Some of the questions that I've regularly asked conservative religious theorists and rarely get full answers that meet moral or rational levels:
1. Do you believe that some sins deserve eternal torment?
2. What specific crimes or misdeeds warrant eternal torment?
3. Do you believe/theorize that even one sin, one single lie to your mother, justifies eternal torment?
4. But how is that consistent with justice or ideas of justice as justice is normally understood?
5. Do you believe in the perfectly loving and perfectly just God?
6. How do you define perfectly loving and perfectly just? Based on what?
7. Do you believe that it is God's will that none should perish or be tortured, not one human?
8.
Why would you take a verse that says something about eternal hell
literally but not the verse that clearly says God is not willing that
any should perish?
9. What is your rubric for deciding which verses should be taken literally and which figuratively?
10.
Can you clarify that you can't objectively know which passages should
be taken figuratively and which literally OR do you think that you DO
have that power to understand perfectly the literal and figurative
verses?
And other questions like these...
I'll note that while they are glad to answer these questions in part, it's only in part... never fully filling out a rational basis for the larger questions. Yes, they may say they believe in a hell of eternal torment and separation from God, but WHAT is it that deserves that sort of punishment?
Yes, they may answer that question with the simplistic, "Sin" or "having a (theoretical and unproven) 'sin nature...'" but the necessary follow up questions that immediately comes up - Which sins? ANY sins? EVEN ONE "sin..."? How is that worthy of eternal torture/torment? How would eternal torture be in any way a just or loving response?? - these questions go unaddressed. I'm relatively sure that this is because they are so grounded in their human theories that they can't even recognize how these are reasonable questions OR that they have no reasonable answers for them.
There's more to this topic that I'm still wanting to write about, but I thought I'd at least get these reasonable unanswered questions out there.
And other questions like these...
I'll note that while they are glad to answer these questions in part, it's only in part... never fully filling out a rational basis for the larger questions. Yes, they may say they believe in a hell of eternal torment and separation from God, but WHAT is it that deserves that sort of punishment?
Yes, they may answer that question with the simplistic, "Sin" or "having a (theoretical and unproven) 'sin nature...'" but the necessary follow up questions that immediately comes up - Which sins? ANY sins? EVEN ONE "sin..."? How is that worthy of eternal torture/torment? How would eternal torture be in any way a just or loving response?? - these questions go unaddressed. I'm relatively sure that this is because they are so grounded in their human theories that they can't even recognize how these are reasonable questions OR that they have no reasonable answers for them.
There's more to this topic that I'm still wanting to write about, but I thought I'd at least get these reasonable unanswered questions out there.
[NOTE: The butterfly pictured is the Question Mark butterfly, thus, my using it for this post.]
8 comments:
Questions on this topic from Stan's blog:
Stan seems to be making forgiveness and justice more complex and inscrutable than need be. He asks:
God doesn’t always forgive (e.g., John 3:36; Matt 12:31). He offers it universally (Acts 17:30; 1 Tim 2:4), but it is conditional (repentance and faith). How does that work?
In 1 John (and in common sense) we see an answer:
"God is light; in God there is no darkness at all.
If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet
walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.
But
if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
we have fellowship with one another,
and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin...
IF we confess our sins,
God is faithful and just and WILL forgive us our sins and
purify us from all unrighteousness."
How does forgiveness works? The guilty one apologizes, the innocent one accepts that apology and forgives them. Period. It's right there in the text, clear as day, straightforward and obvious to common sense, as well as biblical teachings. THAT is how it works.
Stan continued to try to make forgiveness inscrutable...
As it turns out,
forgiveness is trickier than we first thought. [says who?]
You see, as we discussed earlier, mercy and justice are …
terms that don’t play well together. [says who?]
Justice “balances the books” and
mercy withholds the just penalty due for … imbalanced books.
The only way for mercy and justice to coexist
is to have the “crime” paid for and then
not apply to the “criminal” the penalty due.
1. To have an innocent person "pay off" the guilt of a guilty person, that isn't just. That isn't forgiveness. That isn't atonement (being made at one... restoring right relationships.)
2. If a man rapes and tortures and kills a loved one and then, in court, a completely innocent person says, "I'll take that penalty for the rapist/killer..." THAT isn't justice. That does not appease the harmed family. WHY would a family member find any peace in having an innocent person accept the penalty for the harm done to them?
More questions to go unaddressed and unacknowledged.
This isn't forgiveness, it is a crass business transaction that does not address justice concerns or love or restore relationships.
Why are you commenting about Stan's blog when he clearly doesn't want you there?
I'm talking about ideas and ideals that Stan and his commenters raised on his blog, but the ideas are not unique to him.
I'm talking about these theories that many conservative religionists have because they are important ideas to talk about and theories and notions that are strong can withstand questions.
Why would I NOT talk about ideas raised on Stan's blog, as well as in other places?
Are you someone, Ms/Mr Anonymous, who does not believe that conservative theories can withstand reasonable, honest questions?
If so, I agree. I don't think they can, either... at least not this latest version of what has become conservative religionism. I think that's why the strongmen types (like this president) appeal to them. Too often, they want to bully others into agreement, as opposed to defending them with rational arguments.
When they say, "Make america great again," they are too often intending to say, "make the US like it was 50 years ago, when white conservative religiosity wasn't questioned..."
Now, on the flip side, I have known plenty of conservatives in my life who COULD deal with questions and do so respectfully. I just don't run into them much any more.
"When they say, "Make america great again," they are too often intending to say, "make the US like it was 50 years ago, when white conservative religiosity wasn't questioned...""
Knowing the risk I am taking, that my comment will be quickly deleted, I can't help but ask you for specific, objective proof of this claim.
Unlike you all, I'm glad to answer questions, fully, clearly, directly.
From what I hear from Republicans, they want the nation to be great "again," like it was in earlier times. Am I mistaken?
In earlier times, white Christian conservative types held the most power. They don't like that white Christian conservatives are no longer a majority stronghold view like it was, say, prior to 1970. Am I mistaken?
They don't like that gay folks can marry or adopt children. They couldn't do that back before the 90s and they want to go back to that time. Am I mistaken?
They want abortion to be illegal, like it was prior to 1970s. Am I mistaken?
They want to see a return to a time when police officers automatically were considered to be trustworthy and that the military wasn't questioned, like before the 1970s. Am I mistaken?
Are you suggesting that conservative types - the Maga wing, especially - are not wanting to see a return to a time when white Christian conservative "values" were the dominant worldview?
Am I mistaken?
I'm just telling you what I hear from conservatives. But maybe you're right. Maybe conservatives WANT to be the minority view and not have the Ten commandments posted and NOT have christian prayers in schools led by teachers, and NOT have any transgender people being recognized and celebrated. Is that what you think?
Would you agree that, prior to ~1975 - and certainly prior to 1965 - the predominant worldview in the US, the primary political and social power that held the most sway was a traditionalist conservative worldview.
A. They liked for parents to not get divorced;
B. for women to stay home and raise children;
C. for gay people to NOT be accepted as role models;
D. and really, they preferred "converting" gay folks to be good heterosexuals;
E. They wanted policeMEN to be respected (and to be men, see B.);
F. They were wary of civil rights and equal opportunities for black people and immigrants;
G. They were wary of black people moving "into their" neighborhoods;
H. They didn't want to see/hear/read hints of sexuality or normalization of homosexuality on TV or the radio or in the media;
I. They wanted their politicians to be traditional, conservative churchgoers;
J. And for the most part, they were. You could hardly be elected if you weren't white, straight, conservative and evangelical/not Catholic...
Is ANY of that wrong?
Is this NOT what maga types are wanting to see a return to?
If not, what/when does the AGAIN mean in maga, do you imagine?
Seems a strange thing to debate that conservatives want to see conservatives who agree with them and obey the president as the dominant political view. WHY would they be fighting so hard to "get america back" if they didn't want things to return to how they were?
Marshal responded to my questions but did so with so many vulgar, misogynistic, homophobic and just crude comments they had to be deleted. I've let him know that such attacks on innocent people will NOT stand here. Marshal, if you want to comment, you have to be respectful and not engage in hate speech.
But to deal with some of his non-answers...
A. Who wouldn't like parents to remain together, to resolve their differences and remain true to the vows they took, knowing what it means to take a vow?
The woman who has been abused? The woman who has been raped by her husband? The father whose wife abused their children and could not be trusted to be around them?
There are many instances - not even all so extreme - where it's a reasonable decision to end a marriage, because of course, there are. Regardless, the point would be is that it's the people INVOLVED in the marriage who are the ones who should make the call, not some conservative white religionist dude.
As to the rest of your vulgar comments, that was not the point. The point I was making was simply that those points (A. - I.) are how things were back when you and I were young and beyond AND that conservatives would like to go back to those times when they were the ones making the calls for everyone else.
If you want to comment here, you can begin by answering that question: DO YOU recognize the reality that many conservatives would like to see things return to a time when people who thought like them were in control? That many maga-types are scared and unhappy today precisely because they are not the ones who get to set these policies?
Once again you lie rather than address the responses that are beyond your ability to do so honestly and come out on top. Not a single thing in my comments were in any way "vulgar, misogynistic, homophobic and just crude". That's a flat out, intentional lie intended to provide you with a way out from addressing them...because you truly can't.
"The woman who has been abused? The woman who has been raped by her husband? The father whose wife abused their children and could not be trusted to be around them?"
Now you raised the bar from what point A said, which was:
"They liked for parents to not get divorced"
I gave a general response to a general question and in typical fake Christian tradition, you dredge of the worst scenarios to suggest that's what conservatives have in mind when desiring parents stay married. The reality is that most divorces aren't based on those extreme examples you so desperately need to have considered as the ONLY reasons parents separate in order to further disparage people better than you'll ever be.
My responses to the rest also reflected the reality you ignore in favor of your fantasies about what conservatives mean when speaking of "Making America Great Again" or expressing a desire for "the good old days". You've done this before and stinks now as it did the last time your ran with this dishonesty. Thus, you alleged question: "DO YOU recognize the reality that many conservatives would like to see things return to a time when people who thought like them were in control?" is dishonest if you and totally lacking the grace about which you speak though clearly demonstrating again you know not what it means, suggest your points A-I indicate a desire for the worst of the past rather than a rejection of the "progressives'" corruption of the present. The policies YOUR kind sets are destructive and have done no good that you can describe which doesn't have immoral, disordered people of all kinds as the beneficiaries.
Post a Comment