forgiveness..." IS that it?
If so, where is your proof for this rather dubious claim?
Or maybe you are theorizing that humans are naturally unable to want to be good, moral and pleasing to God. If so, where is your proof for that personal opinion?
Do you see the problem?
Whether it's because you think that humans are so imperfect that they don't want grace and God's way and THAT deserves to be punished with an eternity of torture OR you theorize that it's because we sin and even minor sins are worthy of an eternity of torture, you still have the twin problems of
A. Says who?
and
B. Okay, so how is it just to torture someone for an eternity for an incapability to accept grace?
There are still open questions that, unanswered, leave you defending a personal human opinion about a tyrant god who is NOT about justice, grace OR love.
So, feel free to clarify your opinion about an "unrepentant heart."
Oh, also, can you acknowledge that these theories of yours are ENTIRELY subjective and unproven personal human opinions and theories, and nothing like an objectively proven reality?
Bubba:
You're trying to squeeze into a bare-minimum definition of Christianity, and you're still leaving out crucial doctrines.
And the sinner came to Jesus and said, "Tell me Lord, what evangelical doctrines must I confess in order to be saved?"
And Jesus said, "WTH you talking about? What part of grace are you not getting?"
In other words, what doctrines must I affirm before you accept that I'm saved by God's grace (as opposed to your human theories and your religious traditions)?
Are you saying that Christians must affirm some number of human traditions and opinions before they can be saved and "truly" be Christian?
Bubba:
It doesn't seem to me that you believe in ALL of Jesus' teachings, neither the claim that His blood was being shed for the forgiveness of sin, nor the teaching that God's intent for marriage is one man and one woman, nor the warnings about eternal judgment.
But, in good faith, can. you understand that it's NOT that I disagree with Jesus on those points, but rather, I disagree with your personal opinion of what Jesus meant when he is quoted as having said those things?
You know, that last bit is actually a huge question: CAN you conceive that on all these topics, that people of good faith who love Jesus and Jesus' teachings, who love the Bible, who love God, who desire to walk in Jesus' steps... that it's possible that we might sincerely disagree with your opinions on these matters (and the opinions of those traditions which also hold similar opinions as you do)?
Can you recognize that your (collective) opinions are and remain human opinions, NOT the word of God?
I think that when it comes right down to it, that is where you all fall apart... It's certainly true for Marshal. You reject the notion that your opinions on these topics are actually subjective human opinions and think it's much closer to objective fact, and thus, you can't recognize that people of good faith can seriously disagree with you BECAUSE we love God, Jesus and respect the Bible.
But you tell me.
As to the CS Lewis bibliography, as I've said before, the ONLY things I read growing up (outside of the Bible... a LOT) were traditionalist authors like Lewis, Ravenwheel, Jonathan Edwards, Oswald Chambers, Billy Graham, etc, etc, etc.
Of course, I have read all of those books by Lewis, except for "The Problem with Pain." Mere Christianity is something I've read multiple times. Just fyi.
Bubba:
That verse, Matthew 7:13, remains quite relevant. Jesus warns us, "the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many," and in the same sermon -- a sermon you supposedly revere quite highly -- Jesus taught that our righteousness MUST exceed those religious leaders whom you mistakenly describe as religious extremists or we will "NEVER" enter the kingdom of heaven.
That is not an answer to the question asked. As a reminder:
2. Do you have any way to explain how typical "missing the mark" failings of imperfect people are somehow deserving of an eternity of torture?
So, the reason that minor "missing the mark" sins are deserving of eternal torture is that Jesus one time said that "wide is the way to destruction" and if "our righteousness" does not exceed the Pharisees, that we will not enter heaven...? And was Jesus speaking metaphorically there, hyperbolically?
The text does not tell us, does it?
Was he saying that failing to be REALLLY 'righteous" is deserving to be tortured for an eternity?
He literally did not say that. That's you reading something extra into the text.
Consider: The Pharisees were, indeed, "righteous," IN A SENSE. They purported to follow all the OT rules and then some. But Jesus makes clear that they missed the point. They failed to be kind and loving and giving... they were rule-followers, not grace-resters.
Is it not possible - likely, even - that Jesus is making clear that the Pharisees were/are missing the point. It's about grace, and accepting grace, which means accepting the poor and marginalized that places one in the realm of God, the beloved community. IF you refuse to join the Beloved Community/the realm of God, where the poor, marginalized and unclean are welcome, then as long as you reject that Realm of God, then you are literally not in the Realm of God (Kingdom of Heaven, if you prefer)?
That's certainly what I think, GIVEN THE WHOLE of the text and teachings of Jesus and the context of the conflict between the graceless Rule-Followers and the beloved community of God, the realm of God's grace.
Even if you don't believe that personally is a good understanding, other people do.
Again, you're leaning way into your personal human opinions and interpretations of those texts (as am I). But I'm willing to acknowledge that reality for both me and for you.
I suspect that you may not agree that it's your personal human opinion, but you tell me.
Because that is one of the critical points in this discussion, believe it or not.
Test
Dan, by my count you've asked *TWENTY* questions since my most recent post this afternoon, including reasking a question I've already answered.
Do me a favor and limit yourself to two or three questions at a time; better yet, ask these questions over at Marshal's so I don't have to monitor 2+ comment threads for what is essentially a single conversation.
Thanks.
Bubba, responding to my question:
The reason I haven't answered these most recent questions here is because I think they're malformed questions. As I've said repeatedly in our recent dialogue, I STRONGLY dislike misleading questions like "have you stopped beating your wife?"
1. IS it possible to punish people for an eternity for relatively minor, temporal failings of humanity OR does that conflict with the justice notion that any punishment must be proportionate?
No problem. Let me change it to address your concern:
1. IS it possible to punish people for an eternity for having imperfect "unrepentant hearts" (whatever Bubba means by that) OR does that conflict with the justice notion that any punishment must be proportionate?
Or, taking a guess at your meaning:
1. IS it possible to punish people for an eternity for relatively minor, temporal failings of humanity OR does that conflict with the justice notion that any punishment must be proportionate?
Bubba, responding to my question:
The reason I haven't answered these most recent questions here is because I think they're malformed questions. As I've said repeatedly in our recent dialogue, I STRONGLY dislike misleading questions like "have you stopped beating your wife?"
1. IS it possible to punish people for an eternity for relatively minor, temporal failings of humanity OR does that conflict with the justice notion that any punishment must be proportionate?
No problem. Let me change it to address your concern:
1. IS it possible to punish people for an eternity for having imperfect "unrepentant hearts" (whatever Bubba means by that) OR does that conflict with the justice notion that any punishment must be proportionate?
Dan
Bubba...
Do me a favor and limit yourself to two or three questions at a time; better yet, ask these questions over at Marshal's so I don't have to monitor 2+ comment threads for what is essentially a single conversation.
Because you thought you couldn't answer my on topic, essential questions and gave other responses that didn't answer my questions, you raised several questions in response to my two questions, which you've declined to answer. I'm just dealing the hand you dealt me.
Dan
Dan, you should take greater responsibility for your own actions: I'm not doing anything that forces you to ask questions by the dozen.
You write that you "don't have any opinions on theoretical eternal life matters which we can't prove one way or the other - that YOU can't prove one way or another - but that's just the reality of it."
But these theoretical and unprovable claims are the subject of many of the teachings of Christ, whom you claim to follow. If Christ taught something, that should be enough for both of us, but I do not know why it's not enough for you and why you nevertheless insist that others should consider you a Christian.
You mention two lingering problems about what you call my "ENTIRELY subjective and unproven personal human opinions and theories."
Quote:
A. Says who?
and
B. Okay, so how is it just to torture someone for an eternity for an incapability to accept grace?
(You could have stuck with these two questions instead of asking them over and over again, rephrasing them time and time again in the span of less than an hour.)
I believe I have simple and factual responses to both questions, if not answers that satisfy you.
A. Jesus specifically and the Bible more generally both teach the doctrine of eternal damnation.
B. Jesus and the Bible also teach the justice of God, nowhere suggesting any sort of incompatibility between His justice and His judgment.
I can certainly speculate in order to explain what the Bible teaches, and my interest in apologetics gives me the ammo to defend what the Bible teaches, but for me it's enough to know that the Bible teaches (and indeed warns!) both that God is just and that God's wrath is revealed in the judgment of hell, "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched."
---
"And the sinner came to Jesus and said, 'Tell me Lord, what evangelical doctrines must I confess in order to be saved?'
"And Jesus said, 'WTH you talking about? What part of grace are you not getting?'"
Ahem.
> Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” - Mark 1:14-15
> Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. - John 3:18
Part of me hates that you've already read CS Lewis. You've studied the Bible, you've read Lewis, and neither have seemed to have done you as much good as they could have.
Thank you, Bubba, for a direct, pertinent, self-owned response. And yes, from my standpoint, we can absolutely agree to disagree on whatever thousand things divide Christendom: the use of icons in devotional spirituality; the accessibility of the saints in heaven to intercede for us; the sanctity of the woman who bore the Incarnate God; the physical or spiritual presence or simply memorial connection at the Lord's table; whether grape juice or wine, bread or cracker, and if grape juice whether a tray of shot glasses is okay or the church must use one cup in accordance with scripture; whether Christians must wear 17th century German Alsatian clothes or torn jeans is okay, etc, etc, etc. Some of these matters may involve developing a fuller and more effective faith or not, but to me nothing like these are damning. When human beings call upon God, we can in no way limit the presence and grace and mercy and re-forming powers of the divine Trinity.
But not all of the essentials are found in how to conceive of God or by the process of worshipping God. There are essentials that are not dogmatic. There are essentials having to do with relationship. Not law or precept. Jesus damned the religious elites who meditated God to the people, keeping them alienated from relating to God themselves (the High Priests and the Sadducees) AND the opposing group who oppressed the people by turning that relationship into casuistry and law (the Pharisees). These were the dominant religious groups in Roman Palestine who politicized their region to gain status and power.
What is essential to Christian faith is to be self concerned with humility and confession and other concerned with compassion and service. Give him your coat, too and do not judge or the judgment you use will be used against. Absolutely essential.
Bubba, if you damn others, Christians no less, damnation on the basis of identity is the measure you will face.
But you essentially need law and not faith to feel secure. In my opinion, it is the absence of an understanding of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ that keeps you anxious about living in the present world - and living in the present world as a figure of love is what you are called to do.
You still cannot admit your mistake in segregating John 14 from Luke 14. "While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them ["the Eleven and those with them"] and said to them, … "You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” You need to reserve promise of the teaching gifts - the "everything" that Jesus says the Holy Spirit will teach just to eleven of the twelve. You include Paul, who was not there, and who was healed by the touch of Ananias, received the Spirit by the touch of Ananias, and never got his commission straight from a vision of the Lord. Paul's claim to apostleship is only that he had seen the risen Christ. Therefore, what about Matthias, who was chosen as an Apostle by lots and not by a vision of the Lord? What about Jesus' brother, James, called an Apostle by Paul? Barnabas, the same? Silas, the same? Priscilla? Also, in Ephesians, Paul says some who are not Apostles but have the gift - from the Spirit - to teach others what is needed to reach "maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.
And, again, the Apostle Peter could not teach consistently the truth with which the Holy Spirit confronted him. So, Paul chastised him. Nothing that God makes clean is unclean. Apostles were not perfect teachers. Cultural and religious dogma be damned.
You're need to contain within the textual limits of, how many?, 4 or 5 (not even half! ) fallible Apostles, to contain our experience - two thousand years later! - of faith guided by the Spirit, is not an essential or non-essential category of faith. I don't need you to believe that the Holy Spirit is still teaching the church. I believe that your position cuts you off from a relationship with the living God that can keep perfecting your faith. But none of us will arrive, here, to perfection.
But I do believe that your need to politicize your faith on the whole of society is what drives your denial of the power of the Holy Spirit to mature us in love. And that is an utter failure in charity. Such denial does have essential consequences for your behavior in the present world.
This relic of the 17th century radical protestant denial of the living and moving Holy Spirit comforts you in a Sharia-like politicizing of brutality. And something that Christian faith cannot abide.
My apologies for asking too many questions. Feel free to answer this one:
Bubba...
I believe I have simple and factual responses to both questions, if not answers that satisfy you.
A. Jesus specifically and the Bible more generally both teach the doctrine of eternal damnation.
No. He/it literally do NOT teach the human theory of the "doctrine of eternal damnation." Or at least, THAT is the question. We can't say, "Did Jesus mean his few verses about "eternal fire" to be interpreted by latter day Christians as something like the human theory of eternal judgment of sinners?"
To say, "He did preach that" as an answer to the question is literally begging the question.
IF you think that you have some sort of objective proof that Jesus objectively taught your theory of mass torture for most of humanity (ie, "eternal damnation,") then prove it. Objectively. You, of course, can not, but you could try if you wanted (or just post to the word famous website that has established this human theory as an objective fact.
You of course, can not.
Now, the question I'm asking you (presuming you are not able to actually provide objective proof, which you absolutely can't) is can you recognize that this theory of yours IS a subjective human opinion, not established objective fact?
Related follow-up question: Isn't possible - likely even - that you have been so submersed in these related human traditions, theories and opinions of "total depravity" and "eternal damnation/torture" that you've just begun to accept the theories as facts, even when you can't prove it... and that you just move pass any notion of, "Well, I really need to prove it..." to just jumping to, "Well, there's a line there that, TO ME, clearly speaks about eternal damnation, and so, since it seems obvious to me and those who agree with me, it is an established fact..."?
In answering some of these questions on Marshal Art's blog, Bubba said:
Matthew 7:13 rules out universalism, no matter how much I would genuinely prefer that we all end up together in paradise: it seems that God takes free will too seriously to force us into heaven against our will
No. Matthew 7:13 does NOT rule out universalism. Period.
Matthew 7:
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Raises questions like:
Is Jesus speaking of an afterlife here? Is he speaking metaphorically or literally? Is he speaking of the doctrine of eternal damnation?
NONE of those questions are objectively answered in Matthew's passage or in Jesus' words.
You see, the human "doctrine of eternal damnation" is a human theory that slowly formed over the first few centuries of the church. It simply was not a given for the first few centuries, where there was literally no "orthodoxy..." no ONE SET OF AUTHORITATIVE and decided tenets that were objectively established over the first few centuries (or today, for what it's worth). Over time, various sects began to form holding a variety of unproven, subjective human opinions about any afterlife, about any doctrines of eternal damnation or eternal life in heaven.
As a matter of objective fact, there is no "doctrine of eternal damnation" that is settled in the pages of the Bible from any of the authors or those recorded.
If it was a settled, objectively proven matter, Bubba could point to the source where it was objectively proven. It simply hasn't happened.
Here's some views on the history of the topic...
https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/how-when-the-idea-of-eternal-torment-invaded-church-doctrine-7610e6b70815
I've answered that false claim on Marshal's, also, but wanted to post the same info here.
[1/n, possibly 1/2]
Feodor:
- It is somewhat unclear whether the Apostles of the primitive church was strictly limited to the Eleven + Paul. It doesn't help that "apostle" and "resurrection eyewitness" were somewhat conflated terms, as Matthias was chosen to "become with us a witness to [Christ's] resurrection."
Note, however, that Matthias didn't do anything of significance after being selected: Acts 1 is his only appearance in all of Scripture, so it's possible that Luke (and the Eleven?) saw that Jesus Himself later rounded out the Eleven by choosing Paul.
And, it's not clear exactly who authored the epistle of James. It could have been Jesus' half-brother (see Mk 6:3), but it also could have been the Apostle James, the son of Alphaeus (Mk 3:18) -- and anyway it seems that entries in the NT canon needed only the imprimatur of the Apostles' teachings and not their direct authorship, hence Mark the associate of Peter and Luke the associate of Peter & Paul.
Ultimately there seems to be two qualifications to be an Apostle:
- You had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ
- And you had to be hand-picked by Christ
It seems that Paul DID meet (or at least asserted to meet) those qualifications. He introduces the letter to the Galatians by describing himself as an apostle, not of men, but of God and Jesus Christ, and Paul includes the commissioning when he retold the Damascus Road encounter:
> "But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ (ESV) - Acts 26:16-18, emphasis mine
That word "sending" is the Greek word apostello.
[2/2]
- Whether they were strictly 12 or numbered a few more, it's quite clear that the primitive church submitted to their teaching, and that the Apostles themselves portrayed their teaching as uniquely authoritative.
After all, the fellowship of the first believers didn't devote themselves to the leading of the Holy Spirit generally, but to "the Apostles' teaching" in particular (Acts 2:42).
In I Corinthians 2, Paul describes how the Spirit gives the Apostles the very words that they use to teach, and elsewhere he teaches how the household of God was "built" (past tense) "on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone." Since the prophets were already dead at the time and the apostles would soon join them, what Paul seems to have in mind is their authoritative teaching.
Peter certainly has that in mind, urging his readers to "remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles" (II Pet 3:2, emphasis mine).
I CERTAINLY believe that the Holy Spirit teaches every single believer, but I also believe the apostles have a unique and authoritative, Spirit-given role in teaching authoritative doctrine. The Spirit reminded them of what Jesus taught in His earthly ministry...
(In Gal 1:17-18, Paul describes three years of solitude in Arabia prior to meeting the other apostles. As he relays in chapter 2, he confirmed that that his own gospel was simultaneously independent from BUT identical to the gospel that was being preached by the Jerusalem Apostles. It's possible that Paul's three years of solitude was the Holy Spirit's "summer school," equipping him with the in-depth doctrine that he missed from not being with Jesus during His three-year earthly ministry.)
...and supplemented that with the teachings that they weren't ready to hear: they still didn't realize the full implications of the crucifixion on the night he was betrayed, so it's clear they had a long way to go before they had the high theology of John's prologue or the letter to the Hebrews. They taught using the Spirit's words, and the Spirit enlightens the hearers to understand!
I certainly believe that the Spirit provides ADDITIONAL guidance to every individual believer, whether he follows that guidance or not, I just reject the notion that He gives CORRECTIVE guidance that overrides or supersedes the Apostolic teaching. Revelation is progressive, never corrective.
And that gets to what we're discussing here: you seem convinced that your position on sexuality requires moving past what the Apostles taught, and I insist that we have no liberty to do any such thing.
Why is that? I believe the Christian's north star is the first century, certainly not the sixteenth century. The Spirit may guide us in who to marry, where to work, and which friend to call on a quiet Friday night, but the canon itself is closed.
- Those are my thoughts on the matter, at least, and I appreciate our being able to dialogue without demonization.
I DO think you're wrong about me personally, about what gives me anxiety and gives me comfort, and I have ZERO interest in oppressing anyone: I think you may be guilty of the presumptuous judgment which Christ forbade in Matthew 7, but regardless, you assume too much, and your doing so sometimes makes it hard to respond with an even temper.
Sorry about that, Feodor. I should be able to do better going forward. :-)
FWIW, Feodor, it's my understanding that the Puritans were big first-day Sabbatarians, in other words, they thought it is required to rest and attend church on Sunday.
I'm ambivalent on the subject: I don't think the NT requires it, it may be more a part of the Jewish covenant than a universal moral law, despite its appearance on the stone tablets. After all:
- Jesus affirmed other parts of the Decalogue but didn't explicitly teach that we must keep the Sabbath holy: cf. Mt 19:18-19, where "love your neighbor" appears even though it's not part of the Big 10, and cf. Mk 7:9-10.
- Instead, Mark 2:27 teaches that "the Sabbath was made for man," and Hebrews 4 teaches that there is a lasting "Sabbath rest" that Christians can evidently enjoy 24-7!
- As best as we can tell, the early church met on Sunday (the Lord's Day, Rev 1:10) but the choice of day was never explicitly taught in the NT.
- Instead, Col 2:16 actually teaches NOT to worry about the Sabbath: "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." [emphasis mine]
I personally practice fellowship on a weekly basis (and more), and our family tithes, and these are good practices and arguably what others call "means of grace," but I am no longer convinced that Sunday worship and tithing are strictly required for members of the NT church.
Dan,
It would be better if, after apologizing for the sheer number of questions, you asked me to answer a question instead of say that I'm free to answer it: I'm free to answer whatever question I want, and what I want isn't your permission but your courtesy in how you ask.
I'll say again that I strongly dislike leading questions, and that's exactly what you ask me again: "Do you not agree...?" "Do you not see...?"
Here, "can you not recognize?"
"Now, the question I'm asking you (presuming you are not able to actually provide objective proof, which you absolutely can't) is can you recognize that this theory of yours IS a subjective human opinion, not established objective fact?"
Even with this formulation, it would have been more agreeable to me if you had framed the question more ecumenically, saying OUR opinions are subjective human opinions, not just MINE.
It seems to me you believe, Jesus came to reach the poor in particular -- "especially" the poor and not just "EVEN" the poor. If my memory is wrong, please let me know, but I wonder if you think your own belief here is a mere subjective opinion.
For myself, I DON'T think this particular position of mine is anything but the objective truth: it IS what Jesus taught, as recorded in the New Testament.
But then, I think that the kid really did point out the objective truth that the emperor wore no clothes.
I believe that both a book's explicit teachings AND EVEN its implicit conclusions are objective truths: it's objectively true that the book teaches X even when (as with Dawkins's claim that YHWH is a bully) those claims are false.
- It's objectively true that a basic math book teaches 2+2 = 4.
- It's ALSO objectively true that the book teaches the transitive property of equality even if it never calls it that by name.
- Similarly, it's objectively true that the Torah gives Israel the command to love your neighbor: see Lev 19:18.
- And I believe it's objectively true that the Torah ALSO commands the Israelites to love their enemies, even though it's only implicit: cf Dt 22:4 & Ex 23:4.
I think it's fair to say you disagree, but I'd love to know exactly where you disagree and what you believe instead.
Dan, I have more to say but no more time this morning. I'll probably write primarily at Marshal's even with the delays in admin approval: like handwritten correspondence, those delays might be a blessing in disguise, forcing us to take our time in crafting our responses.
Bubba...
For myself, I DON'T think this particular position of mine is anything but the objective truth: it IS what Jesus taught, as recorded in the New Testament.
But then, I think that the kid really did point out the objective truth that the emperor wore no clothes.
What Jesus literally is recorded as having SAID is/includes:
"“The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.”
That is what he is recorded as saying (and other similar phrases. BUT, did he mean that he was speaking of an eternal torture/torment style hell the way you all envision it? Well, that is the question. For instance, clearly in this passage, unless you envision that ALL causes of sin and lawbreakers, well, that could include everyone. At least for you all, for you theorize that there are literally "none righteous, not one." OR, as is more obvious on the face of it, is Jesus speaking hyperbolically here? I'd say yes, you'd say no, perhaps, and neither of us can literally objectively prove our theories.
Same for the Matthew 7 "gate is narrow" passage. Was he speaking of a literal gate? No reason to think so (unless we might guess that he was speaking of the literal gates of Jerusalem, to refer to something that his hearers might recognize? Regardless, he's probably speaking metaphorically there (although we can't prove it). If he is speaking metaphorically or hyperbolically about gates, then why is not possible (likely?) that he was speaking of "destruction" metaphorically? Also, "Destruction" is not the same as the eternal torture theory that you all hold.
In the case of the (fictional) king with no clothes, in the story, the boy knew he was naked because he could literally see it. Everyone could. THAT is objective.
On the other hand, that you all have some opinions and theories that you can't prove, that you can't point to objective data, that NOT everyone agrees with, means at the very least that you don't know that it's objective and you can't prove your opinion is objectively right.
Where am I mistaken?
(And to be clear: I've always been upfront that NONE of us can prove our opinions about ideas like abortion or women's rights or Penal Substitutionary Theories of Atonement, etc. I can't, you can't. NO one can.
If anyone could, there would be a website out there walking everyone through it and providing objective proof.)
Bubba:
I believe that both a book's explicit teachings AND EVEN its implicit conclusions are objective truths: it's objectively true that the book teaches X even when (as with Dawkins's claim that YHWH is a bully) those claims are false.
- It's objectively true that a basic math book teaches 2+2 = 4.
- It's ALSO objectively true that the book teaches the transitive property of equality even if it never calls it that by name.
- Similarly, it's objectively true that the Torah gives Israel the command to love your neighbor: see Lev 19:18.
- And I believe it's objectively true that the Torah ALSO commands the Israelites to love their enemies, even though it's only implicit: cf Dt 22:4 & Ex 23:4.
I think it's fair to say you disagree, but I'd love to know exactly where you disagree and what you believe instead.
I'm trying to be quite clear: It is OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL and demonstrable that Genesis 1:1 says what it says.
It is objectively factual that the Torah has the "commandment from God to Israel" (as it's recorded) to love your neighbor.
And it's objectively true that the math book contains the teaching that 2+2=4.
The difference between the first two Bible examples and the math book example is that it is objectively demonstrable that 2+2=4... that fact is not a fact because it's in the math book. It's an objective fact that anyone can see WHETHER or not it's mentioned in a math book.
The other two examples are not like that. We can SEE that the text from God to Israel to love your neighbor is IN the pages of the book. What is NOT demonstrable or provable in any objective manner is that that IS what God wants. Now, in that case, most of us can agree that this is what God wants, it's not in debate. BUT, I'm just noting that it's not objectively provable.
Do you see the distinction?
Why that matters is when it comes to less clear notions. What of LGBTQ rights. We can SEE a text that says, "men should not lie with men, if they do, kill them." BUT, is that some universal rule against all gay men? Should we kill all "practicing" homosexuals as the text literally says? Was it just for Israel? Was it taking into account marriage faithful, loving marriage arrangements?
Those are the things that are unproven and unprovable human opinions.
Tell me how I'm mistaken.
Dan,
This is a bit of a digression, but perhaps an important one: it is NOT "objectively demonstrable" that 2+2 is always 4.
You can certainly demonstrate that 2+2 = 4 in a particular case, but you can't demonstrate that it must always be 4 in every case, and attempting to jump from the particular to the universal is an instance of
1. IF P THEN Q: IF 2+2 is always 4, THEN it 2+2 will be 4 in this particular case.
2. Q IS TRUE: 2+2 = 4 in this particular case: these 2 apples and 2 bananas make 4 pieces of fruit.
3. THEREFORE P IS TRUE: So, 2+2 is always 4! --WRONG!
One cannot DEMONSTRATE that 2+2 = 4, one can only prove it mathematically, but all mathematical proofs begin with unproveable but self-evidently true maxims.
For example, my favorite mathematical property -- the transitive property of equality -- is obviously true...
IF A=B AND B=C, THEN A=C.
...but, "This property cannot be proved as it is an axiom."
You seem to play a little fast-and-loose with the idea of what is "objectively demonstrable," and I believe that some things are self-evidently true AND objective without being demonstrable.
More in a bit, as time permits.
Ugh, bad [A] tags in the comment's HTML; I loathe not being able to preview my comment before posting!
Here is the URL for Affirming the Consequent:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Affirming-the-Consequent
---
Here's one proof that 2+2 = 4:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/842314/prove-that-22-4
---
And here's the Transitive Property of Equality:
https://www.cuemath.com/numbers/transitive-property/
The thing is, these math equations are generally accepted as facts (amongst those who understand math - not me!). But, your personal and unproven human opinions and traditions about eternal torment or atonement theories are not generally accepted as proven. They are not at all self-evident to many/most of humanity. Which is part of what Objective means.
As to things being self-evident, indeed, I tend to agree. It is, for instance, always, always, always a great evil to wipe out a city, stabbing to death every person, child and baby in that city. It is always a great evil to enslave humans... because it is self-evident (at least to a huge number of us) that humans have basic human rights, meaning that you don't have the right to take my life from me. Also, stabbing to death all the people of a city, including the babies and children, fails on the face of it the Golden Rule test. You, after all, would NOT want an invading horde to stab to death all your loved ones, including the children and babes, right?
THAT kind of thing is, I think, arguably self-evident.
What isn't self-evident are opinions about eternal damnation or various human atonement theories.
Where specifically am I wrong?
Also, I'm noting the rather obvious notion that these are HUGE deals about vastly important notions. IF there were objective proof of any of these various human theories you hold that we're talking about, you could easily point to one of the hundreds of websites that talk about these very critical issues. That you don't even try should tell you something.
It tells me something.
What I suspect is happening is that, just like for me when I was a conservative, these traditions and opinions are SO ingrained that I truly thought/you truly think that they are self-evident and/or objectively proven. They're not. They're just not.
Where am I mistaken?
Dan,
You would be moving the goalposts if you went from saying we should only agree on that which is "objectively demonstrable" to now saying we should do so on that which is "generally accepted" -- you've gone from a strict standard of proof to mere consensus.
Either way, it's not actually obvious that destroying a city is always evil (Hiroshima comes to mind), and many who say they oppose slavery still support a welfare state in which one person may be entitled to the fruits of another man's labor: to-may-to, to-mah-to.
But, going back to your previous comments, I strongly object to how you tend to conflate what the Bible clearly teaches with mere human opinion.
The Bible clearly teaches about some subject outside of our human experience (such as the afterlife), and having pointed out that it's not self-evident, it's not objectively demonstrable, and it's not a consensus opinion -- OF COURSE it's none of these things, it's outside of human experience; this is precisely where divine revelation would be so useful to humans, so "profitable for teaching," etc. -- you immediately denigrate those teachings as mere human opinion.
That's not the approach that Jesus had to Scripture in Mark 7. He didn't say that the moral obligation to honor your parents is part of our ingrained "traditions and opinions." He called it the commandment of God, in CONTRAST to merely human traditions such as the corban vow.
As often as you claim to follow Christ as Christian, and as high a view of Scripture as you claim to have, it would be nice if you would follow suit in our conversations. We can figure out the implications wrt marriage, but first let us agree that the Bible is God's written word!
---
The true and morally obligatory moral law; the afterlife; the final judgment: all of these are subjects outside of what we can see and prove, and that's precisely where we most need the "outside help" of literal divine intervention. It is my belief that we have just that: Jesus taught that, and I believe it.
On the subject of the final judgment, we do have multiple teachings of Jesus where he doesn't precisely repeat Himself, but there's commonality enough that -- COMBINING those teachings -- we get a clear picture, albeit one without details: there IS a final judgment, it involves one of two possible outcomes, and those outcomes appear to be eternal. There's nothing in His teachings that undermines these big three components of judgment even though they don't all appear in every single teaching on the subject.
You write, "you theorize that there are literally 'none righteous, not one.'"
That's not me theorizing, Dan, you're quoting almost verbatim the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:10-12, where he's citing Psalms 14:1-3 & 53:1-3, and Ecclesiastes 7:20.
I've tried to point this out before, long ago, but Jesus Himself teaches that we are all sinners under judgment apart from His salvation: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God." (Lk 18:19, also Mt 19 & Mk 10)
(Notice Jesus doesn't necessarily deny being good: if He is good, it is because He IS God!)
Jesus proclaimed how hard it was for the rich to enter heaven, the young man left, and notice that the disciples WEREN'T relieved and saying, "thank God we're poor and have an easy way to heaven."
> Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” - Lk 18:26
Jesus' response points quite clearly toward the provision of salvation by God's grace alone.
> But he said, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” - Lk 18:27
Bubba:
it's not actually obvious that destroying a city is always evil (Hiroshima comes to mind)
That is one human theory and set of opinions, but that absolutely is not obvious. One might (MAYBE) make the case that to choose to slaughter everyone in a city including children and babes is a LESSER evil, but one can't rationally argue that it's not evil. Nor can one argue that it actually lives up to the very basic Golden Rule measure.
Well, the arguments can be made, I guess, but they certainly can't be objectively proven and it's certainly not obvious to everyone, this human opinion of yours.
We can figure out the implications wrt marriage, but first let us agree that the Bible is God's written word!
The Bible makes no such claim of itself, objectively. And because I hold a high view of the Bible, I'm not willing to say the Bible contains teachings that just aren't in there.
What I believe is that the Bible contains God's inspired word - that's my unprovable opinion - and contains helpful teachings and insights, including the recorded teachings of Jesus. That's enough for me. But it does not claim nor do I believe that it IS "THE written Word of God," in the sense that it contains all of God in this little book. Nor does it claim that it is the sole source for authority of morality and theology. IF that is what you mean, then I can agree with that.
Bubba:
You write, "you theorize that there are literally 'none righteous, not one.'"
That's not me theorizing, Dan, you're quoting almost verbatim the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:10-12, where he's citing Psalms 14:1-3 & 53:1-3, and Ecclesiastes 7:20.
I've tried to point this out before, long ago, but Jesus Himself teaches that we are all sinners under judgment apart from His salvation: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God"
No one is disputing that Paul and Jesus are recorded using those words. Those words are objectively there. The question, though, is should those words be taken literally? Are there NO good people?
Well, clearly are. I know personally dozens or even hundreds of truly good people, as Good is defined. Do you seriously not know any good people? I suspect you do.
So, we objectively can't take that as a literal fact.
Then what? Is Jesus speaking metaphorically? Defining Good in some different way? Well, those are things we can offer theories and opinions on. But without Paul or Jesus to confirm, they will remain unproven theories.
This seems reasonable to me.
Dan
Dan, the question of whether it's moral to take human life -- in the small scale with capital punishment or in the large scale with just war theory -- goes back to the question I've repeatedly asked at Marshall's: according to Scripture, why is murder wrong?
The sooner you answer that question, the sooner we can continue with that part of this discussion.
The Bible does indeed claim to be God's written word: ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED, and when Jesus contrasts God's commandment with mere human tradition, He treats "what God commanded" and "what Moses said" as synonymous and equivalent.
You say, "I'm not willing to say the Bible contains teachings that just aren't in there," but then you IMMEDIATELY say, "What I believe is that the Bible contains God's inspired word."
Where does the Bible itself say that, chapter and verse? Or if, as you say, this is your "unprovable opinion" about the Bible wholly apart from what it says about itself, why should anyone agree with you?
And can you elaborate, what's the exact difference between my position that the Bible "is God's written word" and your view that it only "contains God's inspired word"? Are you saying the Bible contains divine revelation MIXED with merely human opinion, and how exactly do you separate the wheat from the chaff?
Bubba:
according to Scripture, why is murder wrong?
I do not know that "Scripture" has offered a reason of WHY murder is wrong. There may be words in there somewhere that suggest something like "for because mankind wast made in my image, thou shalt not take a life..." sort of in the vein of "because you were refugees/immigrants/strangers once and know of that need, you should welcome strangers..."
But we don't need to find verses within the Bible to know reasonably well that some things are wrong - things like murder, rape, oppression, slavery... these things are wrong because the infringe upon basic human rights that are self-evident. You have no right to kill me and take my life away because as a human, I have a right to life. Period. Whatever the Bible may say, that is the fundamental reason.
Do you hold another opinion?
This is the problem I have with treating the Bible as a rulings book. We don't NEED to find a line in the Bible to know that some things are wrong. As Lewis and others might rightly note, there is that (of God, I believe) within humanity that recognizes moral boundaries, even if it is imperfectly. Given sufficient time and enlightenment, we've grown to identify that as the self-evident notion of human rights. IF we start with "Well, where's a line in the bible that appears to address this point in some way?" then it seems to me we're denying that of God written (figuratively) within us, within the human psyche.
What's your opinion?
Bubba:
You say, "I'm not willing to say the Bible contains teachings that just aren't in there," but then you IMMEDIATELY say, "What I believe is that the Bible contains God's inspired word."
Where does the Bible itself say that, chapter and verse? ...
And can you elaborate?
When I said, "I'm not willing to say the Bible contains teachings that just aren't in there," what I should have said more clearly was: "I'm not willing to state as an authoritative fact the Bible contains teachings that just aren't in there... it is, therefore, MY OPINION, which can't be proven, that the Bible contains God's word, is inspired by God."
To that, I would add the caveat: But just because I believe it to be inspired does not mean I think "the Bible" is inerrant or human conclusions about the Bible are inerrant. What I think proper/best practices for Biblical interpretation would be to begin with "What does the Biblical authors say about God... what conclusions about God's character can we draw?"
From that, we can conclude reasonable opinions that God is love, that God is just, that God has a special concern for the poor and marginalized, etc.
From there, I think Christians can/should reason/review, "What does Jesus teach?" (Christians, being those who think Jesus is God/the best representation of God that we have.)
Then, given these ideas and ideals about who God is and what God's character is, THEN we can start reading the stories and the lessons taught in the Bible and view them through the lens of Jesus and the nature of God.
Given that, when we find a line that has Jesus saying, "But I tell you to hate your mother and your father, your wife and children..." Now, given what we know about the nature of God, we can reasonably conclude that Jesus was NOT speaking literally, because a loving God who wants us to love... that God obviously does not want us to hate. It's contrary to the nature of God.
With me?
Likewise, if there's a line that says, "God says go and slaughter the enemy, even the children and babes and goats." well, we can reasonably conclude that THIS, too, should not be taken literally, because of the nature of God, who is just and loving and slaughtering innocents is neither just nor loving, NOR is commanding someone to commit an atrocity.
Because I have a high view of God and biblical teaching, I reject a literal teaching of "hate your mom and dad" or "go kill the babies and children" as contrary to biblical themes about God, as well as being contrary to human rights.
Bubba...
Or if, as you say, this is your "unprovable opinion" about the Bible wholly apart from what it says about itself, why should anyone agree with you?
No one should agree with me because I say "This is my opinion," any more than they should agree with you when you say "This is my opinion."
AND no one should agree with me simply because I tell them "The Bible says so..." any more than they should agree with you because you tell them "The Bible says so."
What I'm saying is, this is reasonable to recognize the self-evident notion of human rights and be opposed to any transgression of human rights and especially opposed to any over-the-top transgressions of human rights (genocide, mass slaughter of innocents, murder, slavery, etc) and people can either agree that it's reasonable or not... but most people today - at least in the free world - generally recognize and support the notion of human rights.
I can also reason, "There are many religions, religious books, interpretations of religions, so that any appeal to any one particular interpretation of one/some particular religious books is NOT a good source for identifying common morality. It may be helpful as an add-on, but not as a primary source, because on what authority would we abide one particular subset of one particular religious set of opinions?" and people can either agree or disagree, but it's a reasonable position that most conservatives would agree upon FULLY... in the case of OTHER religions, at least.
Even in conversation with others who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ, and even apart from questions of politics and policy, rights and oppression, you are reluctant to appeal to the Bible as anything other than "an add-on."
This is one big reason why I think it's fair to think that you're less of a Bible-believing Christian and more of a post-Christian humanist: in numerous issues where human reason is at its limit and we must therefore trust in divine revelation -- matters of morality, the afterlife, God's judgment and God's salvation of man -- you don't think it's enough that the Bible teaches what it teaches.
Add on is YOUR term, nothing I've said or believe. I love and deeply value the Bible. It is our only fairly direct record of Jesus' teachings, as a starting point. That alone makes it invaluable. Then add the beauty, grandeur and sometimes horror of their stories of Israel, of the great poetry, the grand fantasy of the Job parable, the holy power of the prophets, the recorded stories of the early church and letters of Paul, Peter... JAMES! I love and value the Bible and hold it in the highest esteem.
I'm just not willing to make claims about it that are not found in it's pages and I'm not in any way confusing the paper book for God, nor my interpretations (or yours) with God's Word.
I love it for precise what it teaches, not what other humans try to insist that it teaches.
Dan
Dan, you just said that a religious book, of which the Bible is the supreme example, is "NOT a good source for identifying common morality. It may be helpful as an add-on, but not as a primary source."
"Helpful as an add-on" is your terminology, not mine.
Since I don't confuse God's written revelation with God Himself, I don't know what your point is, but it seems there are parts of that revelation that you do not accept as authored by God: neither the doctrine of Hell nor the doctrine of Christ's death being the cause for our salvation from Hell; neither the doctrine that our lives are subject to God's sovereignty nor the obligation of God's law on our lives; and God's will for human sexuality is just one more bit of revelation that, because you cannot reason your way to it, you do not seem willing to accept it.
I wish it were evident from your writing that you love all that the Bible teaches, but I've read enough from you over the years to know better.
My apologies. My mistake. I heard you saying "add on" as if I don't care that much about the Bible, which, of course, I do.
But, as an add on considering MORAL opinions, that's fine. Because the Bible is not a moral rulings book and trying to use it that way is problematic. To try to use it as the SOLE source for moral opinions is highly problematic.
Regardless, my apologies for the confusion and my false (mistaken) claim.
Dan
Thanks, Dan, I appreciate it.
I do disagree. Because the Bible records both the direct teachings of Jesus AND the teachings of the prophets He endorsed and apostles He commissioned; because those teachings often involve moral questions (eg, what is the greatest commandment?); and because morality is a subject where revelation is most needed, as the moral law must come from a Lawgiver, I believe the Bible can and should be used by Christians as the supreme source on questions of moral matters.
Indeed, I would point to the Bible when explaining morality even to a non-believer, even if I would augment the Bible's teachings with apologetic arguments. What I don't get is why we wouldn't point to the Bible when in conversation with fellow believers.
After all:
- We're supposed to help out fellow believers and build each other up.
- I also believe we should follow the Bereans' example and examine the Scriptures in order to evaluate all doctrines.
Why shouldn't we leverage those same Scriptures in helping out those brothers who likewise submit to its teachings?
It's not a "rulings book," no one I know would use that particular terminology, but it does CONTAIN rules that ought to govern our lives, even our lives subsequent to our commitment to following Christ, *NOT* in contrast to a life of love but because these commands outline what a life of love actually looks like: law and love are not in conflict, and the Bible never puts them in conflict.
But that brings us back to topics that have come up at Marshal's, and so maybe we should just stick to that one conversation there. I'll look for your replies there, and I look forward to continuing to flesh out this fairly productive and respectful dialogue as we hopefully DO approach mutual understanding!
Bubba:
It's not a "rulings book," no one I know would use that particular terminology, but it does CONTAIN rules that ought to govern our lives...
Perhaps. The problem that I think exists in treating the Bible as a book that "CONTAIN rules that ought to govern our lives" (to use your preferred term) is that you (we, no one) has an authoritative rubric for determining WHICH of the hundreds... thousands? of rules, commands and teachings in the Bible are universal OR if they were ever intended to be universal by the author OR if they're considered universal by God.
You know the list...
1. Do not steal
2. Do not murder
3. Men should not "lay with men" (and what does that mean?)
4. If they DO lay with men, you should kill them
5. How to sell your son into slavery
6. How to sell your daughter into sex slavery (forced marriages)
7. We should welcome foreigners
8. Those nations who fail to welcome, aid the poor, foreigners, the marginalized are in danger of being destroyed by God
9. God will not tempt us to do evil...
10. BUT, sometimes God might command you to slaughter innocents, including babies
Etc. There are MANY rules and commands found in the Bible. No one believes they are universal.
So, WHERE is the rubric for deciphering which are universal?
It literally doesn't exist. We must use our reasoning, whether or not you think there are universal rules in the Bible.
Contd...
Dan
Further, I don't think treating morality as a simple set of rules is the most adult or grace-full or Godly or rational way of dealing with moral questions. "Is there a line in the Bible that speaks to this behavior and it's moral status?" is the wrong question to ask.
Because the Bible is literally not a place to go to find universal moral rules and
Because morality is more complex than just a simple set of rules, it's going at it all the wrong way. Indeed, I'd say that was a large part of the problem of the Pharisees and their allies.
When I say Morality is/can be complex, here's what I mean:
Don't steal, that's easy enough on the face of it, but it's a generality.
The REAL ideal to live up to is "Love my neighbor" so, what if your neighbor is being pursued by Nazis and, by stealing the Nazis carburetor, you'd be giving your neighbor a chance to escape.
Like that. And with all the complexities of the real world. Don't harm my neighbor, sure, but what about driving a polluting car that harms my neighbors with asthma? That contributes to pollution, that contributes to climate disasters? BUT also, by driving, I can help my clients who have disabilities to get jobs. Morality is both complex and simple. Simple to understand but sometimes, complex with no obvious One Right Answer.
So a "what are the rules?" mindset is a problematic approach to morality for these reasons. Morality can be nuanced.
Can you see my point?
Bubba, sorry for the delay. And this is only a response to your first section. I will respond in time to the rest.
But, Sad to see you turn away from your previous direct, pertinent, and self-owned capacity for really engaging with the issues before us. "It is somewhat unclear"; "Matthias didn't do anything of significance"; "And, it's not clear exactly who authored"... "there seems to be". You're clearly trying to make an inferential argument by throwing up loose possibilities on the wall for us to look at. And to ignore what you hiding. If it's unclear in scripture, then surely it is unclear also to scripture. Meaning that those who wrote and those who compiled the NT found the role of Apostle as elastic as Paul and therefore did not make any effort to clean it up.
You're criterion:
- You had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ
- And you had to be hand-picked by Christ
… is opposed by the figures of Barnabas and Silas. As I mentioned before. You can't hide that. Priscilla and Aquila are as close to Paul as anyone got and he trusted them absolutely to teach the faith to people Paul never saw. Matthias did presumably witness the resurrection, buy you downplay his Apostleship. The majority of Apostles, Bubba, didn't do anything of significance that scripture needs to make know. Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, the other Simon, one of the Judes, take your pick, one of the James, take your pick.
You are banking on the authority of Apostles when scripture gives us an elastic, moving target about which ones were and which ones weren't and no criterion on which to evaluate. And then you get anxious about the books not belonging to Apostles but which were approved by the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage (397?). Those councils in North Africa were attended by Augustine, whom I presume you favor. But at Hippo, the synod not only listed the 27 books of the NT but also insisted that priests must be celibate. At Carthage, the 27 were approved but also that the Book of Wisdom (or the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon) was approved as canonical in the OT. I take it that you would prefer to pick and choose your apostolic authorities: written work is in, "apostolic continence" (celibacy) is out, and the OT isn't what they think it is. Of course, your first problem is that you trust these councils in the first place. You claim that Mark was given apostolic imprimatur. But not by Apostles - Bishops - that you recognize as such. And "Mark" is never named. Again, a conclusion drawn centuries later than the NT by, again, Apostles (Bishops) you don't recognize. You miss Hebrews, too. All of sudden you're a Papist when it suits your need for a smattering of authority.
In the end, your Apostolic arguments are non-essential suppositions - scripture doesn't care to nail any of it down. And yet you STILL confine the life of the living Holy Spirit to within 2,000 year old texts. On the basis of what you yourself report to be unclear! But you say you "CERTAINLY believe"! How capricious... how self-deceivingly manipulative.
I don't think you can really look in the mirror and confess to yourself what you are doing. And your faith - fragile as it is for being founded on argument rather than living at the mercy of the grace of God active today - can't lead you to the wisdom that comes from revelation.
Bubba said this on Marshal's blog, where we're dealing with some of the same questions:
3. In passing, I note that you include yourself in some vague group of "Bible-loving, Bible-believing, High view of God people," but it's not clear to me that this accurately describes you.
- I don't see how you love the Bible when you say, even using scare-quotes, "'The Bible' doesn't 'tell' us anything about why murder is wrong. The Bible holds no opinions and tells us nothing." (Aug 17)
That's just the reality of it all. The Bible does not hold opinions, itself. It's literally a dumb (mute, not-speaking) book. The AUTHORS had a wide variety of things to say, some that we can accept as good and true and some that are horrifying (how to sell your sons and daughters... or that God commands people sometimes to slaughter innocents, including babies and children). But we have to use our human reasoning to sort out and evaluate the points being offered by the various authors. That's just the objective reality of it all.
- I don't see how you believe the Bible when you frequently deny its clear teachings, now including Jesus' own teaching that lust is equivalent to adultery.
I do not "deny" one single clear teaching. When I disagree with YOUR personal human opinions and interpretations of the Bible, that's me disagreeing with YOU, not with the Bible. I'm not sure why that's hard for you to understand, beyond the notion that you've SO been indoctrinated into your particular human traditions that you have a hard time differentiating between your opinions and the opinions of your tradition, on the one hand, and God and what God wants, on the other. That I disagree with you doesn't perforce mean I disagree with God. It's rather presumptuous to make that suggestion, but I'm guessing you don't even see that. You tell me.
- And I don't see how you have a high view of God when your view of His righteousness and holiness doesn't entail His punishing sin OR His providing for its punishment in His forgiveness of sin.
Again, I disagree with YOUR opinions that God "must" "punish sin with eternal torture" and I disagree with YOUR opinions on that point precisely because I have a high view of God as perfectly loving and perfectly just, not some monstrously unjust whimsical godling. It's YOUR opinion that God has a need to punish with eternal torture for the simple everyday missing of the mark of perfection of most of humanity. It's YOUR opinion that missing the mark is an act of intentional rebellion against God AND that it's some sort of high awful crime worthy somehow of an eternity of torture.
I think that this is a low view of justice and love, and, by extension, God. Because I have a high view of God and the Bible.
I think you're just not understanding this point (even if you disagree, I don't think you're even getting what I'm saying). But you tell me.
Bubba will protest: but what about all those are out there sinning? What about those who fuck when and where and who I don't approve of!!!!
Well, Bubba is a sinner too. Just like everyone else. And Bubba will be judged just like everyone else. And everyone else will be judged by the same god who will judge Bubba.
And the last will be first. The least will be the greatest. The worker who comes at the last hour will be paid the same as the worker who started at sunup.
I don't think Bubba gives the time of day to Jesus' teachings.
Feodor
Bubba, with this selection of yours - "After all, the fellowship of the first believers didn't devote themselves to the leading of the Holy Spirit generally, but to "the Apostles' teaching" in particular (Acts 2:42)" - you undo your argument. You show that you only know your doctrinal NT and have never read closely the NT as a whole. You read with agenda and not humility. In Acts 2:42, who are your "first believers"? You yourself appear to be clueless. They are the Jewish diaspora having made pilgrimage from outside Roman Palestine. And who are the apostles on whom the Holy Spirit has descended in such power that the diasporic Jews and some proselytes from around the Eastern Roman Empire, probably primarily Greek speaking, nonetheless can understand the Aramaic Jews of Judea?
At the end of Acts 1, concerning the replacement of Judas with Matthias, scripture tells us, "In those days Peter stood up among the brothers and sisters (together the crowd numbered about one hundred twenty persons)..."
And then at the very beginning of Acts 2, scripture tells us, "When the day of Pentecost had come, THEY WERE ALL ["about one hundred and twenty"] together in one place. And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled THE ENTIRE HOUSE where they were sitting. Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue RESTED ON EACH OF THEM ["about one hundred and twenty"]. ALL OF THEM ["about one hundred and twenty"] WERE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT AND BEGAN TO SPEAK IN OTHER LANGUAGES, AS THE SPIRIT GAVE THEM ABILITY."
Which is immediately followed by, "Now there were devout Jews from every people under heaven living in Jerusalem. And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard THEM ["about one hundred and twenty"] speaking in the native language of each. Amazed and astonished, they asked, “Are not ALL THESE WHO ARE SPEAKING ["about one hundred and twenty"] Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language?" Obviously more than 12 of the Galilean Jews were speaking because those from the diaspora were "Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs.
Continuing, "in our own languages we hear them ["about one hundred and twenty"] speaking about God’s deeds of power. What does this mean?” But others sneered and said, “They are filled with new wine.”
Only then, does the writer of Acts single out Peter and the new Eleven with the utterly insignificant, "But Peter, standing with the eleven [note, not "the Apostles"], raised his voice and addressed them... 'Fellow Jews and all who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to what I say. Indeed, these ["about one hundred and twenty"] are not drunk... No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:
‘In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit UPON ALL FLESH, and YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, [no! not women too?!] and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. Even upon my slaves[!], BOTH MEN AND WOMEN [no! not women, I wont allow it!], in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and THEY SHALL PROPHESY.'" Joel, got out of hand, Bubba. Sooooooooo many more than 12.
READ your Bible, Bubba! Stop doctrinal picking! Read the whole thing in context. "Amazed and astonished, they asked, “Are not all these ["about one hundred and twenty"] who are speaking Galileans?... in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power.” You reject what your eyes tell you about the power of the Holy Spirit. You confine the Holy Spirit - I was wrong, NOT in a book - but only in small, isolated parts of the book.
It's like you are sent from the Vatican to protect Apostolic authority.
Bubba, you do it again in 1 Cor 2. How do you assume he means just the 11 and himself? (Remember you exclude Matthias though he qualifies under your "criterion", and you've not addressed your failure here.)
In the first chapter, Paul has heard from "Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"
Who is Apollos and why is he equal in authority to Paul and Peter?
You cannot say. You can only stand behind your doctrinal commitment. A doctrine that cannot account for scripture except by cutting and tossing.
It's like you are sent from the Vatican to protect Apostolic authority.
But, like a Protestant, I've shown you how scripture leaks out beneath your thumb all over the place:
Barnabas - more respected than Saul as an Apostle; "Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a childhood friend of Herod the ruler, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" - until Cyprus when Saul, now Paul, emerges as the more dominant one.
Silas.
Prisca and Aquila.
The initial "about one hundred and twenty": "Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability."
Now Apollos, held in equal authority in Corinth with Paul and Peter. And Paul does not oppose that situation - and Paul never passes up a chance to oppose defending his authority as an Apostle. He does oppose the idea that we belong to anyone but Christ. No one can divide up Christ. Think about that, Bubba.
Too much scripture and not enough 17th century dogma for Bubba to deal with.
Post a Comment