But where there are prophecies, they will cease;
where there are tongues, they will be stilled;
where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we teach in part,
but when completeness comes,
what is in part disappears.
When I was a child,
I talked like a child,
I thought like a child,
I reasoned like a child.
When I grew up,
I put the ways of childhood behind me.
For now we see through a glass, darkly;
but then face to face:
now I know in part;
but then shall I know even as also I am known."
~St Paul
It's
all about love. Love and knowing, as much as we can know. And unlike
what some suggest, the more we know someone - their hopes, their
passions, their needs and yes, their (our) imperfections - the more we
can love them, not loathe them... not consider them "totally depraved," but totally beloved.
We all need more loving in this world.
28 comments:
To love each other despite the fact we are all "totally depraved". It seems clear you're hung up on the word "depraved", as it is typically used these days to denote incredible evil of a rather insane degree. You do this sort of thing a lot.
But it is Biblical, as it simply means we're all sinners...we're all possessed of a sin nature and inclined to sin.
Romans 3:23 – “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”
Romans 5:12 – “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
1 John 1:8 – “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
Ecclesiastes 7:20 – “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.”
1 Kings 8:46 – “If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;”
So the concept of "total depravity" is simply acknowledging the fact of our sin nature and to wash us clean of it is the reason Christ was born and put to death. Those of us who seek Him and seek to live on His terms are those we're to love despite their total depravity because we are also sinners seeking the same forgiveness.
It's no small thing to ignore the truth of our sin nature by which Scripture so clearly teaches we're victimized. It is the reason we need Jesus, and only He was born without it, which is what made Him the perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin.
The human theory (first seriously promoted by Augustine in the 4th century, NOT in the Bible) of "total depravity" is defined thusly by the traditionalists at Got Questions and other similar traditionalists.
"While often misunderstood, the doctrine of total depravity
is an acknowledgement that
the Bible teaches [it does not, it's a human theory and "the Bible" doesn't teach a single thing... "the Bible is not a teacher. Teaching comes from humans and, if you believe in such, God or gods and goddesses, perhaps nature, but not from dumb (ie, non-thinking, non-speaking) books]
that as a result of
the [theory of the] fall of man [a theory that many humans have held, without any proof for centuries]
every part of man [presumably, they mean all humanity and not just men]—
his mind, will, emotions and flesh—have been
corrupted by sin. [Prove it. Other than Augustine and many other conservative types THINKING this is the case, where is the objective proof for it? How does one measure "corrupted by sin..."? What does that even mean, in any objective manner? HOW did "sin" manage to "corrupt" (or totally corrupt!!) one's mind, will, emotions and flesh?]
In other words,
sin affects all areas of our being [Proof, please, or an admission that this is a human theory, naught else]
including who we are and what we do. [Proof?]
It penetrates to the very core of our being [Proof?]
so that everything is tainted by sin [Proof?]
and
“…all our righteous acts are like filthy rags”
before a holy God"
Proof, proof, proof. These are simple human theories by simple, fallible humans. GOD has not said this. The Bible does not literally "teach" this. These are human theories offered with NO support beyond, "We think this is what this means..."
That's problem number 1 with your human theory.
Marshal:
. It seems clear you're hung up on the word "depraved", as it is typically used these days to denote incredible evil of a rather insane degree.
The second problem with your comment and your human theory is the suggestion I'm talking about something other than what you all are theorizing. I'm using the words of traditionalists and talking about what YOU all are saying about your human theory, unproven as it is.
In other words, the human theory that "sin infects" (what does that even mean?) "every part of our being" (says who? Where's the proof? What does that even mean?)
Or that our "mind, will, emotions and flesh (flesh??)" have been "corrupted BY sin"? Again, what does that even mean? And where is the proof?
As to "everything being tainted by sin"... that's a mighty crazy and bold (ie, insane) claim. A loving set of spouses have been "tainted" by sin? Says who? Where's the proof? A loving mother caring dutifully for their child is "tainted by sin in everything..." Where's the proof?
A kind black man who saves a white racist from being bothered by pushy people who object to his racism... that has been tainted by sin? Says who? What does that mean? Where's the proof?
On and on it goes. These are weird theories offered without proof about things that seem dubious on the face of it, given the good, loving and kind actions we see in the world every day.
The third problem you have - the greatest problem of many - is this human notion of "total depravity" suggests that, somehow, we are deserving of eternal torture for the "crime" of having this theoretical "sin nature," a nature that we didn't ask for and that you can't prove.
IF by "sin nature," you mean the obvious notion - that we are imperfect human beings. That no human is 100% perfect their whole life - well, that IS correct. The evidence shows that no human is perfect all the time. But is it rational to say, "You human - coming from a species that is NEVER going to live a perfect life in any one human - you DESERVE to be punished for eternity for the "crime" of being imperfect..."? No, that's NOT a rational, loving or just theory or proposal. Indeed, it is quite irrational, unjust and hateful/diabolical.
Are we going to pushing a dog for eternity for being a jumpy, excitable dog that chases squirrels and barks a lot? That would be crazy, evil, right? IF a creature has certain characteristics that are innate to that creature... to say, "Well, I'm going to punish you FOREVER for being the creature that you are innately..." that's just insane. It's cruel, unjust and irrational and entirely lacking in reason, love or grace.
Where am I mistaken?
If, on the other hand, you mean something MORE/DIFFERENT than merely "They are imperfect and, when shooting for a target, will sometimes miss the mark..." then where is the evidence for that?
Where is the proof that this other Thing is deserving of eternal torture?
The holes and lack of evidence and just plain ugly irrationality of it are mind-boggling. Do you see that?
And so, returning to the point of THIS post: It truly is all about Love.
Love NEVER (not one single, blessed time) fails.
AND, if one affirms a God who is defined by Love, then it naturally extends that God and God's Love also never fail. Not one time. Not ever. Never. Aside from the biblical ideas from Paul, IF one affirms Love, then this is a rationally consistent suggestion.
Do YOU think that Love (or God) sometimes DOES fail?
Further, it rationally follows that IF one affirms an all-knowing God, AND the teaching/theory here from Paul, that in being fully known, THAT is where and why God can fully love us in a way no mere mortal CAN, because God knows us and finds/declares us beloved of God. It is in the knowing that Love can manifest itself perfectly.
Do you disagree?
One last thing. You said:
Those of us who seek Him and seek to live on His terms
are those we're to love
despite their total depravity because
we are also sinners seeking the same forgiveness.
What you literally said there is that WE are to love "those who seek God AND live on God's terms..." Is that literally what you theorize? That we are to ONLY love those who (in our human estimation) we are to love, no one else?
?
Surely that isn't what you meant to say?
IF that's your theory, I disagree. I think it's all about love and love and love. We are to love, even in our own fallible human frailty, the best we can manage. It is in love and God's grace that we're finding salvation. Not in punishment or eternal cruelty or threats of eternal cruelty based on an irrational, hopeless Ponzi scheme sin theory.
Some thoughts about the word, Depraved. The modern definition and understanding of the word (from MW and Cambridge Dictionaries):
": marked by corruption or evil
especially : having or showing an evil and immoral character
...
morally bad or evil:"
Would you agree that there is a vast difference between saying:
"Marshal is a wicked, morally bad, evil, corrupt human being..."
and
"Marshal is an imperfect human being, prone to making mistakes and sometimes causing harm, even..."
?
Which do you think is true of you, personally?
Which do you think is true of humanity - of every human being ever?
While waiting to see if you answer any of these many questions that arise from your human theories in your comments, I'll just note that I'm more than glad to acknowlege:
* That every human ever has been imperfect;
* That we all make mistakes;
* That we all cause some harm (of greater and lesser degrees) to others;
* That SOME humans (not all) cause great harm and act in ways that are rationally called "EVIL, Depraved, utterly corrupt..."
And that, given some humans (not all) causing GREAT harm of horrifically depraved evil... such actions should be held accountable in strong ways, some punishment is reasonably required.
And further, that lesser harms caused by the more common failings of humanity (snapping unkindly at one's mother or child, taking a pencil from work, taking the last cookie when your sister also wanted it...) are also wrong, but not rationally punished at the same level as the rapist or one who takes part in genocide or the kidnapping of immigrants.
Would you agree to that? OR do you think all are deserving (reasonably, rationally, justly) of eternal torture of some sort?
One - like Marshal - can only unconsciously jump from ἁμαρτία to “total depravity” by denying that creation is made by God through the Word and is filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit.
And the only reason for imprisoning the godhead in heaven is to justify one’s superiority and right to accrue profit via enslavement.
Hence, where we are today.
Marshal is an ideological brutalizer. Faithless.
Dan,
I wish to address all of your concerns and objections, but first I need clarification from you on a point or two in order to do so. Are you agreeable to this?
Will you answer the actual questions asked?
I'm always glad to clarify. Just don't be obtuse or abusive. Be adult and respectful.
You accuse me only when the conversation goes against you. I'm always adult and respectful. That aside, my first question (your answer may compel as second) is as follows:
After having studied Scripture, have you not learned anything?
THAT is your serious, respectful adult question?
Yes. Yes, I've learned a great deal.
I've learned, for starters, that, consistently, throughout these pages written/recorded by a wide variety of humans over millenia...
1. That these are collections of stories recording humans interacting with That which they consider, God
2. That God is consistently considered to be a God of Love, Grace, forgiveness and justice
3. That this God of Love is consistently on the side of the poor, the sick, the orphaned, the widowed, the immigrants, the outsiders, the marginalized, and
4. That God is consistently opposed to the wealthy and powerful oppressors who do harm to the poor and marginalized
5. That these themes of God being on the side of the poor and oppressed are THE single most common theme except, perhaps, the notion of the Realm, Way of God... which, itself is consistently referred to as a place of welcome, safety and refuge for the poor and marginalized...
To just scratch the surface.
It's disrespectful to characterize my questions and comments as less than "adult" for no reason but to attack me.
So you've learned a great deal, yet you insist what you read didn't teach you what you've learned? How does that work, exactly?
Teach, inform, reveal, present, educate, instill, inculcate, preach...all rather synonymous. The Bible teaches, informs, reveals, presents, educates, instills, inculcates, preaches. Why would you make an issue of this obvious fact?
As I proceed, I may require clarification on any number of things in your comments. Just so you know.
More that I've learned from the biblical authors...
6. That the text of the various biblical authors attest that humans wrote down these stories. God is not said to have written any books of the bible.
7. That many human traditions I was taught by good, sincere conservative believers are literally NOT taught in biblical texts. They are human interpretations of various biblical texts, NOT directly from the biblical authors.
These human traditions include
A. A literal historic creation story
B. Penal Substitutionary Atonement theories.
C. Inerrancy
D. That God is opposed to gay guys marrying.
E. That God "created" marriage to be only male/female.
F. Etc
Etc, etc
Marshal:
So you've learned a great deal, yet you insist what you read didn't teach you what you've learned? How does that work, exactly?
? I've learned a great deal about what the human authors of the Bible wrote and what they didn't write... about what God "said" and God didn't "say."
The text didn't "teach" me anything. It's a text. I can observe/learn/discern what the text does and doesn't say without "the text" teaching me a damned thing. It's JUST TEXT. Text does not teach.
Not sure what's unclear about that. What has the text of Harry Potter taught you?
Teach, inform, reveal, present, educate, instill, inculcate, preach...all rather synonymous. The Bible teaches, informs, reveals, presents, educates, instills, inculcates, preaches. Why would you make an issue of this obvious fact?
No, "the bible" doesn't "do" a damned thing. It's a dumb book. It has no intellect, no soul, NO OPINIONS. It's text passing on stories from the various human authors. That's literally what it is. NOT a human or a deity that chooses to "teach" you something.
Your opinion of what is and isn't an "obvious fact" doesn't make it an obvious fact.
Inanimate objects don't decide to VERB anything. We might metaphorically speak of learning from an inanimate object... "The woods have taught me a sense of stillness and peace..." but that is metaphorical speaking. "The woods" in that case, did not wake up that day and say, "Let's teach that guy about peace..." It's metaphorical.
People who read the Bible or Harry Potter might learn something, but it isn't either of those books that is "teaching" the person.
Now proceed to answer some questions.
Marshal:
The Bible teaches, informs, reveals, presents, educates, instills, inculcates, preaches. Why would you make an issue of this obvious fact?
Again, "the Bible" doesn't choose to "teach," to inform, to reveal or anything. It's a text. We might speak of learning from biblical teachings something, but it's metaphorical in nature. THE BIBLE CAN NOT TEACH. It is an inanimate object.
What we can learn from an inanimate object might include, in the case of writing, what the author was suggesting, or the wisdom (or foolishness) of an author. We learn, from the stories of David, for instance, how a human can be beloved by God AND YET, an evil, awful, murderous human being. We can learn from that story the notion of grace and potential redemption of awful people who've done awful things. But the story didn't choose to "teach us" that, it's just something rational people can discern from the stories of David, for instance.
We can learn from the rules of ancient peoples, for instance, that ancient peoples often had grossly immoral "rules" in place that were awful, decadent, evil, even. The very notion of selling one's children into slavery is a horror story of morality, and yet, we can learn that ancient peoples often engaged in such behavior. BUT that isn't the text "teaching us" that sometimes it's okay to sell your children into slavery. IF THAT is the lesson we learn from reading that story, we're sort of screwed up, rationally, morally and in regards to basic notions of human rights and basic decency.
Right?
The text of Harry Potter is not the Christian faith. It doesn't seek to inform, but to simply entertain. But wait! A book can't "entertain" even though readers are most definitely entertained by it. How, then, can Harry Potter not intend to entertain? Was is accidental that readers are entertained?
Whatever you think you know about the faith is the result of Scripture having taught it to you. Being a pedantic doesn't alter that fact. You go further by presuming the point is the thing known as a book is speaking to you. The reality is the message within the book is doing that, or one can rightly say God is speaking to you as He inspired the writers to relate His Will to us.
If you were informed, enlightened or otherwise educated by reading the Bible, then what you've received has been taught to you. Why you want to make such a big deal about this such that you refuse to post my comment is more than a little curious to say the least.
No. Your obsession with opposing anything I say is childish...not at all adult or "good faith". Again, it's absurd to say that one learns anything without it being taught, either by direct instruction by an actual teacher, by experience or by information gleaned from a book of any kind. The Bible teaches as much as does a professor or experience.
So now, you demand I answer some questions, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort as you again prove you're deficient in integrity by having chosen against publishing my last comment. That never happens to you at my blog, particularly when you're abiding my rules as I did yours in the tone and manner of my comment you didn't publish. If you can't "embrace grace" and do the basics of blog etiquette, especially since I'm working hard to abide your ever changing, self-serving rules, why should I bother putting in the effort here?
Marshal...
you demand I answer some questions, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort
I've always expected all rational, respectful adult conversations include answering questions, back and forth. That's how rational adults have conversations.
If you don't want to answer questions, then don't comment.
See how it works?
Marshal...
That never happens to you at my blog, particularly when you're abiding my rules as I did yours in the tone and manner of my comment you didn't publish.
I haven't not published any of your comments. ALL comments here are immediately published, directly handled by blogger. Unlike you and your blog. Reality wins.
Marshal, not understanding reading, writing or reasoning said and asked:
How, then, can Harry Potter not intend to entertain? Was is accidental that readers are entertained?
THE BOOKS did not "entertain" in the sense that the BOOKS (dumb, unthinking inanimate books, mind you) did not INTEND to entertain or anything else.
The AUTHOR, on the other hand, intended to entertain. Or perhaps, just write for her own enjoyment or her own wealth. We can ask her and find out, though.
Likewise, the BOOK (stories originally) of Genesis did not intend to "teach" history or science. The questions are, then,
A. what were the authors' intentions and,
B. EVEN IF the author INTENDED to pass on scientific history, is that factually correct?
The answers to those questions are:
A. We don't/can't know. We don't even know who the authors were! We can make guesses and maybe even slightly educated guesses, but we just don't objectively know.
B. No. A literal interpretation of Genesis' creation stories are factually not correct, regardless of the authors' intentions. The universe was not created in six 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago (on a Sunday), it just wasn't. And we have no reason - no hard data - to believe there was a literal Adam made from literal dust or a literal Eve made from a literal rib, and we have NO data to support the theory that humans have a "sin nature" that we "inherited" from a theoretical "Adam" due to his "original sin."
Rather, we rightly recognize that those are stories told in an obvious mythic style (just like you'd say that ANY OTHER similar-sounding creation story from any other tradition is written in a mythic style...) and we simply have no data to presume we should consider there was an actual Adam and Eve.
And what does that question have to do with the topic of this post, which is Love?
Marshal:
It's disrespectful to characterize my questions and comments as less than "adult" for no reason but to attack me.
that would depend upon the comment, wouldn't it? If you came back with, "You hate the Bible and a doody head, isn't that right?" for instance, THAT is a childish and disrespectful question.
Your question, "Have I learned nothing from the Bible?" (which as an adult, I presume you mean "from the biblical AUTHORS," not the book, which is an unthinking inanimate object and incapable of "teaching..." is not a respectful question. You've been reading my writings on the Bible for two decades. At the very least, if you are an adult reader, you should be able to discern that I know/am familiar with a wide range of biblical texts as I've talked about them in my writings. You personally may DISAGREE with the conclusions I've reached from reading the Biblical texts (that I learned from Jesus' words that he'd come to preach literal good news to the literal poor, as he literally said and as I've affirmed endlessly...) but you can't say I haven't learned something from Jesus' teachings (in that case).
See, the reasoning adult can say, "Dan clearly has read a lot about Jesus and further, CARES a lot about Jesus' teachings or Dan wouldn't have spent SO MUCH TIME talking about what he's learned from Jesus' teachings... Now, I personally DISAGREE with the conclusions Dan has reached from Jesus' teachings, but clearly, Dan has been informed by Jesus' teachings..."
Understand? You can disagree with MY conclusions, but a reasonable adult with 20 years of reading experience with my writings can't wonder if I've "learned something" from Jesus' teachings... even if you think what I've learned was learned in error (in that case, taking Jesus' teachings TOO literally, in your human opinion). So, for that reason, it is a disrespectful and rather childish question to ask, and does not appear to be coming from a place of good faith.
"Your question, "Have I learned nothing from the Bible?" (which as an adult, I presume you mean "from the biblical AUTHORS," not the book, which is an unthinking inanimate object and incapable of "teaching..." is not a respectful question."
Nonsense. It's a common expression "the Bible teaches us..." NO ONE takes it to mean the paper of the pages and the card stock of the cover is actually talking. It's not particularly respectful to criticize the use of the expression as if you don't know what is meant. What points have you scored by making an issue of it? Yet it remains true that if you learned from reading the Bible, you've been taught by the Bible.
"See, the reasoning adult can say,..."
This is disrespectful. You imply that one who questions your unique understanding isn't capable of reasoning. Likely you don't see the hypocrisy in such a statement and how it conflicts with the demand for "respectful" discourse. What's more, how it has anything to do with the point of my question is anyone's guess. It could by your issues with crafting analogies. But again, it's YOU who saw fit to criticize the concept of "the Bible teaches". My question was directly related to that most unnecessary nitpicking.
Marshal:
NO ONE takes it to mean the paper of the pages and the card stock of the cover is actually talking. It's not particularly respectful to criticize the use of the expression as if you don't know what is meant.
It IS a common expression. But because the way that people like you have treated it over the years, I find it important and respectful to make the distinction.
IF by "the Bible teaches" you merely mean, "Jesus is recorded as having said, I have come to preach the good news to the poor... and I believe that..." That's one thing. That's observable and rational.
However, too often, too many people (including some progressives) will say, "The Bible teaches X" to suggest, "GOD teaches us X and if you disagree with X, you disagree with God..."
In THAT kind of scenario, it's important to be more specific.
Do you see the difference between:
"Jesus is recorded as having said, 'I come to preach good news to the poor,' and I believe that fairly literally..."
And
"The BIBLE (and therefore, God) records Jesus' words "I have come to preach good news to the poor," therefore GOD wants you to know that GOD came to preach good news to the literal poor and if you disagree with that, you disagree with God!"
?
"The human theory (first seriously promoted by Augustine in the 4th century, NOT in the Bible) of "total depravity" is..."
...is not a "human theory". It's a concept/principal drawn directly from Scripture as evidenced from the several verses I presented in my first comment. I presented that comment in light of your last sentence of your post, which read:
And unlike what some suggest, the more we know someone - their hopes, their passions, their needs and yes, their (our) imperfections - the more we can love them, not loathe them... not consider them "totally depraved," but totally beloved.
First, I don't know of whom you speak when asserting "some suggest" that the more known of another, the more "some" loathe that other person. What's more, it's not even true of you, as you certainly loathe your president. This came to be after supposedly learning "nasty things" about him, for which you've provided no evidence to justify your low regard...something you won't tolerate here or anywhere when someone you favor is criticized in any way. And there's certainly no sign of love when routinely referring to him as racist, misogynist, sexual predator and felon as if you've proven those things are true of him.
However, more to the point, I simply stated that which is a teaching of Christ and in line with His teaching of showing love to enemies, removing the plank from one's own eye and similar, related teachings. Thus, loving another despite the other's sinful nature or behaviors.
Finally, it's not a matter of "considering" anyone "totally depraved". It's acknowledgement of reality it's presented in Scripture. More of a "taken for granted" situation to which you yourself allude with "their (our) imperfections", which is our sin nature. That is, unless you're referring to someone's left leg being noticeably shorter than the other, which is a weird thing to consider: "Look at his legs! I loathe him!" "Not me! When I found out his left was shorter than his right (or is his right longer than his left...whatever), I loved him more!" That can't be what you meant by "imperfections", was it?
Marshal:
...is not a "human theory". It's a concept/principal drawn directly from Scripture as evidenced from the several verses I presented in my first comment
STOP. Stop RIGHT there. Do not comment ANY further until you deal with these questions... these problems with your stupidly false claim.
1. The THEORY of Penal Substitutionary Atonement THEORY (it's right there in the name, son) IS a human theory. Period. Point blank. End of conversation.
2. BUT, if you want to posit that it's NOT a human theory, what praytell do you think it is?
A. Do you think that it's something God personally told you? If so, prove it. If you can't prove it objectively, then admit that, NO, God has not told me this personally.
B. Do you think that there are lines in the Bible that "the Bible" "tells" you objectively is reality, NOT from some human but from a talking Bible? If so, prove it. If the Bible did not personally tell you, then admit that directly and clearly.
C. Do you think that there are lines in the Bible that can ONLY be taken as objective proof that it must be considered that way? Do you think that there are NO adults who disagree with that notion (ie, literally, human theory) about questions of atonement/salvation? If so, prove it. If not, then admit that people in the real world DO disagree on various interpretations of biblical texts as it relates to notions of "atonement" or salvation... AND admit that not everyone affirms the Bible as an objective, reliable source for theories of atonement or salvation.
If you want to comment here, you need to do so respectfully and in an adult manner. NOT answering these sorts of questions pointing to gaping holes in your unsupported proclamation is NOT being respectful nor replying in a good faith, adult-level reasoned manner.
The reality is that
i. The Bible NEVER has authors saying that "Here is a theory of atonement and it is THE ONE God-approved answer about atonement, so it's not even a theory..." THAT does NOT exist in the Bible. Not in those words or in any other words.
ii. That HUMANS have read the bible and reached a variety of conclusions about what the human authors of biblical texts have said about notions of atonement/salvation. When THOSE HUMANS have reached a variety of opinions and promote one or the other, THEN THOSE are literally human theories, not objective facts. Not until they're proven.
iii. TO prove that one theory over the others is THE FACT, one has to have some source, some authoritative person(s) or rubric to settle the matter because, in the real world, humans DO have different theories about atonement/salvation questions. You have no such authority or rubric.
It is, of course, abundantly, objectively, clearly a human theory. Naught else.
You don't get to just make empty claims and then pretend you don't have to be questioned about something so obscene, vulgar and repulsive to reason and justice and morality.
The ball is in your court.
"STOP. Stop RIGHT there. Do not comment ANY further until you deal with these questions... these problems with your stupidly false claim."
Are you referring to the claim I made which is backed up sufficiently by the evidence of the several verses I provided above? Those alone bear out the principle as being absolutely Biblical, with "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" merely being the label chosen to refer to it.
"1. The THEORY of Penal Substitutionary Atonement THEORY (it's right there in the name, son) IS a human theory. Period. Point blank. End of conversation."
Here...let me correct it for you: The DOCTRINE of PSA is The Good News. The rest of the sentence I can accept: "Period. Point blank. End of conversation."
But of course, that being said, you continue the conversation nonetheless.
"2. BUT, if you want to posit that it's NOT a human theory, what praytell do you think it is?"
It's YOU who needs to support the notion it IS merely a theory. In the meantime, I don't "think" it's less than it is: the DOCTRINE of "The Good News"
"A. Do you think that it's something God personally told you?"
This is disrespectfully condescending to phrase it in this way, as if there is some requirement that God must come down from Heaven and speak to me personally as He did with Moses in order for you to accept truth. The irony, however, is that the answer is "Yes. He did." by virtue of His Will as revealed to us in Scripture.
"If so, prove it."
I've done so. Countless times. But you simply pretend I haven't because there is no level of proof...including me driving up to see you with God Himself sitting beside me after speaking to me as He did with Moses. And in the face of the many passages and verses which I've presented above, along with Matt 26:28 as an example of those which relate Jesus' own affirmation of this doctrine, you provide nothing of substance which refutes the truth reality of this doctrine
More later, maybe, depending on how you treat this much. What follows from this point not just strays, but sprints from "adult/good faith/respectful" discourse.
I've been quite patient. Last chance:
IF SO, PROVE IT.
Saying "I done done it" IS NOT PROVING IT.
You've lost, son, and you don't even know it. Words have meaning. When HUMAN PEOPLE read a text (the Bible, Harry Potter, The Iliad, whatever) and those mere mortals say, "you know, based on this text, I think God has created a crazy blood payment/atonement scheme as the ONLY way to be saved..." Or, "you know, based on this text, I think God is a squirrel,"
THOSE are human theories, literally. Now, if you want to prove that there is a squirrel god or a blood sacrifice god, THEN you can choose either to prove it or to admit you can't. But that doesn't change the fact that the theory is literally a human theory.
You don't understand that, and that's fine. I guess your indoctrination is very strong and blinding. But, you MUST realize this: HERE, unless you objectively prove it, then you are not answering the question. And if you're not proving it OR admitting you can't objectively prove it (and truly, this has nothing to do with me - one can either objectively prove something or they can't - in this case, you can't)... if you're not doing either of those, you're not arguing in good faith in a respectful adult manner.
Do yourself a favor, just move on. I've been patient, but any more comments without you answering the questions will not remain.
Post a Comment