This is not quite right or finished yet, I don't think, but I wanted to put down these thoughts while I'm thinking about them...
"Love the
'sinner'
hate the
'sin'"
is a problematic suggestion
Rationally, morally and from a simple place of common grace
it's presumptuous and condescending
and I'd suggest, just not helpful or
loving
(thereby making mockery of the first premise
as if one could love the poor pathetic "sinner" that one looks down upon)
Rather:
Love the sinner
"Love the
'sinner'
hate the
'sin'"
is a problematic suggestion
Rationally, morally and from a simple place of common grace
it's presumptuous and condescending
and I'd suggest, just not helpful or
loving
(thereby making mockery of the first premise
as if one could love the poor pathetic "sinner" that one looks down upon)
Rather:
Love the sinner
Hate the conflating of all human failures with intentional evil
Love the sinner
Hate the oppression - sure
and not only hate the oppression
and not only hate the oppression
but take an active stand against the oppressors
But
"Love the 'sinner...'"?
How about this:
Love the human
"Love the 'sinner...'"?
How about this:
Love the human
even in our imperfection
because, why not?
Maybe, love the human who is imperfect
(ie, all of us)
as God loves all of us
just because
Just because we are family,
we are one,
we are the Beloved of God
and who are we to dispute a Loving God?
Yes, yes,
we must hate the oppression and those who abuse
we must take actions to
ally with and protect those who are being abused and oppressed
but most of us in our daily lives?
we're not choosing to abuse
to harm
to oppress
We're just being imperfect humans and
while that can be awful enough
it's not like it rises to the level of Evil
It's sufficient to keep in mind that this term
SIN
which has been so badly abused through the centuries
sinfully so, indeed,
in the original texts and languages simply meant
missing the mark
trying one's best but not quite hitting the target
That is,
simply imperfect
not evil.
The more I ponder conservative human theories about "sin natures"
the more I'm convinced of the harm of those theories
at least in how they're implemented.
because, why not?
Maybe, love the human who is imperfect
(ie, all of us)
as God loves all of us
just because
Just because we are family,
we are one,
we are the Beloved of God
and who are we to dispute a Loving God?
Yes, yes,
we must hate the oppression and those who abuse
we must take actions to
ally with and protect those who are being abused and oppressed
but most of us in our daily lives?
we're not choosing to abuse
to harm
to oppress
We're just being imperfect humans and
while that can be awful enough
it's not like it rises to the level of Evil
It's sufficient to keep in mind that this term
SIN
which has been so badly abused through the centuries
sinfully so, indeed,
in the original texts and languages simply meant
missing the mark
trying one's best but not quite hitting the target
That is,
simply imperfect
not evil.
The more I ponder conservative human theories about "sin natures"
the more I'm convinced of the harm of those theories
at least in how they're implemented.
58 comments:
I'm going to ignore your routine minimizing of the seriousness of sin and address the platitude, "love the sinner, hate the sin". Your intention to reframe it doesn't do much to alter it at all, if as Scripture teaches, we are all sinners. If you prefer to say we are all brothers, all brothers are sinners, so what's the difference? Well, in your case, you're again minimizing the seriousness of sin. To call out our brothers as sinners isn't condescending to them if we at the same time admit that we are sinners as well.
But the expression is notable for the fact that the sin is worthy of our attention...that we are not to dismiss it as "no big deal", because it most certainly is. Going on about human imperfection...about human inability to be perfect...isn't the flex you think it is, for nobody is demanding perfection of another rather than acknowledging our obligation to strive for perfection regardless of that inability.
We know what constitutes sinful behavior because Scripture teaches it so very plainly one would have to intentionally ignore it to assert it's ambiguous. So the "intention" is in the abdication of the responsibility to strive to be holy because God is holy. By this I mean one assuming oneself "holy enough" one need not concern oneself with keeping that "mark" in mind at all times. That's evil.
And you minimize what evil is and suppose it's only that which is blatant, such as ripping limb from limb an infant, or flying planes into buildings. But the greatest evil...the worst manifestation of evil...is that which says "That's not so bad, don't worry about it. It's only 'missing the mark'. No big deal." Or, "Did God really say...?"
God doesn't ignore our failures or imperfections. Christ intercedes for us if we believe in Him and His sacrifice for us so that we are regarded as perfect. But it doesn't mean we can just go about ignoring what is sinful because that indicates we haven't accepted Christ at all and thus our failures and imperfections will not be ignored by the Father.
We must always be mindful of avoiding sin and doing that which pleases God and we do our brothers (sinners all) no favors by pretending his sinful behaviors and choices are no big deal.
Marshal “ We know what constitutes sinful behavior because Scripture teaches it so very plainly one would have to intentionally ignore it to assert it's ambiguous.”
Don’t eat pork.
Don’t meat with blood still in it.
Don’t wear a shirt of two plants.
Don’t touch a woman on her period.
These sins are condemned as equal to refusal to feed the hungry and clothe those with clothes.
Marshal’s right! It’s all in Leviticus. Gotta do it.
I wonder if aspirin is ok? 🤔 May cause MAGA Rage!
And yet, they never see that hole in their argument, do they, Feodor. And not seeing it, they don't even acknowledge its existence, but that doesn't make the hole go away.
Marshal:
in your case, you're again minimizing the seriousness of sin.
You have ONE chance here, Marshal. ONE chance: PROVE IT.
I would call what I'm doing "right-sizing" the "seriousness" of sin.
Some behaviors, actions, policies are truly destructive and harmful, oppressive and abusive to such a degree that those actions are rightly called evil. A sample list would include rape, genocide, killing, especially killing and abuse of children and other innocent people. If you want to hate a sin, THOSE are the sins to hate (that, as opposed to actually VOTING for people who implement these policies).
But the vast majority of human failings/shortcomings/imperfections are NOT rape, murder, genocide. The vast majority are simple human imperfections that may be more or less serious, but they're not worthy of hate.
I may snap at my brother or parents. I might do something to hurt their feelings. I might even "borrow" a big brother's car without permission because I really wanted to meet with a sweetheart on the other side of the town. Those actions are wrong, they are failings, but they are the simple missing the mark of perfection, nothing that rises to the level of evil or abuse or oppression. Just stupid errors on our part.
I'd be willing the vast majority of human "sins" are closer to the level of being rude to a driver in front of you or not being patient with a friend or telling a homeless person asking for money that you don't have any cash on you (when you do)... that kind of thing. Simple temporal shortcomings that simply don't rise to the level of evil of such that it needs to be "hated."
Do you disagree? Can you see that I'm merely right-sizing the nature of degrees of sin and misdeeds rather than "minimizing" sin in general?
If not and you want to stand by your nonsense claim, PROVE IT.
Provide objective proof that noting the very real distinction between simple impatience as compared to rape and genocide is somehow "minimizing" sin.
Objective proof or admit you can't do so, apologize and move on.
Indeed, if ANYONE is minimizing sin, it's those who say that all sins are basically the same - that it's equally evil to be impatient with a loved one as to rape a child. THAT's some level of unhealthy attitudes towards human misconduct and actual evil.
One chance or just move on.
Dan
Once again, you're focusing on specific sins when I'm speaking of sin. You truly not see the distinction?
Marshal commits and ignores his sin more than anyone else in all my universe. Especially including the men I visit in prison who have a desire to turn their life into a spiritually and educationally focused one now and when they’re released.
Because of Christ’s love and faithfulness, God has already accepted everyone. God has set in motion the way by which everyone will be reddened and enter the fullness of life.
Col 2: And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross.
Eph 1: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
2 Corinthians 5: that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.
Romans 5: For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.
Marshal:
you're focusing on specific sins when I'm speaking of sin.
WhatEVER it is you're imagining in your head in your little personal opinion, son, SUPPORT it. Objectively.
Can you see that I'm merely right-sizing the nature of
degrees of sin and misdeeds
rather than "minimizing" sin in general?
THAT is what I'm talking about. Are you going to try to suggest that all "sinful" actions are equally hate-worthy? Equally evil?
Answer THAT question.
THEN, if you imagine this theoretical "sin nature" is hate-worthy and evil and something that an almighty God can't abide (y'all paint such a squeamish, tiny, weakling vision of your god), THEN OBJECTIVELY PROVE IT.
Failing that, admit that you, of course, can't objectively prove it, it's just a theory you hold without strong support.
Last chance.
Marshal:
You truly not see the distinction?
I fully understand that you all hold to this human theory of a mythical "sin nature," that you imagine all humans have. Remember, it's something I used to believe, too, until I realized how unbiblical and irrational it is.
IF, by "sin nature," you mean that humans are merely NOT perfect, NOT God-like in themselves, then yes, that's true. But we already have a word for that: We're human. Imperfect, fallible humans. We are not perfect nor do we make all-perfect decisions.
That much is observable, but you all don't stop there. You all imagine that this "sin nature" (something you can't objectively prove at all) is something all humans "inherited" from a literal "Adam" which means NOT merely imperfect and human, but deliberately turned against God, deliberately in rebellion to God.
Is that a correct estimate of your "sin nature" theory?
If so, here are the things that you can't/won't prove in any meaningfully objective way:
1. That a "sin nature" exists.
2. That this "sin nature" is MORE than merely being an imperfect human. It means we are in rebellion against God.
3. And, therefore (you imagine), this "sin nature rebellion" is all EQUALLY evil no matter if it manifests in stealing ten cookies and telling 20 lies or if it results in rape and genocide and other actual atrocities.
IF that is what you want to guess at, fine. No matter how silly or infantile a theory it is, hold it. BUT, unless you can objectively prove it, then have the adult wherewithal to admit it's just an unproven theory you and millions of your friends hold.
Romans 6:15: "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!"
Marshal, you did not - and did not even TRY - to objectively support your nonsense human theories. You have NOT pulled out an autopsy or a microscope, an x-ray or a CAT scan and identified your mythical "human sin nature." Your comments will be deleted as soon as I am at my computer.
In the meantime, let me repeat what you've been told repeatedly:
That there is a verse in the Bible that says, for instance,
"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, - Romans 8:3 (ESV)"
THAT the verse exists in the Bible is not in dispute. But the MEANING of the verse IS in dispute. You read verses like this and you create a myth of a "sin nature" because it makes sense to you in your head. But no one cares what makes sense to you in your head. You just aren't that important, little mortal.
The question is not "DOES that verse exist?" The question is "What does it mean and does it support this theory of a 'sin nature'?"
YOU have not objectively proven it means what you're reading into it.
Eisegesis is not objective proof. Wishful thinking is not objective proof. "People who agree with me all think it means what I think it means" is not objective proof.
Your problem is that you can't separate your little personal mortal feelings and opinions from objective facts. I don't know, maybe you just don't understand, that's between you and your mental health support team.
All I'm letting you know is that, as an objective fact, you have not objectively proven even one thing.
Citing a Bible verse IS NOT PROOF.
Citing a website that cites a Bible verse IS NOT PROOF.
Move on.
Dan
Romans 11 For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.
And so, Rom 7 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.... Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit...
... The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.[f] And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
___
What I said is simply what Holy Scripture makes clear: Because of Christ’s love and faithfulness, God has already accepted everyone. God has set in motion the way by which everyone will be reddened and enter the fullness of life.
You, though, Marshal, are still a slave to the mind of the flesh, living in anxiety of it as if God in Christ never accomplished your creation or your redemption. You do not know what it is to call God, Abba. To live in the Spirit.
You only have your book.
The hole in your argument is life in the Spirit, which the only the Spirit can fill. But you worship a book.
Romans 11 For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.
And so, Rom 7 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.... Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit...
... The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.[f] And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
___
What I said is simply what Holy Scripture makes clear: Because of Christ’s love and faithfulness, God has already accepted everyone. God has set in motion the way by which everyone will be reddened and enter the fullness of life.
You, though, Marshal, are still a slave to the mind of the flesh, living in anxiety of it as if God in Christ never accomplished your creation or your redemption. You do not know what it is to call God, Abba. To live in the Spirit.
You only have your book. The hole in your argument is life in the Spirit, which the only the Spirit can fill. But you worship a book.
… what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you should care for them?
Yet you made them only a little lower than God
and crowned them with glory and honor
___
Marshal denies that all of us are creatures made by God, crowned with glory and honor. All of radical protestantism stepped into this fatal and consequential blasphemy.
Marshal:
There is no "equally" evil. Evil is evil. All sin is evil. Little sins, big sins...all evil.
PROVE IT.
God hates sin.
PROVE IT.
They ARE evil actions.
PROVE IT.
On and on it goes. Marshal cowardly, irrationally makes one unproven claim after another, as if his claim is somehow proof. But no one here is that naive to believe in an almighty perfectly correct Marshal.
And Marshal cites verses, one after another - not a single one of which proves his claims - and THEY do not prove the claims.
Do you understand objective proof?
Move on. You've lost. You're done here. I gave you multiple chances and you just whined about insisting you're right as if that's proof.
Grow up.
Also:
Evil is anything which is contrary to that which God finds pleasing...or, anything which displeases God..
PROVE IT.
As a point of fact, the Bible has not "defined" sin or evil, not in any objective sense. And we don't NEED a Bible verse to define sin or evil. We are human beings created in the image of an almighty God (if you actually believe the Bible which you claim to do). Just pointing out the obvious: Your claims are all based on your personal little human opinions that you personally think make sense because of how you personally choose to interpret various Bible verses where you personally are abusing the Bible trying to take it hostage to your personal little opinion and, by extension, where you try to commandeer an almighty God, kidnap God and put God into your little brain-sized jail for you to order around.
You're not God enough for all of this and, to be frank, your opinions are not even worth all that much by human standards, much less Godly ones.
Marshal, in a soon-deleted post, asked irrational questions not grounded in anything moral, rational or biblical:
Where in Scripture does claim evil is a matter of degrees? Where does it ever say anything like, "that's not 'really that evil', so don't worry about avoiding it"?
It doesn't matter.
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Do you understand how very LITTLE that question matters? (it matters NOT AT ALL).
The Bible doesn't say it is giving us the definition of evil. GOD has not told you nor me nor anyone else that God is giving us the definition of evil.
The Bible is NOT a rulings book to learn the definition of evil.
How do you not understand simple objective reality?
Still missing the point, Marshal asked:
On what basis could a rational person claim or suggest that God doesn't hate sin?
Easily. Keeping in mind that the definition of the word translated as "sin" is "missing the mark," a rational person can reasonably and morally understand:
1. Humans aren't perfect.
2. Therefore, humans won't be perfect.
3. Therefore, it is not rational to hate humans who can't be perfect for not being perfect.
4. And, depending on the imperfection, it's not rational to full on HATE the imperfect actions of imperfect people.
If I hope to be a good parent and I hope my children will grow to be good adults, and one of my children steals a cookie when I told them No more, I don't HATE that they stole a cookie. It is quite literally a minor human misdeed. No great harm was intended in taking the cookie, they just reasonably wanted a cookie because cookies famously taste good. There was literally NO intent to be evil or hateful in taking that cookie.
Now, if I, as a parent, were to say, "You bad child! I HATE that you stole that cookie! That was an evil thing to do because you disobeyed me and stole the cookie when I told you not to! I HATE it!"
If I were to do that, I would be an insane person, not a morally rational one.
Disappointed? Sure.
I had a reason for asking you not to do that? Sure.
But "I HATE that you took that cookie!"? That's irrational in the extreme.
If you're going to HATE the taking of a cookie, where is your moral outrage to go when a person in power, for instance, actually breaks the law to enrich himself or to cover up sexual abuses? Where is your moral outrage about rape and sexual assault and slavery and genocide and extrajudicial murders?
A rational person can recognize that "hate" is a strong reaction to a simple disobedience to take a cookie.
And if you think otherwise, you will have to objectively prove it (and you won't because you can't) and you won't have a chance to do that here, anyway because I told you you were done.
Dan
Marshal, in a now deleted comment:
Where in Scripture does claim evil is a matter of degrees?
1. WE STILL DO NOT NEED A BIBLE VERSE TO RECOGNIZE THE OBVIOUS.
2. There are verses in the Bible that speak to degrees of seriousness of misdeeds. In the OT rules to ancient Israel, there were different punishments for different misdeeds, indicating degrees of severity of the wrong done.
When Jesus is addressing Pontius Pilate, he says flat out that Judas had committed a "greater sin," indicating degrees.
Jesus repeatedly rebuked (and harshly rebuked) the Pharisees and those in power for abusing their power and oppressing the poor and marginalized repeatedly indicating degrees of severity of the wrongs done. Likewise, for the "woman caught in adultery," the woman at the well and Zaccheus and others, we see Jesus being compassionate towards certain kinds of misdeeds that we do NOT see in his treatment of the religious abusers and oppressors.
Of course, there are degrees of wrongdoing and we don't need a Bible verse to tell us that. Not if we are moral reasoning humans.
Marshal:
You assert I'm "interpreting" the verses I cite. Explain what they mean if I'm truly abusing them.
We ALL interpret bible verses. Biblical passages written by a range of humans in a range of styles and traditions in a range of languages and time periods perforce MUST be interpreted.
Now, IF someone wanted to make the case that the whole of the Bible is one woodenly literal book, written with the intention that it should be taken woodenly literally AND they proved it, then that might be one thing.
But no one is making that case. We all recognize (even the Pharisees and modern religionists like fundamentalist conservative calvinists) that the Bible has all manner of figurative language, all manner of circumstantial situations, all manner of non-literal use of words and hyperbole, etc. At the very least, any Bible reader has to decide, "What is the genre being written in? Did the human author here mean these words rather literally or was there hyperbole or other figurative language involved?"
etc.
Because of that reality, we all do apply interpretations of texts. When the Psalmist writes:
, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies"
...rational adults need to decide how literally (if at all) the Psalmist was trying to be. Was he REALLY suggesting that newborns "speak lies as soon as they are born..."? Of course, not. Taking that literally is insane and VERY unbiblical/abusive of biblical text and meaning. Likewise, we have to decide are fetuses ACTUALLY estranged from God in the womb!!? Again, a literal interpretation is just insane, lacking any grounding in reason and common sense or morality OR biblical understanding.
And on and on it goes. I've explained all this before. You DO interpret passages, just as we all do. And you can NOT objectively prove your interpretations are even rational, much less factual.
You're losing badly. Go away.
On the other hand, if you want to start a comment with, "I see. I DID overspeak and made claims that I absolutely can not objectively prove. I apologize for that. What I'm trying to say is..." and make your case, I'll allow it. Otherwise, just move on.
Dan
Marshal:
So you actually think that God evil isn't that which is contrary to God's Will? And that God isn't displeased by that which is contrary to His Will?
I assume your question is "You actually think that evil isn't that which is contrary to God's Will?"
My answer would be, not necessarily. It all depends upon the action. Because, of course.
It is contrary to God's will to ogle teenaged girls getting dressed, for instance, I stand confident on that opinion. AND, because it involves children, I think that behavior rises to the level of abusive and oppressive, especially given the real world history of rich and powerful men abusing their privilege to abuse/misuse children. I would call that Evil.
On the other hand, it is God's will (most of us would affirm and we can find passages in the Bible to support the idea, IF we are someone who can't recognize this without a bible verse) that we honor our parents, to love them, to support them. But on any given day when my parents were in their last years, I may not have visited them (and thus honored them) because I had worked hard all day and was just worn out or I had a meeting that prevented me from doing that (placing the meeting ahead of the choice to visit my parents). Is that dishonoring them and not God's will? It's much more of a gray area, isn't it? I certainly don't think failing to visit them on a given day is evil at all.
Now, whether or not you recognize the moral reasoning in that, the reality is that most of our misdeeds are MUCH closer to that than abusing children. We are finite and imperfect humans with finite strength and energy. We don't always do our best and may, in such instances, miss the mark of visiting my parents AFTER my meeting (for instance). Maybe one might call such an imperfection a missing of the mark, but it is not at all evil. Just a sign that we are finite and imperfect humans. Or, if I DID visit them, being tired and worn out, and I snapped at my mother disrespectfully, that certainly would be a missing of the mark of the ideal of respecting my parents... but Evil?
Don't be a graceless ass.
Like it or not, there are degrees of wrong and not all wrong or "missing of the mark" is evil. To use the terms of "hate" or "evil" towards mere human failings is graceless and, I'd suggest, leaning towards evil itself, in its arrogance and presumption.
Dan
It is the 400 year history of the development of Whiteness as a fake identity that include thinking one’s own sins - and the sins of those like me - are forgivable because we are inherently favored by God. While the sins of the Other - all Others - are evil because of their depraved Otherness. It is an unconscious mechanism necessary to steal, chain, buy, sell, enslave, whip, rape, dismember, sever families, torture and kill the Other all for the sake of generating profit. For 300 years.
And then violate the Constitution by disenfranchising equal citizenship for another 100.
This is the intergenerational, socially-learned identity of Whiteness to which we give our loyalty even when we do not benefit all that much.
Marshal is the field Massa.
“… for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.”
Romans 11
God gives us the gift of a conscience. In other words, guilt is a gift working to correct us and impel us to greater love and sacrifice.
Everyone has a conscience. And guilt is not the only field conscience works in. Consolation can also be generated by our conscience. We can be at peace with our moral sense.
The damned are those who despise the uncomfortably provoked as a signal by our conscience. By thrilling to resentment, to anger, to hate, to brutality… as Marshal and the other Thugs do… and have done so long, the receptors to conscience are paralyzed, cannot even be recognized. Thereby, the thrill to brutality is justified by inner silence..
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment:
It matters very much when someone like you continues to speak in terms of one behavior being more evil than another, or that two evil behaviors are not "equally evil".
1. Why?
2. Prove it, objectively.
We can see by your constant NOT proving anything that you can't prove it. Just be a rational adult and admit that you can't prove it and move on.
Look, once again, the question is not: "IS there a line in the bible that has these words (which words make me, personally, reach a conclusion about their intent)?" No one is disputing that these irrelevant verses you keep citing are THERE. The question is, "What is their INTENT? Do we objectively KNOW?"
And the answer, as you continually demonstrate, is that you can't objectively prove the author's intent OR that EVEN IF it were the author's intent, that the human author was correct in their particular understanding.
Proof, son. Words have meanings.
Which comes down to the money quote from Marshal:
Only if you can "PROVE!!!!" a literal interpretation isn't appropriate.
? Do you not understand that just because you make an unsupported claim that many would find irrational and unbiblical does not mean that anyone has to prove an unproven premise. I'm simply trying to start from level ground. YOU CAN NOT OBJECTIVELY PROVE your various premises. I don't have to be able to disprove them objectively to note the reality that you have not proven it objectively.
Your engaging in question begging fallacies (among others). Your claims are unsupported by any objective data that prove them.
Look at it this way:
Can Marshal cite some Bible verses that support his human theory about "sin natures..."?
The answer is objectively YES.
BUT, DO those verses objectively prove his premise?
The answer is NO, they objectively do not.
Move on.
Marshal complained because I wasn't addressing specific verses he cited (as if one verse he cites is somehow "more" proof than other similar verses). But to humor him, now that he's so thoroughly been defeated by his own incapacity to support EVEN A LITTLE bit his nonsense human theories... Marshal cited John 3:4 (which was clearly not addressing the topic in any way so I'm guessing it was a typo) and Romans 1, which says:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against
ALL the godlessness and wickedness of people,
who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
since what may be known about God is plain to them,
because God has made it plain to them.
What Marshal had to say about this:
God hates sin. Period. Full stop. End of story.
Why would a real Christian hate them less?
(which doesn't say, "some" godlessness and wickedness, but ALL godlessness and wickedness)
1. This verse says God has wrath against "godlessness" and "wickedness of people."
2. It literally does not DEFINE what specifically is meant by that. Do you REALLY think that God's "wrath" is against the child who steals a cookie?
If so, what's wrong with you? You've got a VERY sick, low opinion of your little angry godling.
3. it literally does NOT specify ALL failures and "missing of the mark," not ALL sin. It literally does NOT say that.
4. Beyond that, in James, we see twice where James rips into the wealthy saying LITERALLY, "IS IT NOT THE WEALTHY WHO ARE EXPLOITING YOU...?"
Now, in THAT passage, you want to narrow down the wealthy and say "Welll, James didn't mean ALL the wealthy..." but that is literally NOT what the text says. It just states clearly, "The wealthy." Period. Full stop. Same for Jesus. "WOE to you who are wealthy now." Period. Full stop. There's no confusion about what Jesus' words are literally saying... except, you don't take that literally.
In other words, you do not take each line in the Bible literally, presumably because you think a literal understanding of the text is not in line with what you think God thinks.
5. Your Romans 1 passage goes on to say that God was clear about the misdeeds in question - saying "it was plain to them." Well, in the real world, it is not plain to you that dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians is a great evil. It's not plain to many that there is anything at all wrong with being gay and married. So, by that measure, Paul would not be suggesting that God is angry at people who are sincerely mistaken... or at least, the text does not insist upon that.
Do you see? Each of your verses are like that. There are OTHER, more reasonable and moral ways to understand them than the way you personally happen to think most sense. At the very least, there are other ways that are more rational and moral to many of us... AND you have not proven your premise is objectively correct.
Don't you see your rational error?
cont'd...
Another verse you cite, which DOES NOT say what you think it says:
For the wages of sin is death,
but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Which sins? Any sins, even taking ONE COOKIE... that sin is only reasonably and morally "paid for" by executing some hapless imperfect human soul?
THE TEXT LITERALLY does not say that. That's YOU reading INTO the text something that isn't there. Also, is Jesus waxing poetic? Is he using metaphor? I mean, is there some pay stub that says, "Marshal took a cookie from his mommy: Payment = DEATH..."? Wages, itself, is a metaphor in this verse.
I could go on but you won't understand a deeper explanation of the error of your reasoning any more than you will a brief one. That should suffice.
You're wanting to define what a "literal" interpretation means and then want to insist on taking it sort of literally, as you are defining.
You are worshiping yourself and your own human traditions.
Open your eyes, humble yourself. Or read Feodor's take-down of your reasoning. Whatever. The point remains: You have not objectively proven your silly little human tradition and theory and we are under no obligation to treat your claim as if it were a fact.
It's literally, objectively nothing more than your unsupported, unproven opinion.
Marshal:
And here again you absolutely minimize the seriousness of sin, particularly as pertaining to how seriously God takes it.
sigh. Tell you what, I'll give you ONE MORE chance to start to support your little human theory about "sin natures" and how they are "deserving" of hell.
Maybe it's just the case that I know better human beings than you do. I'm just not seeing people committing "evil" actions in normal day to day life. So tell me: What are some of the specific full-on EVIL actions have you done this last month... actions that are worthy of actually HATING and can only reasonably be dealt with by eternal torture.
If you have a long list, feel free to limit it to one or two.
I'll wait.
After all, maybe it's just the case that you're a much more awful person than the people I know and love and you think you truly are deserving of eternal torture. Go for it.
Marshal:
you're conflating specific evil acts when I'm focused no evil itself...sinful acts when I'm focused on sin itself.
I'm not missing anything. I don't believe in your little sin nature theory or that normal human imperfection is worthy of eternal hell and damnation. YOU are the one who theorizes that literally hellish notion.
I'm noting that
1. Humans ARE observably imperfect. We make mistakes, we do wrong things, we sometimes even lie or cheat or drive 65 mph in a 45 mph zone, potentially putting people at risk.
This is not in dispute. But THAT is not the "sin nature" that you are theorizing, is it?
2. YOU are theorizing that simply being imperfect and "inheriting" this "sin nature" from "Adam" makes us SO VERY guilty that our "sin nature" can only be called "evil" and worthy of "hell."
Right?
3. And that's a whole other different level of wrong than simply being imperfect and fallible, prone to selfish or cruel acts.
4. And so, FOR YOU, it doesn't matter that our "sin nature" has led us to only commit what you might allow to be "relatively minor" misdeeds, those minor misdeeds ARE EVIL and worthy of eternal torture, because that "sin nature" is evil, no matter WHAT sins are committed, even stealing a cookie.
Is that correct?
If so, then while you may want to focus on your mythical "sin nature," you're suggesting that the "sins" that this "sin nature" are resulting in are somehow worthy of torture?
Put another way, what if we have an adult with a disability with significant impacts in their reasoning and physical motion. They ARE humans and thus, have this "sin nature" you theorize, but they are not ever understanding right and wrong and are never physically capable of acting on right and wrong IF they understood it.
Is that "sin nature" in this adult STILL worthy of eternal torture?
And if that is your theory, do you realize how SICK that theory is? How abusive and oppressive and damaging to people around you?
Marshal, in a now deleted comment because he STILL hasn't admitted his little human theories are not objectively proven:
If you push your brother into the wall, that's an act of violence and thus evil.
If you punch your brother and break his nose, that's an act of greater violence but is no more evil than pushing him with the same bad attitude. They're both evil actions despite their varying degrees of harm.
If this is not true, then no one should care that you push your brother into the wall at every opportunity because...what the hell...YOU don't think it's evil because it wasn't that violent. Is pushing your bro into the wall something which would please or glorify God?
One SHOULD care about the shove AND the punch and the murder step beyond that because each one causes harm. You should be opposed to such action for the harm it causes, NOT because there is a line in a sacred text that condemns it or approves of it.
I'm noting that I do not HATE the action of my brother who called me a liar in a moment of anger. I do not call that "evil," I call it a mistake, evidence of his human fallibility that is not dissimilar from my own human fallibility.
If I were to waste the notion of "hating" that action or calling it "evil," I'm really denigrating the notion of evil and hate. Not every misdeed is "hate" or "evil"-worthy. In my opinion. And certainly, YOU have not objectively proven it is.
And with each escalation towards more harm, then it becomes increasingly evil, increasingly wrong. But of course, there are degrees of wrong doing.
And this is important for your little atonement theory because Justice demands proportionate punishment. If we are going to execute people for all evil actions, then the cookie stealer and the murderer are both rightly killed.
But that's insane. It's contrary to understood basics of justice and morality.
So, no. Calling your brother a liar, shoving your brother, punching your brother and then killing your brother (and destroying his family if you want to keep carrying it out) are not all equally wrong or reaching the criteria of evil. And as to your little sin nature theory, if I have a sin nature that leads me to call someone a name and another person has a sin nature that leads them to commit genocide, it is not morally rational or just (as justice is rightly understood) to consider them equally accountable/punished with the same punishment.
And you certainly haven't objectively proven that little bit of nonsense.
Marshal:
And it's fair to say that God hates sinners:
Ps 5:5
Let's look at Psalm 5, in context:
Listen to my words, Lord,
consider my lament.
Hear my cry for help,
my King and my God,
for to you I pray...
VERSE 5 For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness;
with you, evil people are not welcome.
The arrogant cannot stand
in your presence.
You hate all who do wrong;
And the Psalmist goes on to define the "doing wrong..."
you destroy those who tell lies.
The bloodthirsty and deceitful
you, Lord, detest.
But I, by your great love,
can come into your house;
in reverence I bow down
toward your holy temple.
This is considered a Psalm of David and it's clearly a song of lament for David while he was in a troubled time, being abused and oppressed by unspecified enemies. I don't think we know who is the "enemy" David is lamenting, but it's clearly in the context of being abused/harmed.
In THAT context, then, David is telling God that God hates evil, BUT the evil is not a general "all misdeeds and human errors" kind of complaint, it's about the evils of lying about him and causing him harm, who were "bloodthirsty..."
BUT, nothing in the text or context here suggests David is speaking about someone stealing a cookie from him.
You see? David is using poetic, figurative, hyperbolic language in HIS prayer to God to emphasize his case for God helping him be saved from the bloodthirsty. NOT the cookie stealer.
Read for understanding.
And like that for all your other verses. Once again: Just because YOU find a line in the bible that makes YOU think it should be taken a certain way does not mean that YOUR little human interpretation is correct or valid. And it certainly isn't objective proof of any of your claims.
Re: Psalm 5...
For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness;
with you, evil people are not welcome.
The arrogant cannot stand
in your presence.
You hate all who do wrong;
Also, CLEARLY David is not suggesting that David thinks that God thinks that ALL people are evil, arrogant and wicked. He's praying for help for himself. IF "all meant all" (of course, all people isn't in the text), then David himself would be excluded.
Again, trying to read this as a literal ruling about who is and isn't evil according to God, and objectively so... that's not the right way to read this text.
Another verse Marshal cited as "proof" of ... something? (Evil? The definition of evil?? he doesn't say) is Romans 12:21. Here is what led up to Marshal citing it, where he said:
doesn't mean we can't glean from it's 66 books what evil is. Here are two verses which make easy even for someone from Louisville, KY to understand:
Here it is in context:
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good...
Live in harmony with one another.
Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.
Do not be conceited...
Do not repay anyone evil for evil.
Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath,
for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
[Marshal's cited verse...]
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
This is not a definition of evil, if that's what you're suggesting. Although it does point to how we deal with evil.
It also clearly does not say all our behavior is evil or that even every bad action is rightly considered "evil," nor that we are guided only by a "sin nature," and indeed, assumes that we CAN engage in good behavior.
On another topic: It's also another verse pointing to siding with the poor and marginalized and peacemaking/non-violent direct action models.
Because I have time, I'll also address the second verse you cited in response to the "definition of evil" theme, Isaiah 5:20...
Isaiah 5:20, in context:
[Marshal's target verse] Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.
Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine
and champions at mixing drinks,
who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
but deny justice to the innocent.
Once again, as an aside, we see just how consistent and common the idea of God being on the side of the poor and oppressed.
But a definition of "evil..."? No, it's not that. And a definition that says ALL actions that are wrong in some way are rightly considered evil? No, it's not that, either. Indeed, almost all the verses that speak of evil and God's anger, it's in the context specifically of the oppression of the poor and/or marginalized.
And this is not me merely saying, "Nyuh," beyond just noting the observable reality that this does not say, one way or the other, "HERE is the definition of evil..." It's just not there in the text. All I can tell you is what isn't there. If you have special insight where you can demonstrate it IS there, then that's on you to objectively prove it.
You won't because you can't.
FYI:
The primary Hebrew word for "wicked" in the Bible is rasha (רָשָׁע), which describes a person who breaks moral or legal laws and lives in active defiance of God.
Someone merely trying to live a good life and being mistaken on a point is NOT living in "active defiance of God." Indeed, it's often quite the opposite.
"Look, once again, the question is not: "IS there a line in the bible that has these words (which words make me, personally, reach a conclusion about their intent)?" No one is disputing that these irrelevant verses you keep citing are THERE. The question is, "What is their INTENT? Do we objectively KNOW?""
This is incorrect. Your question...your DEMAND...is always that I prove what hold to be true. I provide evidence to support it and you don't address the evidence other than to suggest the possibility that I don't understand the verses, that there's some wildly differing meaning you never provide, much less prove and here you're doing that again by deflecting to "how do we know He mean 'fish' when He said 'fish'?" It's absurd, cheap, disrespectful and immature. You're a 4 yr old asking "Why?" after every explanation given for the previous "Why?".
In the meantime, every verse I cite is obvious in intention (except where noted up front---I tend not to use those of questionable meaning and never beyond just more for additional consideration). If you want to dispute it, it is up to you to provide an alternative understanding and evidence of your own to support the contention. I'm not in any way obliged to "prove" that water is wet.
Nothing I provide is of a type of verse where the intention is disputable. If it was, you could do so with countervailing evidence of your own. You never do. This is just a transparent ploy by you to avoid accepting the truth you find personally inconvenient and uncomfortable. Respectful adults don't pull this crap every time they're stumped.
"? Do you not understand that just because you make an unsupported claim that many would find irrational and unbiblical does not mean that anyone has to prove an unproven premise."
Here's another cheap ploy. "that many would find irrational". Until you can invite one such person to weigh in and join you in pretending my claim...supported or not...is "irrational" just because you need it to be so, it is up to you alone to argue for why it might be so regarded. You don't. You play games. Playing games is all you have. Your game is to demand evidence ("proof", as you dishonestly call it), and when evidence is provided, you then want evidence for the evidence, while in the meantime providing nothing by insult and arrogant condescension regarding my understanding of the evidence I've provided. Cheap and immature, but not respectful, adult discourse. Honest and mature people don't demand proof for proof given and then demand proof of that. My citations are all the evidence you need for the claims I make and you're just playing games and stalling.
"BUT, DO those verses objectively prove his premise?
The answer is NO, they objectively do not."
That's not the answer. That's what you merely assert is the case and somehow you believe that's all you have to do to absolve you from your obligation to address the citations in a respectful, adult manner. This is evil. You're a coward, dishonest, a fake Christian and an immature child. Be a man for a change.
Marshal:
Nothing I provide is of a type of verse where the intention is disputable.
You just don't seem to understand, you know, words and shit at at adult level, Marshal. I DISPUTE your understanding of the intention (as I just did in some detail above for several of your nonsense verses which are NOT saying what you think they are, certainly not objectively so). The fact that people DO dispute your understanding is objective evidence that your understanding IS disputable. You're disproving yourself, son, in the face of reality and all.
Here's someone else who dares to disagree with the almighty M's silly little theories (and from a guy who sounds fairly traditional):
https://joshuamcnall.com/2021/04/28/you-dont-have-a-sin-nature/
Or this guy (again, apparently a traditionalist)...
https://escapetoreality.org/2023/03/02/six-reasons-why-original-sin-cannot-be-true/
And even JI Packer appears to at the least, not like the term, "sin nature..."
https://sharperiron.org/article/does-believer-have-one-nature-or-two-part-2
And I could go on and on. Many people don't accept your human theories of "sin natures" or "original sin" or a literal Adam who "passed on" his "sin nature" or, for that matter, that Unicorns are cute and harmless little dancers of delight (which I, myself, am fine with, but not everyone agrees on that particular myth).
Dan
This guy disputes your little human theory in much the same way I do, starting with...
If this is supposed to mean merely that all accountable persons at some point sin, and need forgiveness, then the doctrine of a sinful nature is biblical (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10).
However, the very words “sinful nature,” and much of the discussion surrounding it, often denote the doctrine of hereditary depravity. This is the idea that all humans inherit the sin of Adam in some way—we suffer due to this original sin, and therefore we all are inescapably sinful by nature.
The biblical evidence militates against this idea, as we have shown previously (see Pinedo, 2009; Colley, 2004; Butt, 2004). The very concept of a sinful human nature is also philosophically problematic. Indeed, the concept of a sinful nature is plagued with difficulties even before the Bible is consulted.
https://apologeticspress.org/the-problematic-concept-of-a-sinful-human-nature-3749/
This guy actually makes a very good case that may even reach you. I encourage you to read it.
Not sin, not some bizarre voodoo substitution. Marshal needs his book to correct him. Holy Scripture reveals Jesus’ emphasis on the meaning of his incarnation right after he returns from the desert - where the Spirit took him - having spurned the devil’s temptation to make everything right at once but rather to appeal to us, to our capacity to be moved by him, to join him in healing love. He announces it. At the very first.
“Then Jesus, filled with the power of the Spirit, returned to Galilee, and a report about him spread through all the surrounding country. He began to teach in their synagogues and was praised by everyone.
When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”
He goes on to record that many times God was with the outcast, the despised, the foreigner. The men of Nazareth sitting with Jesus in the Temple get mad. They rise and rushed him to a cliff to throw him off.
His own rejected him. Marshal does the same thing and for the same reasons.
Wow! Marshal speaks my thoughts about himself. He’s perversely blind to his own anxious cowardice, led by his repressive Will that sets fire to his conscience.
He worships a book he self edits as protection. But he cannot think himself out of an artificial leather bag.
Marshal, as always, anyone is welcome here if they engage in respectful dialog AND if they demonstrate that by answering questions AND if they're making a fact claim, they either provide objective proof or admit that they can't objectively prove that.
You're striking out on all three accounts. I'll leave this comment here, as a demonstration of the vulgarity and abuse and nonsense attacks that you're engaging in, rather than respectful adult dialog.
That you are abusive, arrogant and do not engage in respectful dialog or provide proof of your irrational human theories is on you, not me.
For what it's worth, I don't leave such abusive, vulgar comments because they're distasteful and, if I had any visitors here, they would be turned off by your vulgarity and arrogant abuse. And, as always, holding you accountable to actually answering questions and proving your nonsense childish human theories is the only way I have to try to get actual answers from you.
Your problem, I suspect, is that you just don't understand you're not directly answering questions or providing proof. I don't know how to help you on that other than holding you accountable and demanding respectful dialog with proof of your claims.
Feodor has accurately summed you up and you don't understand the righteousness of his observation.
"He’s perversely blind to his own anxious cowardice, led by his repressive Will that sets fire to his conscience."
Colley doesn't make a "very good case" against the principle of our sin nature. He simply rejects the principle as you do, and thus you regard it, without truly serious examination, as a "very good case". He immediately exposes his failure to understand by wondering...
"If this is supposed to mean merely that all accountable persons at some point sin..."
It's not that all will, it's that all are inclined to sin by nature. How could a PhD even suppose such an erroneous possibility?
I find it curious Colley needs to go outside the Bible to understand the truth of our sin nature. Why go to Aristotle? Was he Christian or Hebrew? Did he believe in the One True God of Scripture? I don't think so. Were the Stoics? What does it matter how they think of the soul or human nature when discussing human nature according to Scripture? You do this, too, looking outside Scripture to do away with that part of Scripture with which you choose to disagree. It doesn't work that way. He asks, "If everything is evil, how would we know what good is?" God tells us what is good. God is good and what pleases Him is good. Without God, how do we know what is evil? Paul tells us the Law does. God's Law. Adam knew what "good" was and learned what evil was at his first bite of "the apple".
Colley follows that question with a far more absurd one: "And what is the point of discussing sinful human nature if we think there is no rescue from it?" Only those who reject God see no such point, as they see no such notion of good and evil without Him. They see only that which pleases their own selves and labels that which doesn't "evil". Those who believe know God is our rescuer from our sin natures. Even Jews believe that.
"we are free to suppose that the soul acquires guilt prior to entering the body, at which time human nature is indeed guilty. There are two problems with this, however: (1) We could not know about such an arrangement unless it were revealed to us"
It was. Plainly.
"(2) Most people who want to establish sinful human nature..."
Huh???? Christians don't "want" to establish sin nature. Christians recognize our sin nature because the concept is clearly taught in Scripture. This sounds very much like the nonsensical concept of one's sex being "assigned" at birth rather than recognized.
"If we suppose that a new soul acquires guilt while it waits in heaven to be born into the world, we would need an additional story about where this guilt comes from."
Who does this? Who would? He's making up a possibility in order to promote his position. We already know where the guilt comes from, and Scripture affirms it repeatedly...it comes from Adam's sin. Our souls aren't sitting in some heavenly warehouse until a person is born into whom one can be placed. That's absurd and Scripture in no way supports that possibility.
"If the soul is innocent prior to embodiment—and as we have seen, there is no obvious reason to think it guilty—then the body is the substance that is responsible for the guilt in the union."
Where have we "seen" this? He doesn't say. He assumes two possibilities and picks one he prefers, though neither are supported in his piece. Soul and body are always together until death if they are separated at all (and then only temporarily).
"Furthermore, recall that the common view of sinful nature is that we have inherited the sins of an ancestor."
Here he makes the same mistake you continue choosing to make. He conflates "sin" with "sins" (or sinful actions). Adam committed a sinful act when he ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. In doing so, sin came into the world. Two different things. A sinful act versus sin itself. This distinction isn't even the least bit hard to grasp, so it must be your choice that you insist on conflating the two.
"This is an appeal to the limits of philosophy, and would be a well-taken point if God had revealed a logically coherent doctrine of original sin that was not obvious apart from revelation. However, He has not done this. In fact, He has revealed information to the opposite effect."
Colley hasn't supported this claim in any way at any time. I've that there is a lot of stuff from this guy on the internet. This essay does not compel me to waste time with any of it. It does not argue against the fact of humankind's sin nature. It argues that he doesn't understand the concept any more than you do, or that he isn't any more Christian than you are.
Strangely enough, I allow Dan a significant amount of freedom and grace in publishing virtually all of his comments. Yet he often doesn't answer questions, rarely proves his claims of fact, provide objective proof, or acknowledge when he can't or when he's wrong.
Let's see how long this one lasts.
Marshal, responding to one of my links where other people disagree with his little "sin nature" and "evil human" theories...
It's not that all will [sin],
it's that all are inclined to sin by nature.
You see, the problem with that is:
IF a sin nature existed
and IF it means that all humans are inclined to sin, by their very nature,
and IF that "sin nature" then means they are "evil" and "worthy of torture/hell..."
THEN you are saying that EVEN IF someone never sins, they are still evil and deserving of eternal torture.. because their "sin nature" is itself evil.
That is, you're presuming guilt and horrific punishment, JUST BASED UPON nature, not any actions, which is hugely problematic from a justice point of view. "Each person will be held accountable for their own misdeeds" as it has been said, NOT for "Adam's," NOT for "future crimes..."
Have you not read the bible or watched "Minority Report."
I'll probably soon be deleting this comment from you, as you're WELL past your "last chance" to prove your silly little claims, but since your comment is on topic, I'm dealing with it and the problem with your reasoning.
Craig, once again, if you want to comment respectfully and on topic, you're free to do so. BUT you must answer reasonable and on topic questions when you're asked and you must not use abusive/oppressive language.
You know, talk like a respectful adult, not like Marshal.
Marshal, missing the point, asked (speaking of the person I cited who dared to disagree with Marshal's little human theory about "sin nature" myths and related silliness:
I find it curious Colley needs to go outside the Bible to understand the truth of our sin nature. Why go to Aristotle? Was he Christian or Hebrew?
Once again, not everyone treats the Bible as a rulings book and are not dedicated to a legalistic religion. Rather, we respect the notion of moral reasoning. Moral reasoning includes, but is not limited to, looking at the pages of the Bible.
You see, if Aristotle or Moroni or Muhammad or Peter speaks a moral truth, it doesn't matter if they consider themselves (or are) Christian or not. It matters if the moral truth is morally true. A moral truth spoken by Rumi IS STILL morally true, whatever his religious traditions.
Likewise, a moral atrocity promoted by Billy Graham or Calvin is STILL a moral atrocity, regardless of their religious tradition.
Marshal, continuing to miss the points...
You do this, too, looking outside Scripture to do away with that part of Scripture with which you choose to disagree. It doesn't work that way.
1. I never, not once, not ever have "chosen to disagree" with a text in the Bible. I may and do often disagree with the interpretation YOU PERSONALLY assign to many texts, but then, YOU are not the bible, YOU are not God. Daring to disagree with Marshal is OK.
2. Setting that nonsense and false claim aside, PROVE objectively that it's not okay to look at texts and philosophies outside the bible. What a nonsense legalist claim. And speaking of legalism...
He asks, "If everything is evil, how would we know what good is?" God tells us what is good. God is good and what pleases Him is good. Without God, how do we know what is evil? Paul tells us the Law does.
3. Paul and Jesus and just reasonable people tell us that legalism is deadly, trying to live by "the law" or "the laws as humans have interpreted them" is a way unto death. it is the death of moral reasoning and it is the death of grace. it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.
4. You're painting a portrait of a whimsical little godling randomly decides, "oh, THIS thing done THIS way is BAD and I will KILL YOU AND TORTURE YOU FOREVER if you do that!! But doing THAT thing is okay... I mean, sure, generally, I frown on deliberately killing babies or genocide, but, if I, the whimsical godling, TELL you to do it, then of course, it is a good and whimsical thing to do."
No thanks. What a punkass god.
Marshal, ripping scripture from context or, you know, just basic rational thought...
We already know where the guilt comes from, and Scripture affirms it repeatedly...it comes from Adam's sin.
PROVE IT.
What nonsense. Adam is clearly a mythical character, first of all, and one can't "inherit guilt" from a mythical character.
And, of course, you can't prove there was even an actual belly-buttonless Adam or that humans "inherit" a "sin nature" or "guilt" from Adam, because it's a silly little human tradition, not a fact. Certainly not a fact that you have or can prove objectively.
Secondly, other biblical texts point out the obvious (to moral reason) reality that people aren't blamed or are guilty because of another person's sin. We are each accountable for our own actions.
You can't prove otherwise, of course, because it's a made up silly human theory with nothing to support it other than bad biblical reasoning and eisegesis.
Craig:
I allow Dan a significant amount of freedom and grace in publishing virtually all of his comments. Yet he often doesn't answer questions, rarely proves his claims of fact, provide objective proof, or acknowledge when he can't or when he's wrong.
Let's see how long this one lasts.
Ironically, Craig makes these claims with no support. Did I say, Ironically? I meant, Typically.
Craig is trying so hard to be a good little oppressed Christian with that mean ol' Dan randomly deleting messages... While the reality shows otherwise. Over the lifetime of my blog, I've quite rarely deleted comments and when I have, I suspect I've deleted equally between liberal and conservative commenters - usually when a comment was vulgar or off topic or not answering questions (in the case of conservatives) or too "attack-y" in the case of a few liberal commenters. That certainly was true for a long time but over the years, most of my liberal (and conservative) commenters have moved on, leaving just a handful of regulars, with Marshal being the main one getting deleted now for posting either vulgar/abusive comments or for simply not supporting his claims of facts. And same for Craig, until he left, mostly.
The reality is, I tolerate a good deal of hateful commentary when it is directed towards me, but for these regulars, I have started to insist they answer relevant questions directly when they are trying to make a point but not support it OR not admitting it's just an opinion, not a proven fact.
I don't even mind commenters making unsupported claims, AS LONG AS they are clear that they can't prove them. Just like Craig can't prove I don't generally answer all of his questions and often in great detail that takes a great deal of time.
Once again, you're proving your absence of integrity and honesty by doing what you always do: asserting error without doing a damned thing to support the assertion. I've proven my position by my many citations, none of which either you, your boy feo or your link has shown to be misunderstood by me in any way. You just assert.
"IF a sin nature existed
and IF it means that all humans are inclined to sin, by their very nature"
As Scripture clearly and unequivocally affirms.
"and IF that "sin nature" then means they are "evil" and "worthy of torture/hell...""
That's YOUR spin on it. Scripture affirms one's sin nature means they are separated from God and the reason we need Jesus.
"THEN you are saying that EVEN IF someone never sins, they are still evil and deserving of eternal torture.. because their "sin nature" is itself evil."
That's a corruption of the truth my previous response to you accurately presents, as well as a complete disregard for what Scripture says regarding who sins and who doesn't, as well as the FACT that there was only one born without sin subsequent to Adam's bringing sin into God's creation. Only Jesus has ever been described as without sin.
"That is, you're presuming guilt and horrific punishment, JUST BASED UPON nature, not any actions, which is hugely problematic from a justice point of view."
No. It's not, except for the human perspective of justice for human actions. It's not at all in conflict with God's Will.
""Each person will be held accountable for their own misdeeds" as it has been said, NOT for "Adam's," NOT for "future crimes...""
And yet again and still, you choose to conflate "sin" with "sinful acts"....our sin nature with the sinful acts we might commit.
"Have you not read the bible or watched "Minority Report.""
YOU haven't read the Bible or we wouldn't be having this debate about a subject so basic to Christian theology. More accurately, you reject Christian teaching to assuage your fears.
"I'll probably soon be deleting this comment from you..."
Of course you will, because you can't bear to have your fiction stand alongside the truths and Biblical facts I present. You have yet to present a real problem with my reasoning. You only assert that you've identified one...when you haven't.
Marshal:
instead of explaining with evidence of your own why or how my presentation of Christian truth is in error,
I've quite literally spent two decades doing exactly that. In short, your interpretations and theories are wrong because they are, on the face of it, stupid. Inept. Irrational. Godless. Graceless. Ridiculous. Inconsistent with justice and decency. And, because of all that, unbiblical - meaning it's contrary to the overall message found in the biblical witness - and it's anti-Christ - meaning your little theories about "sin natures" and "blood atonement" (as you define it) and the bad news as you present it is counter to the consistent message found in the teachings of Jesus who, unlike who, was all about grace and love and welcome. Jesus was OPPOSED to the legalists and Pharisees, groups with whom you are more aligned than the teachings of Jesus.
I've explained it repeatedly and for years now. You can't rationally say I haven't. I've gone into great detail over and over again.
And in all of that, with each claim that your theories are objective facts, you never once have objectively proven them. And that is why your little theories are just emotionally vapid, inept and, sadly, stupid.
Comments without objective proof WILL be deleted... UNLESS/UNTIL you finally admit,
"No, I can't prove my little theories, but I WOULD like to defend them."
If and when you do that, embrace a bit of humility and reason and respect, THEN we can talk.
Move on.
Marshal blathered, in an emotionally fraught bit of nonsense and all-cap blather...
YOU CAN'T PROVE MY POSITIONS ARE "LITTLE THEORIES" AS OPPOSED TO SCRIPTURAL TRUTHS AND FACTS OR YOU WOULD HAVE DONE SO. YOU HAVEN'T. YOU CAN'T. YOU ONLY WHINE THEY ARE "LITTLE THEORIES".
1. They are human theories, by definition, because humans came up with them. They are literally human theories, never proven and never to be proven outside a conversation with God's own Self.
2. They are "little human theories," by my assessment, by way of emphasizing that they are NOT pronouncements from God, just humans offering up their (in my estimation) rather small-minded and ill-reasoned explanations of what they think God thinks.
Now, having said that...
3. Some of us believe in a gracious, loving, and just God. We do so humbly, knowing we can't prove it in any kind of objective manner. We believe there is sufficient evidence of a God and sufficient evidence that this God is both loving and just, even if we can't prove it objectively any more than you can.
4. From there, we rationally reason:
IF God is actual and loving and just,
THEN that means that God would act in a loving and just way
because, of course. it's a rationally consistent notion.
5. We also believe that while we can't perfectly understand love and grace and justice, we humans are capable of generally understanding it and can distinguish between gross injustice and good and decent justice.
6. We also love the Bible (many of us) and we believe that anything the Bible has to say will be in line with actual justice and love. We believe justice and love and grace are primary, starting point places to understand God and life. Thus, at no time will the notions of God's love and justice be used in the Bible to mean actions and attitudes by GOD that are unjust and unloving... Contrary to justice, contrary to loving. That any humans who read and verse and conclude that God is promoting something horribly unjust or unloving, that those humans are wrong, rather than God being unloving or unjust.
7. Thus, when some people read the Bible and come away with conclusions that are actively, grossly, horrifically unjust and unloving. We do not believe that to be biblical. We believe it to be anti-biblical, contrary to what the various biblical authors had to teach and what a good, loving and just God stands for.
8. Your human theories about mythical sin natures and mythical blood sacrifice atonement are exactly human opinions. They are in no way proven to be God's opinion. If one accepts notions of a loving and just God then one can't accept them from a rational or biblical point of view because they promote a sometimes unloving and sometimes even monstrous god and that, again, can't withstand rational or biblical reasoning.
Epilogue:
Now I know you don't understand this as you have repeatedly demonstrated but you need to understand and hear me saying that is a biblical and rational explanation of why your human theories are so awful
Marshal:
You've done nothing to prove they are, nor have you given any legitimate, intelligent, fact-based evidence to suggest they might be. You've merely claimed they are and then demand we must prove OUR claims, most of which are well known and attested as true throughout history.
I've endlessly gave you reasoned answers as to why your theories are stupid, at best, shallow and beholden to human eisegesis on minor biblical passages while missing the larger, clearer biblical themes, especially as expressed through Jesus.
Regarding God as a God who is Just and Loving, if you want verses and doubt it (which you don't, but that's another issue)...
Bible verses about God being Just
“The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he." Deut 32
"Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for God." Isa 30 (which also ties justice to love, because, of course)
"God loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord." Psalm 33
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1
And speaking of 1 John, Bible verses about God being Loving/Love...
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" 1 John 4:8:
"Give all your worries and cares to God, for he cares about you.” 1 Pet 5
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." Jesus, in John 13
It is a solidly consistent Biblical theme that God is a just and loving God. Period. This is not even a point you dispute.
More...
We all agree that God is a God of love and justice. Where you go off the reservation is in your insistence on redefining those terms to meaninglessness so that you can hold to human traditions about "sinful natures" and "blood atonements to 'pay' for 'sin," and other of your traditions.
You see, for those like me, we BEGIN with the notions that God is Love and Just and THEN when we find obscure passages that seem to counter that (like "Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated," or commands to slaughter men women and children), we stay true the notions of a loving and just God and make sense of those sorts of passages around the obvious, rather than twisting love and justice to accommodate a bloodthirsty, irrational god.
And even if you ultimately don't agree and want to cling to your human traditions, reasonable people can see that we ARE being faithful to our understanding of the Bible in holding the notion of a loving and just God in high esteem, over trying to explain it away or twist the meanings to fit weird passages that don't need to be taken as a literal explanation that fetuses are evil and full of sin or that newborns are liars or that God commands slaughtering children.
That's enough for now.
"1. They are human theories, by definition, because humans came up with them. They are literally human theories, never proven and never to be proven outside a conversation with God's own Self. "
They are NOT "theories" when my positions are verbatim reprinting of Scripture. If you want to argue "interpretation", it is up to you to present an alternative which is based evidence which is verbatim reprinting of Scripture. Not simply "that's your opinion/human tradition/theory", which is just a cheap response to Scripture you reject Scripture in favor of your personally pleasing fantasies.
"2. They are "little human theories," by my assessment, by way of emphasizing that they are NOT pronouncements from God..."
Reprinting verbatim Scriptural verses are indeed pronouncements by God or His prophets. OR, they're verses which directly and completely address concerns and objections of yours to support the positions I hold, which I hold because they come directly from Scripture without equivocation or eisegesis.
" 3. Some of us believe in a gracious, loving, and just God."
This is another nonsensical, irrelevant and dishonest ploy. Who cares about "some of us"? I'm only in discourse with you alone and a mythical, unidentified "some of us" does not make your fantasies and heresies truer or more factual. What's more, you do NOT believe in a "gracious, loving and just God". You believe in a fictional god you've created (an idol) who matches your self-serving notion of what a gracious, loving and just god must be in order for you to condescend to obey him.
"We do so humbly, knowing we can't prove it in any kind of objective manner."
False humility (and what about your "Christianity" isn't false?). You lean on this nonsense to allow you to believe what you want over believing that which is actually taught in Scripture. Scripture is objective proof for most everything you demand one provide proof to support as truth. Your "humble admission" you can't prove anything is to back your dishonest corruptions as legitimate understandings of that which you prefer over truth.
"We believe justice and love and grace are primary, starting point places to understand God and life."
Likewise, real Christians believe God is the starting point to understand justice, love and grace.
"Thus, at no time will the notions of God's love and justice be used in the Bible to mean actions and attitudes by GOD that are unjust and unloving..."
Only you presumes to have the authority to label any examples of God's wrath and vengeance are "unjust and unloving".
" That any humans who read and verse and conclude that God is promoting something horribly unjust or unloving, that those humans are wrong, rather than God being unloving or unjust."
But no one on my side of the divide does that. You project that onto accurate presentations of God's justice you find personally offensive, because you know better than God.
Marshal demands quotes from his book. I confronted him with an array of Holy Scripture. But his radical gutter protestantism can’t see through imitation leather and receive God’s forrest of beauty. So he has to ignore it.
And to respond to the Thugs’ habits [Marshal, Craig, Jesse, Glenn, and Stan], of hobbling further with brutality their protestant reductionism of Augustine, let’s take Gregory the Great to heart:
“The proof of love, therefore, is the demonstration of deeds. The love of God is never idle. For if it exists, it works great things; but if it refuses to work, it is not love."
Indeed, Feodor. You wonder what their lives are like and where, if anywhere, are they demonstrating kindness, love and works of justice.
I had said:
"1. They are human theories, by definition, because humans came up with them. They are literally human theories, never proven and never to be proven outside a conversation with God's own Self. "
Marshal responded:
They are NOT "theories" when my positions are verbatim reprinting of Scripture.
This, Marshal. THIS is why your theories are stupid and arrogant. It's a childish/dim-witted bully level of thinking and reasoning.
1. They ARE literally human opinions. Period. Humans came up with them.
2. Since no one takes every line in the Bible literally, then every line NEEDS to be interpreted and understood and those interpretations and understandings are coming from HUMANS, no one else. God has not handed you a paper and told you, "Here is the right interpretation of these texts..." YOU have listened to other fallible mortals and you all have agreed that what you espouse makes sense to you all, given the texts in question. Which is fine, as far as it goes. But it simply, factually, observably IS a human theory.
One that I would argue is undone by moral reasoning and other biblical texts, in my human opinion.
You're being pedantic and boring at this point, Marshal. Move on.
Post a Comment