HOWEVER…What I would like to ask people who get so worked up about universalism is this: What difference would it make in your life if suddenly God revealed to you in a way you couldn’t deny that he is going to save everyone?
i) One difficulty with answering his question is that we don’t come to that hypothetical as a blank slate. So it generates something of a dilemma. Normally we answer hypotheticals based on what we actually believe to be true. That’s our reference point. We extrapolate from what we know or believe to be the case.
If I know that God is not going to save everyone, then that alone tells me something else: God is wise and good not to save everyone.
And it goes beyond that. Scripture also gives us some specific reasons for why he won’t save everyone. And if Scripture is the word of God, then those are good reasons.
Therefore, this hypothetical calls into question what we already know about God. Calls into question the wisdom of God. For if God is wise and good not to save everyone, if God has good reasons not to save everyone, then you suddenly tell me that, notwithstanding all of that, God is going to save everyone, that raises the question of whether the alternative isn’t less wise, less good, than the status quo ante.
ii) In one respect it doesn’t affect me. It would affect the lost.
iii) But in another respect, to know that nothing I do makes a dime’s worth of difference in the long run would, itself, make a difference in how I live. If there are no long term consequences for what I do or fail to do, if it all comes up roses in the end, then that might, indeed, have a dramatic effect on how I live my life.
iv) Can someone who’s everyone’s friend be anyone’s friend? If someone is your friend, then you mean more to him than someone who is not his friend. You hold a special place in his heart. If you went missing, he’d feel the absence more deeply than for someone who is not his friend.
And that’s true in relationships generally. We care more about some people than others. And that’s part of what it means to love someone, or be loved by another. We're not interchangeable with someone else. We're not a set of identical, replaceable parts.
Of course, we have to make some adjustments when speaking of God. But for now I’m making a general point: Arminians like Olson act as if there’s something self-evidently wrong with “favoritism.” As if it’s inherently unloving not to love everyone.
And I’m making the point that indiscriminate love hardly qualifies as love at all. Is love detached? Is love anonymous–like a generic valentine card? A mass produced valentine. Written to no one in particular, for no one in particular.
BTW, I don’t object to greeting cards. What personalizes the card is who sent it. And the fact that he didn’t send it to every girl in the phonebook, but only to his sweetheart.
v) Finally, Derek Ashton also left a perceptive comment:
Roger doesn't spiritually understand that God should, for our part, harden all of us. His mercy becomes greater then magnificient when we understand this.
ReplyDeleteI like the hymns that says, "Why would God save such a wretch, foul, and worm as I." And when I sing this, God allows me to sense how wretched I am.
Then the hymn writers will go on to say how we are precious, for He shed His blood for us. and He is the Rock cleft for me.
I thank the Lord for these splendid hymns that surely arise from the biblical and systematic theology of the writers.
Hymns, and song can really fill a soul with genuine sorrow and genuine joy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkx8WAycYAc
As a missionary for twenty plus years - it would mean that I have wasted my life. It would mean that thousands of Christians who have been martyred all over the world in foolishly trying to live out the Great Commission have wasted their lives.
ReplyDeleteIt would mean the word of God does not in any meaningful way reflect what God thinks.
It would mean that Jesus, who foolishly sent us on an unnecessary mission in the first place, is not correct and Bell and Olson are. Silly Jesus - didn't you get the memo?
This is just for starters - I could go on for hours. Anyone notice that Olson is playing the same game that Bell played in Velvet Elvis using the Virgin Birth as his sacrificial lamb to pomo sentiment? Birds of a foul feather...
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI certainly applaud your long dedication to preaching the gospel. But when reading your would-be reaction to the truth of universalism I couldn't help but be reminded of the story of Jonah, how God sent him to Nineveh to prophesy that it would be destroyed, then when the people heard the message and repented, God relented and did not destroy the city.
And of course Jonah complains that he has come all this way seemingly for nothing. What's worse, God could be seen almost to have misled Jonah, because he did not tell Jonah to warn Nineveh of subject so that they would repent, He just told Jonah to announce, "40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed."
But then God reveals His true heart. It was His hope all along that the Ninevites would repent. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Why should a city with so many people in it be destroyed?
I encourage you to think about the parallel with your situation. Jesus has commissioned us Christians to make disciples and to warn people to repent in the face of the coming judgment. But why would it be such a bad thing if God 'pulled a Jonah' and reveals that, just as the apostasy warnings in Hebrews and elsewhere are (on one popular interpretation) instruments to keep that very thing from happening, so the warnings about final judgment and hell were also instrumental?
I'm not actually endorsing this scenario. On other biblical and philosophical grounds I do think some will be lost forever. But even if I had labored for as long and hard as you have I think I would be too happy just to be in heaven and in the presence of God to bother objecting to the fact that actually everyone got in. Who would not rejoice at such an outcome, that the very last sheep had got into the fold?
Also bear in mind the parable of the early and late workers. The workers who had labored all day objected that they were paid exactly the same as those who arrived near the end of the day and didn't work as much. Has not God set the terms of this relationship? Who are we to object if His mercy, just as Jonah found out, is wider than we think?
STEVE WROTE: If universalism is true then "nothing I do makes a dime’s worth of difference in the long run."
ReplyDeleteED'S RESPONSE: Nothing you do would make a dime's worth of difference? How close is that to the Calvinist view of predestination/election? Or foreknowledge and damnation by God of whomever He wills? For Calvinists all choices are God's--to grant grace (grace means "divine favor") or withhold that favor, so for Calvinists it doesn't matter what humans do.
But for universalists like George Macdonald it does matter. For he believed it was up to us whether or not we got to our heavenly home early or late. Kind of like saying to a person, "We can do things the hard way, or the easy way, your choice." That's what a universalist might say.
BILL HONSBERGER WROTE: "If universalism were true then thousands of Christians who have been martyred all over the world in foolishly trying to live out the Great Commission, they have wasted their lives."
ReplyDeleteED'S RESPONSE: We're speaking about "universalism," right? How does "universalism" lead to the conclusion you suggest? Christians spread the word about Jesus because they are eager to share beliefs that they themselves find appealing, and to find more people to worship with, and/or to help alleviate suffering in the present world if they are medical missionaries, running orphanages or educators fighting illiteracy. But if universalism is true, death is not the end. In fact your comments reminds me of the parable Jesus told about the man who went out to get laborers to work his field. Some were hired at the start of the day, others in the middle, some at the end of the day, so some worked all day, while others worked for far less time, but at the end of the day everyone got paid the same amount. You're like the laborers in the parable who grumbled that everyone got paid the same amount.
Hi JD. I think you have misread what I said pretty dramatically. I know that Ed has completely misread me.
ReplyDeleteLet us take the Jonah illustration. The difference between that scenario and what Olson proposes is that the people REPENTED and God spared them. I like that a lot. I live for that moment when people we witness to repent and turn to the Lord. I can't even begin to tell you how amazing it is that the Lord uses garbage like me - to reach others. Truly fun to see it all happen. God is the one who set the terms. I don't get to edit the options as it were.
Ed - how can you accuse me of grumbling? I was pointing out in the hypothetical that Olson proposes that it completely undermines so many things - especially the mission imperative. How is that grumbling about people getting saved? I hate hell as much as Rob Bell ever could - but I don't get the right to edit the scriptures based on my emotions. I used to work in a nasty little hellhole of a county jail and I hated that place with all my heart. But I also understood why it existed and how important that is.
It follows that if everyone is saved - then sharing the Gospel with those who were formerly the "lost" is a useless endeavor. No need for it is there? As far as the things you mentioned - do you really think the reasons that missionaries have risked their lives to share the Gospel is that they find it "appealing"? Have you ever talked to missionaries? Perhaps you have but if that is what you heard then more the pity for those you heard it from. Romans 10 illustrates the message here doesn't it? How will they believe unless they have heard? In Olson/Bell land - they don't need to believe and neither do they need to hear. If that is the case (again) then why did Jesus waste our time and his indicating that we ought to doing that very thing?
None of this is grumbling. I love what the Lord has called me to do and I really love when I see people moved by His Spirit to believe. Nothing like it!!!
JD SAID:
ReplyDelete“And of course Jonah complains that he has come all this way seemingly for nothing. What's worse, God could be seen almost to have misled Jonah…”
That involves a pretty systematic misreading of the book. What Jonah actually says is:
“O Lord, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster” (4:2).
So Jonah understood all along that the oracle of judgment was a conditional threat, at least one point of which is to give the threatened party an opportunity to repent and thereby avoid the calamity, and Jonah’s preaching might very well have that very effect. So, no, Jonah was not misled.
“It was His hope all along that the Ninevites would repent.”
Does God merely “hope” for things to turn out all right? Are you an open theist?
“Also bear in mind the parable of the early and late workers.”
Which is contrary to universalism. An 11th hour presumes a point beyond which the offer expires. Closing time. The lights go out. The door is shut. And locked.
But in universalism, it is never too late. The midnight hour never strikes. In universalism, the clock is frozen for all eternity at 11:59:59. The damned can always get into heaven just under the wire.
Not to mention the reversal of fortunes in the parable, which is also at odds with universalism.
EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:
ReplyDelete“Nothing you do would make a dime's worth of difference? How close is that to the Calvinist view of predestination/election? Or foreknowledge and damnation by God of whomever He wills? For Calvinists all choices are God's--to grant grace (grace means ‘divine favor’) or withhold that favor, so for Calvinists it doesn't matter what humans do.”
You never miss an opportunity to illustrate the lack of correlation between infidelity and high IQ.
Try to master the difference between predestination and fatalism. It isn’t hard.
In fatalism, every alternate route is a trap door leading to the same place.
In predestination, by contrast, you have cause/effect, means/ends relations. So the outcome does not eventuate no matter what.
“But for universalists like George Macdonald it does matter. For he believed it was up to us whether or not we got to our heavenly home early or late.”
Well, that’s gratifying to hear. No curfew. I can party all night. Come back home late as I please. No hurry. Sin at leisure, repent in eternity. Thanks, Dad. Can I have the car keys now?
BTW, Ed, don't spam the combox with off-topic rants about evolution and the problem of evil. My post is not a pretext for you to derail the topic of the post with your irrelevant remarks.
ReplyDeleteHi Steve,
ReplyDeleteEven if Jonah did suspect the judgment was conditional, he still obviously had a problem with the idea of putting himself in harm's way to announce something that might get him killed when it might not even happen, otherwise he wouldn't have tried to run away. And the moral of the story is still pretty relevant here: Jonah has a problem with God showing mercy to a bunch of pagans that He threatened to destroy.
And no, I'm not an open theist, but the Bible uses language like God hoping or expecting things that he is disappointed do not happen, so I just used that as shorthand.
And I don't see how there is a 'reversal of fortunes' in the parable of the workers. It's not as if the original workers are unexpectedly fired or something. Everyone gets paid exactly the same amount in the end. And I agree that the thrust of the parable tells against universalism, but it does seem to make illegitimate the objection that universalism would make God out to be unfair or unjust to those who obeyed in this life. Calvinists insist that because all are condemned, no one has the right to complain about God being discriminate in his mercy. Well, it seems to me that that position also militates against the propriety of complaining if God eventually saved everyone.
JD SAID:
ReplyDelete“Even if Jonah did suspect the judgment was conditional, he still obviously had a problem with the idea of putting himself in harm's way to announce something that might get him killed when it might not even happen, otherwise he wouldn't have tried to run away.”
i) I don’t know where you get from the text of Jonah that he felt his life was in danger if he did what God commanded. Can you show me how you infer that motive from the text?
ii) Moreover, you’re substituting a different rationale from the rationale that’s given in the text (4:2). Not only is there no textual basis for your speculation, but your speculation flies in the face of what the text actually says.
You’re trying way too hard to make the text say what you want it to say.
“And the moral of the story is still pretty relevant here: Jonah has a problem with God showing mercy to a bunch of pagans that He threatened to destroy.”
Now you’re shifting the goal post. That wasn’t your original claim. And it has no bearing on what I wrote. Moreover, it has no bearing on what Honsberger wrote. He wouldn’t be a missionary in the first place if he resented converts.
“And I don't see how there is a 'reversal of fortunes' in the parable of the workers.”
You’re isolating the parable from the punch line in Mt 20:16–which forms an inclusio to Mt 19:30. And that, in turn, connects with additional, related material in Matthew. As Knox Chamblin points out in his commentary on Matthew:
“Members of the religious aristocracy will be barred from the kingdom, whereas tax collectors and prostitutes will be welcomed (Mt 21:23-32). Those who save their lives will lose them, but those who lose their lives for Jesus’ sake will find them (10:38-39; 16:24-27),” 2:957.
So the parable exemplifies a running motif concerning the reversal of fortunes.
“But it does seem to make illegitimate the objection that universalism would make God out to be unfair or unjust to those who obeyed in this life. Calvinists insist that because all are condemned, no one has the right to complain about God being discriminate in his mercy. Well, it seems to me that that position also militates against the propriety of complaining if God eventually saved everyone.”
I realize that it’s a more polemically effective tactic on your part if you can swap out the objection I actually gave, then swap in different objection which just so happens to be a custom-made set-up for your prepared rejoinder.
However, I didn’t “complain” about the “unfairness,” “injustice,” or “impropriety” of God saving everyone, had he so chosen.
Keep in mind that there are two distinct issues now on the table:
ReplyDeletei) Is it wrong for God to save everyone?
ii) Is it wrong for God to hoodwink a missionary or evangelist into dedicating his life to mission/evangelism under false pretenses? If faith in Christ is inessential to salvation, or if faith in Christ in this life is inessential to salvation (given [arguendo] the possibility of postmortem salvation), that is it wrong for God to lie to people about the terms of salvation?
If we answer (i) in the negative, that doesn’t mean we answer (ii) in the negative. Those are logically independent propositions.
OK, I'll admit that I was going on what I vaguely remembered from the story of Jonah. It doesn't imply that God misled Jonah into thinking that Nineveh would actually be destroyed. But why did Jonah flee from the call of God? Why exactly did he refuse to convey the prophetic message? Was it because he suspected that ultimately God would save the city anyway?
ReplyDeleteGranted, the motive to avoid danger in pronouncing judgment in a strange city is not explicit in the text, but I would think it a pretty reasonable one. Jonah does not actually explain in (4:2) why he initially refused to obey by stating that God is a God of mercy. An additional premise is needed to complete the rationale for why he fled.
I just don't see the structure you're suggesting in Matthew 19-20. It does illustrate the principle that the first will be last, and the last first, but both groups still get the blessings. The punchline of the parable is clearly the question the landowner asks: "Am I not permitted to do what I want with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?" (Matthew 20:15) He is not addressing lost people with this question. The workers who arrived first still 'get in', they do get paid, they're not fired. But they do seem to have thought that they had deserved more pay because they arrived early. The point is that salvation is entirely of grace, and God sets the terms.
Now you say the real issue is whether God has sent missionaries out into the world under false pretences. Well that depends on what motivation originally sent you out in the first place. For me personally I share my faith because I think it's true, because Jesus commanded it, and because I want people to share the joy that I have in Christ, the goodness and beauty of his grace. My primary motivation is not that I think unless I reach everyone with the gospel, they will inevitably perish forever. I know that's not going to happen anyway (that I reach everyone with the gospel).
But I don't think it was I who shifted the goal posts so much as that the two objections are usually found intermingled, so the target itself shifts in the comments that I read. Your last comment was the first time I've seen the two potential issues distinguished.
"My primary motivation is not that I think unless I reach everyone with the gospel, they will inevitably perish forever."-JD
ReplyDeleteThat may not be primary, but it is quite a strong and heavy affection of my soul, and should be for all who have tasted the forgiveness of Christ, and now realize they will not be rightly condemned to eternal separation for Jesus Christ the Lord and Savior of all.
have a good Lord's day.
JD SAID:
ReplyDelete“But why did Jonah flee from the call of God? Why exactly did he refuse to convey the prophetic message? Was it because he suspected that ultimately God would save the city anyway?”
The explanation is given in 4:2.
“Granted, the motive to avoid danger in pronouncing judgment in a strange city is not explicit in the text, but I would think it a pretty reasonable one.”
“Reasonable” based on what? “Reasonable” based on the narrative? No. That’s not the motive which the narrative assigns to Jonah.
“Jonah does not actually explain in (4:2) why he initially refused to obey by stating that God is a God of mercy. An additional premise is needed to complete the rationale for why he fled.”
4:2 alludes to 1:3. Notice the verbal and conceptual parallels.
You need to stop winging it. Buckle down and exegete the text.
“I just don't see the structure you're suggesting in Matthew 19-20. It does illustrate the principle that the first will be last, and the last first, but both groups still get the blessings. The punch line of the parable is clearly the question the landowner asks: "Am I not permitted to do what I want with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?" (Matthew 20:15) He is not addressing lost people with this question. The workers who arrived first still 'get in', they do get paid, they're not fired. But they do seem to have thought that they had deserved more pay because they arrived early. The point is that salvation is entirely of grace, and God sets the terms.”
You’re committing a level-confusion by confounding the narrative referents in the parabolic story with the extranarrative referents which the parable is designed to illustrate. The punch line (20:16) falls outside the story proper.
No, you don’t have a reversal of fortunes within the parabolic narrative. That’s because all the characters within the parabolic narrative respond to the opportunity.
However, the parable applies to the situation of real people, some of whom accept the gospel, and some of whom reject the gospel. Such as the rich young ruler, representing the “the first” (in this life), who blows the opportunity to gain eternal life, thereby demoting himself to “the last” (in the coming kingdom). That’s the lead-in to the parable, and not coincidentally, the incident of the rich young ruler ends with another reversal-of-fortunes tag-line (19:30), which is a Janus-verse, connecting it to the parable.
Conversely, you have hookers and tax collectors (21:23-32), representing “the last” (in this life), who, by responding to Jesus, are promoted to “the first” (in the coming kingdom). Not to mention analogous groups who are “last” in this life, but “first” in the kingdom (10:38-39; 16:24-27).
You need to discipline yourself to sit down and patiently work through a text, with a close eye to its intertextual connections. You can’t just fly by the seat-of-your-pants. You need to slow down and focus. Take the time necessary to do proper textual analysis.
Cont. “Now you say the real issue is whether God has sent missionaries out into the world under false pretences.”
ReplyDeleteWell, I didn’t say that was the real issue. I’m merely responding to your response to Honsberger.
“Well that depends on what motivation originally sent you out in the first place. For me personally I share my faith because I think it's true, because Jesus commanded it, and because I want people to share the joy that I have in Christ, the goodness and beauty of his grace. My primary motivation is not that I think unless I reach everyone with the gospel, they will inevitably perish forever.”
That may not be your motive, but the traditional incentive for Christian mission and evangelism is the presupposition that unreached peoples are lost without the gospel.
“I know that's not going to happen anyway (that I reach everyone with the gospel).”
That’s a red herring. An ER physician doesn’t expect to save every patient wheeled into the ER. But what motives him is saving as many patients as he can–patients who will die without medical intervention.
“But I don't think it was I who shifted the goal posts so much as that the two objections are usually found intermingled, so the target itself shifts in the comments that I read. Your last comment was the first time I've seen the two potential issues distinguished.”
You shifted the goal post on Jonah, which was the explicit referent of my statement.
You don’t seem to be putting a good faith effort into your responses. You’re just reacting on the fly.
That's tempting for someone with a quick mind. But it doesn't suit exegesis.
You're right, Steve. I still don't have much exegetical experience. And I really should resist the temptation to post as a comment the first thing that pops into my head.
ReplyDelete(Scuffles off to seminary library to pick up some commentaries...)
"To know that nothing I do makes a dime’s worth of difference in the long run would, itself, make a difference in how I live"
ReplyDeleteIf one is sure of one's election, doesn't one also believe that there are no eternal consequences to any bad behavior done in this life? There may be some temporal forms of punishment in this life, perhaps, but ultimately, one can do as Martin Luther suggested:
"If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin ... Be a sinner and sin boldly."
If that is the case, what difference does it make to ponder the ultimate salvation of everyone else?
Of course, some Reformed believers hold on to their own election as did the Puritans: although election is true, one should not be overly certain of it without a lifetime of reflection and some outward confirmation of its presence.
Antinominism is hardly consistent with being certain of one's election, if by "certain" one means "unmistakable." Indeed, that would be a case of self-delusion.
ReplyDelete"although election is true, one should not be overly certain of it without a lifetime of reflection and some outward confirmation of its presence." -James
ReplyDeleteBe chosen by God is true, you're so right. And we are chosen, or elected, to be God's adopted children. No longer children of wrath, but fully children of our Father's love, because He gave us to his Son, and Jesus held out His arms for us, and had spikes hammered through His wrists.
It's really all about love, isn't it. Love. And of course we have faith in the Gospel of love. It all fits within His grace.
I believe God wants us to be assured of our election. And when we are sinful, and I know I sin way too much, we can know our Father will discipline us, and love us. And our heart will never long to sin, and will also have godly sorrow for disobeying our loving Lord.
Lord bless, and have a terrific Palm Sunday!
BILL HONSBERGER SAID:
ReplyDelete"Hi JD. I think you have misread what I said pretty dramatically. I know that Ed has completely misread me"
What is there to be misread about that which you garbled in the first instance?
In the almost certain happenstance there is no god, not one bit of what you have done for the past 20+ years of a theological nature will be of any relevance. Rest comforted that the humanitarian aspect of your work will have some form of impact for those in need. The notion of the 'Great Commission' having anything to do with securing an express ticket direct to the pearly gates is simply superstitious and mystical nonsense. So don't worry your little brow too much about who gets to or is entitled to go to heaven or not.
Bill, your, "It follows that if everyone is saved - then sharing the Gospel with those who were formerly the "lost" is a useless endeavor" is about as true and as factual as one could say about the situation, from a theist point of view. You have absolutely no knowledge of who will be saved or not, given the capricious nature of this [putative] actualized supernatural entity.
Doing 'good for good's sake only' is about the best insurance you have in quieting your mind.
Steve
ReplyDeleteThe very moment you quote the bible as the authoritative or substantive validation for claims made, the veracity of that claim has the floating characteristic of a lead balloon.
The process is akin to quoting the Harry Potter saga in order to claim the veridical nature and existence of Hogwarts.
Ed's comments were right on the money. Simply because they are antithetical to your purely personal derivative of Apologetics does not in any sense diminish the core of their message.
And Steve, I note your somewhat condescending attitude to JD. Are you the local resident bully?
PAPALINTON SAID:
ReplyDelete"In the almost certain happenstance there is no god, not one bit of what you have done for the past 20+ years of a theological nature will be of any relevance. Rest comforted that the humanitarian aspect of your work will have some form of impact for those in need. The notion of the 'Great Commission' having anything to do with securing an express ticket direct to the pearly gates is simply superstitious and mystical nonsense. So don't worry your little brow too much about who gets to or is entitled to go to heaven or not."
Thanks for sharing your string of unsupported opinions. The nice thing about being a rationalist is that you don't have to be rational: it's enough to strike a rationalistic pose and use rationalistic rhetoric.
"You have absolutely no knowledge of who will be saved or not, given the capricious nature of this [putative] actualized supernatural entity."
Once again, thanks for sharing your unsupported opinion. Why waste time on arguments when assertions are so convenient?
Papalinton said...
ReplyDelete"The very moment you quote the bible as the authoritative or substantive validation for claims made, the veracity of that claim has the floating characteristic of a lead balloon."
That's an argument from analogy minus the argument.
"The process is akin to quoting the Harry Potter saga in order to claim the veridical nature and existence of Hogwarts."
Another argument from analogy minus the argument. You're long on assertion, but short on reason.
"Ed's comments were right on the money. Simply because they are antithetical to your purely personal derivative of Apologetics does not in any sense diminish the core of their message."
I presented a counterargument to Ed's comments. And you present another assertion in search of an argument.
"And Steve, I note your somewhat condescending attitude to JD. Are you the local resident bully?"
And Papalinton, I note your lack of intelligent feedback. Are you the local village atheist?
Papalinton said:
ReplyDeleteThe very moment you quote the bible as the authoritative or substantive validation for claims made, the veracity of that claim has the floating characteristic of a lead balloon.
The process is akin to quoting the Harry Potter saga in order to claim the veridical nature and existence of Hogwarts.
There's a lot of bluster without the substantiating argumentation. If you think so, then make the argument for why you think so.
Ed's comments were right on the money. Simply because they are antithetical to your purely personal derivative of Apologetics does not in any sense diminish the core of their message.
So Steve responded to Babinski.
Also, for those who don't already know, Babinksi has quite the history with us, to put it mildly. For example, he frequently weighs in here with off topic remarks about his various hobby horses and the like. It's become quite annoying. But Steve obviously has a lot more patience than I do. Anyway, Babinski's comments here are just another instance of Babinski redirecting the attention back to whatever happens to interest Babinksi.
And Steve, I note your somewhat condescending attitude to JD. Are you the local resident bully?
Speaking of condescending, you're hardly innocent. Are you a wannabe tall poppy?
@ Steve
ReplyDelete"Thanks for sharing your string of unsupported opinions."
No Steve, 'unsupported opinions' they are not. The exponential growth in knowledge and understanding through archeology, history, anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, neurophysiology, medicine etc, are all filling in a consistent and predictive evidentiary narrative about the human condition and what makes humans tick. And the plethora of christianities are only a very small part of that story and shares that very small part with all the other tens-of-thousands of religious expression extant. Indeed one of the greatest cases against the veracity and the 'trooth-claim' of any one religion are all the other religions.
You know full well that religion is a 100% derivative of the cultural construct of any one community or society. Religion is just another domain of human culture, not a superhuman one and not even an independent one. Religion is the dependent variable to the independent variables of everyday social and physical reality.
PapaL: "You have absolutely no knowledge of who will be saved or not, given the capricious nature of this [putative] actualized supernatural entity."
Steve: "Once again, thanks for sharing your unsupported opinion. Why waste time on arguments when assertions are so convenient?"
Come on Steve, don't try and kid a kidder. You have absolutely not one scintilla of an idea of whether you are going to be one of the 'chosen few'. If you imagine you do, such behaviour reeks of narcissism, conceit and vanity. The only thing you can do is, cross your fingers and hope like hell you get selected. This is tantamount to wish-fulfilling. Not one Hindi or muslim thinks you are going to heaven, not one. And nor do I and most other christians that simply consider you wrongheaded. So what chance do you have apart from your own say-so?
Your responses have been so far, singularly obfuscatory. Then again, how does one defend a fable? I can appreciate the enormous effort it takes to prop up a fictive tale, Steve. I would suggest you ditch the whole fairy tale about some spectral numen putting a bun in the oven of someone else's wife without consent. The central story is incredulity writ large and is only less credulous because of drawing on the natural and humanitarian attributes and features interwoven throughout the texts that were appropriated from other cultures by jews and christians.
You've got to think globally here, Steve, and not be mired by swimming in your own pool.
@ Steve
ReplyDeletePapaL: "The very moment you quote the bible as the authoritative or substantive validation for claims made, the veracity of that claim has the floating characteristic of a lead balloon."
Steve: That's an argument from analogy minus the argument.
PapaL: "The process is akin to quoting the Harry Potter saga in order to claim the veridical nature and existence of Hogwarts."
Steve: Another argument from analogy minus the argument. You're long on assertion, but short on reason.
Steve, yes, they are arguments from analogy. The argument is inferred, but let's give it a shot. You will agree that 'analogy' is fundamental to the transfer of information, knowledge in and through language. It is fundamental to the 'core of cognition' in discourse. Indeed theists are not averse to the application of analogy to spread religious memes throughout a community.
The moment you quote some 'trooth-claim' from the bible, it resonates with many but certainly not all christians. [that's a given, otherwise there would be no heretics]. But for the other 5 billion people on this earth, and me, they would be happy to say you are talking through your .......... . And they would not be too displeased with saying that reading from the bible as some form of authoritative authentication or validation of your claim would be as ludicrous as quoting Harry Potter as the authoritative text for the existence of Hogwarts.
Equally, should a muslim quote from the Koran a central tenet or 'trooth-claim' that clearly is at odds to christian thought, christians, and me, would generally concede that he/she was talking through his/her ..... . And you would be quite comforted in acknowledging that any reference from the koran has as much validity as referencing Hogwarts through the Harry potter saga.
The one common theme here is that for both muslims and christians, and me, Harry Potter is a fantasy tale. This analogy can be extrapolated for any and all religious claims known to human kind, both past and present. Indeed, the historicity of the rise, growth and demise of the greek pantheon, the Roman pantheon, the Egyptian 'Book of the Dead', Mithraism, all the religions that reached their use-by date, recede into the dust of history.
Yes, it will be a three steps forward and two steps back process, but inexorably, religions go the way of all things unusable. The swing in the US is palpable, Steve, and unless you can bring back auto-da-fés and racking, there is little prospect of a return to the halcyon days of the christianities before the Enlightenment.
@ Patrick Chan
ReplyDeleteApart from your sycophantic alliance with Steve, it seems you have little to contribute to the conversation. a run-down on Babinski's contribution to this blogsite does not a contribution make. It is simply parroting against the obviously uncomfortable burr that he has put under your saddle. Come on Patrick don't be a troglodyte on the triablogue site.
I suspect your chances of reaching heaven is about as strong as mine; zilch. We know from genuine scholarship, not of the Apologetical variety, that the jesus character, born on 25 December, abiogenetically born, died, raised to heaven etc, etc, were all archetypal characteristics of the 'saviour-hero' theme of many earlier legends in the Middle east, centuries before jesus was a twinkle in Mary's eye.
Any reasonable reading of the social milieu and cultural constructs of the societies out of which the christianities emerged tells you that.
And in respect of the theme of this topic, Patrick, don't fret too much. It is a win-win situation; heaven for the panoramic view, hell for the company. Take your pick.
"...born, died, raised to heaven..."
ReplyDeletePeter and John, who were with Jesus, and saw Him, and died for Him, are quite remarkable evidence for the truth of who Jesus was and is.
Check out Peter's letters and John's. Also Dr. Luke's excellent letters would be well worth the read for you.
Papalinton said:
ReplyDeleteApart from your sycophantic alliance with Steve, it seems you have little to contribute to the conversation. a run-down on Babinski's contribution to this blogsite does not a contribution make. It is simply parroting against the obviously uncomfortable burr that he has put under your saddle. Come on Patrick don't be a troglodyte on the triablogue site.
Apart from your sycophantic alliance with Ed Babinski, it seems you have little to contribute to the conversation. A run-down on village atheist talking points does not a contribution make. It is simply parroting against the obviously uncomfortable burr that your own conscience has put under your saddle. Come on, PapaLinton! Don't be a troglodyte on this site.
I suspect your chances of reaching heaven is about as strong as mine; zilch.
Although I'm afraid you can't speak for me, I suppose I should be glad you're taking the opportunity to speak for yourself for once. That is, rather than regurgitating the last thing you read from John Loftus.
We know from genuine scholarship, not of the Apologetical variety, that the jesus character, born on 25 December, abiogenetically born, died, raised to heaven etc, etc, were all archetypal characteristics of the 'saviour-hero' theme of many earlier legends in the Middle east, centuries before jesus was a twinkle in Mary's eye.
Sorry, I can't help laughing, but you gotta admit it's pretty amusing to see someone who places such high value on reason and rationality fallback on the likes of James Frazer, Joseph Campbell, etc.! I suppose the next thing you'll tell me is that you've inked a sweet deal with George Lucas for a forthcoming Star Wars novel? :-)
And in respect of the theme of this topic, Patrick, don't fret too much. It is a win-win situation; heaven for the panoramic view, hell for the company. Take your pick.
Well, PapaLinton, I see you're the kind of guy who aims to live his life based solely and wholly on the confluence of two things: ignorance and confidence.
@ Patrick Chan
ReplyDeleteSo what is it you wish to communicate to me in this thread? All that I see is my words parroted back with a few borrowed linking phrases.
I surmise your modus operandi is to 'parrot' everything, but surely Patrick, parroting my whole commentary verbatim including parroting my talking points, is quite beyond the pail. In academic circles this would be tantamount to plagiarism. Are you in possession of any thoughts at all that could be categorized as genuinely yours, or having originated through your own intellection?
As a matter of interest, who the hell's James Frazer and Joseph Campbell, when they're at home?
You see, Patrick, the reality of death is that it happens to all of us. The only choice you have, is either to be interred whole or to be cremated. [Of course as the natural world would have it, you could be sucked down a sewer never to be seen again, or be the centre piece of an alligator's mid-afternoon snack on your next holiday to the Florida everglades, or blown out of the sky on the trip home for christmas next by a couple of supernatural like-minded jihardi theist compatriots in arms. But these aren't 'choices' although they are equally feasible alternatives to the two options you do have at deathtime.] Either way, whichever way, and as I see it, your total self becomes once again the stuff of stars, stardust. The majesty of this ending far exceeds the paltry and squalid choice offered by the christian perspective, hell or heaven. There is no dignity or value in the christian death. Just the wild-eyed scrambling of the gullible and the untutored for an undeserved seat on the direct express line to the pearly gates.
Rocks in your head, Patrick.
Papalinton said:
ReplyDeleteSo what is it you wish to communicate to me in this thread?
Once again, PapaLinton, you sure are a funny guy! Although the sad bit is that you don't even realize how amusingly ironic your question is.
All that I see is my words parroted back with a few borrowed linking phrases. I surmise your modus operandi is to 'parrot' everything,
It's obvious you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. So it's with some reluctance that I suggest you work on learning how to "surmise" things a wee bit better, given that I don't know if you're actually capable of this otherwise basic cognitive act.
but surely Patrick, parroting my whole commentary verbatim including parroting my talking points, is quite beyond the pail. In academic circles this would be tantamount to plagiarism.
While you're at it, you might look up what "parody" entails.
Are you in possession of any thoughts at all that could be categorized as genuinely yours, or having originated through your own intellection?
Yet again, I don't know whether to laugh or cry since the irony of your question has doubtless escaped you - twice over now.
As a matter of interest, who the hell's James Frazer and Joseph Campbell, when they're at home?
Click here.
Either way, whichever way, and as I see it, your total self becomes once again the stuff of stars, stardust. The majesty of this ending far exceeds the paltry and squalid choice offered by the christian perspective, hell or heaven. There is no dignity or value in the christian death. Just the wild-eyed scrambling of the gullible and the untutored for an undeserved seat on the direct express line to the pearly gates.
Third time's a charm? Ah, the irony! :-)
Anyway, given your metaphysical naturalism and secularism, there is no objective morality, no objective value, no epistemic duties, no obligation to be intellectually honest, etc. If atheism is true, why not believe whatever you want, so long as it pleases you, for example? Plus, given atheism, life is at best absurd and meaningless. It must be painful for you to keep shooting yourself in the foot like this, Papalinton.
Rocks in your head, Patrick.
I suppose having rocks in one's head is at least an improvement over the emptiness in Papalinton's.
@ PatrickChan
ReplyDeleteOh Dear.
All this, 'objective morality, objective value, epistemic duties, the obligation to be intellectually honest", can only come from the fantasy world of christian theism? Tell me again, which world do you inhabit, Patrick?
As it has yet to be responded to, I continue to wonder how it is you know for a fact that you have a seat booked on the Cloudy Express direct to St Peter's Station leaving from Platform 10-and-a-quarter, just down from the Express Train at Platform 9-and-three-quarters bound for Hogwarts.
Surely, Patrick, you can sense the palpable irony and the parodical nature of the christian imaginings.
If not, then there is a modicum of truth in the line: Inside every christian brain there is a god-shaped vacuum.
Papalinton said:
ReplyDeleteAll this, 'objective morality, objective value, epistemic duties, the obligation to be intellectually honest", can only come from the fantasy world of christian theism? Tell me again, which world do you inhabit, Patrick?
1. Of course, Papalinton is well behind the times with regard to his own atheism, given that atheists Richard Joyce, Will Provine, and Michael Ruse, among others, have said as much (e.g. see here).
Hence if the best Papalinton can do is to call what even atheist scholars have concluded is true about objective morality and so forth "fantasy," then (alas!) so much the worse for Papalinton.
2. And, once again, Papalinton never fails to miss the rather delicious irony behind his words here! :-)
As it has yet to be responded to, I continue to wonder how it is you know for a fact that you have a seat booked on the Cloudy Express direct to St Peter's Station leaving from Platform 10-and-a-quarter, just down from the Express Train at Platform 9-and-three-quarters bound for Hogwarts.
1. Well, not sure what off topic rantings and ravings you're continuing to blather on and on about, Papalinton, since, uh, the state of my soul wasn't exactly the topic of debate. Perhaps someone has cast a confundus spell on you?
2. In any case, since you keep making one unsubstantiated assertion after another, there's nothing to which to respond. In fact, there's simply nothing for me to do at all when you continue incanting expelliarmus against yourself. Ho hum.
Steve wrote, “If faith in Christ is inessential to salvation, or if faith in Christ in this life is inessential to salvation (given [arguendo] the possibility of postmortem salvation), that is it wrong for God to lie to people about the terms of salvation?”
ReplyDeleteSteve, regarding Reformed exclusivism you previously wrote,
“In principle the regenerate might die before hearing the gospel.”
If, in principle, the regenerate might die before hearing the gospel, then how is faith not inessential to salvation?
PAT SAID:
ReplyDelete“If, in principle, the regenerate might die before hearing the gospel, then how is faith not inessential to salvation?”
Regenerate infants who die in infancy will exercise faith in Christ in the afterlife. And the gospel was never directed at infants in the first place.
PAPALINTON SAID:
ReplyDelete“No Steve, 'unsupported opinions' they are not.”
Since you didn’t argue for your assertions, they remain nothing more than unsupported opinions.
“The exponential growth in knowledge and understanding through archeology, history, anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, neurophysiology, medicine etc, are all filling in a consistent and predictive evidentiary narrative about the human condition and what makes humans tick.”
You’re substituting verbal placeholders for anything resembling an actual argument.
“And the plethora of christianities are only a very small part of that story and shares that very small part with all the other tens-of-thousands of religious expression extant. Indeed one of the greatest cases against the veracity and the 'trooth-claim' of any one religion are all the other religions.”
Since the Bible has an explanation for idolatry, the existence of idolatry is hardly a defeater for Christianity. Try again.
“You know full well that religion is a 100% derivative of the cultural construct of any one community or society. Religion is just another domain of human culture, not a superhuman one and not even an independent one.”
To the contrary, OT Judaism and NT Christianity were often countercultural.
“If you imagine you do, such behaviour reeks of narcissism, conceit and vanity”
You’re resorting to emotive rhetoric to shame me into agreeing with you. But that’s not an appeal to reason. It’s just a polemical tactic.
“Not one Hindi or muslim thinks you are going to heaven, not one.”
A tautology.
“And nor do I and most other christians that simply consider you wrongheaded.”
You don’t speak for Christians.
“So what chance do you have apart from your own say-so?”
Salvation was never about playing the odds.
“Your responses have been so far, singularly obfuscatory.”
Since you don’t reason for your position, there’s nothing that requires a response from me.
“Then again, how does one defend a fable? I can appreciate the enormous effort it takes to prop up a fictive tale, Steve. I would suggest you ditch the whole fairy tale about some spectral numen putting a bun in the oven of someone else's wife without consent. The central story is incredulity writ large…”
Once again, you substitute adjectives for arguments. All you do is to project the holographic image of a rationalist. All surface, no substance.
Papalinton said...
ReplyDelete“The moment you quote some 'trooth-claim' from the bible, it resonates with many but certainly not all christians. [that's a given, otherwise there would be no heretics]. But for the other 5 billion people on this earth, and me, they would be happy to say you are talking through your .......... . And they would not be too displeased with saying that reading from the bible as some form of authoritative authentication or validation of your claim would be as ludicrous as quoting Harry Potter as the authoritative text for the existence of Hogwarts.”
That’s not an argument showing the Bible to be intrinsically analogous to Harry Potter. Rather, that’s just an exercise in comparative social psychology.
“Equally, should a muslim quote from the Koran a central tenet or 'trooth-claim' that clearly is at odds to christian thought, christians, and me, would generally concede that he/she was talking through his/her ..... . And you would be quite comforted in acknowledging that any reference from the koran has as much validity as referencing Hogwarts through the Harry potter saga.”
The Koran is self-refuting. Muhammad paid tribute to the divine inspiration of the Bible. But since the Koran contradicts the Bible, Muhammad is a false prophet–by his own yardstick.
Papalinton said:
ReplyDeleteWe know from genuine scholarship, not of the Apologetical variety, that the jesus character, born on 25 December, abiogenetically born, died, raised to heaven etc, etc, were all archetypal characteristics of the 'saviour-hero' theme of many earlier legends in the Middle east, centuries before jesus was a twinkle in Mary's eye.
Any reasonable reading of the social milieu and cultural constructs of the societies out of which the christianities emerged tells you that.
I suppose Papalinton means non-apologetical scholarship such as Bruce Metzger's "Considerations of Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity"?