Nobody ever said faith was easy. I have to have faith that God is good. I have to have faith that His understanding vastly exceeds my own. I have to have faith that God will work out all things for the good of those He loves. It takes faith. Simple as that. However, you are right when you say that it's a great recipe for submitting to a malevolent being. My faith is placed in the God as portrayed in Scripture, and He is not portrayed as a malevolent being. I have faith that the Bible is an accurate depiction of God and not a fabricated one by Man or a falsified one by a malevolent being who wants to pose as a benevolent being to subvert Man to his own wishes. These are things that I must put my faith in to hold the beliefs that I do. And it's not easy, and it's not always simple. But to me, it is both truth and a reality.
As for the enemies of God coming to recognize that God is good... Jesus put it this way: "There is no one good but God." We must first recognize that we are not good to be able to understand that God is good. Think of it this way. God, being the source of all reality, defines what is good and what is evil. The concepts of good and evil are a matter of perspective relative to whom is judging. That's why what is good to some may be evil to another. If you are being judged against a moral code that you disagree with, you may think that you did good, but the judge who is sitting on your trial will find you guilty of doing evil because of the moral code you are being judged against. God judges us after we die against His moral code. He establishes perfection from a moral standpoint, and we are held accountable to that standard. We cannot live up that standard, and therefore, by the laws of good and evil as defined by God, we are not good. Once recognized, we are now more able to recognize that God is good and that we can only become good with His help. And that's the beginning of the process of salvation that leads to becoming a Child of God.
... None of that answers my question. How is someone without faith, who isn't a Child of God and believes God is flat out evil, supposed to believe God is good? You're basically telling me he is good because you just have to accept it.
Even if I accept that humans 'aren't good', that doesn't automatically make God good by extension. He could just as easily be evil and set the same kinds of rules and expectations of faith, and we would have no way of knowing.
Judges aren't perfect arbiters, that's why we have an appeals system. Parents don't always know what's best for their children. Using the parental analogy, God is abusive and we should probably be taken from him by Social Services. No good parent slaughters his children when they disobey, or when they're told that so-and-so's parents are nicer and they want to go live with them.
The point that James is making is that the works that we do is evidence of the faith that we have.
That's the point that you want to make. It's not the point that James is making. James says that even demons have faith - not that they're lying about having faith, that they have faith. James says that faith without works is useless - not false, useless. James says that Abraham's faith was made complete by his works - not demonstrated, made complete. And James says that faith without works is dead as a body without a spirit is dead - not that works are evidence of faith as a spirit is evidence of a body, because of course a spirit isn't evidence of a body.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's the point that you want to make. It's not the point that James is making. James says that even demons have faith - not that they're lying about having faith, that they have faith. James says that faith without works is useless - not false, useless. James says that Abraham's faith was made complete by his works - not demonstrated, made complete. And James says that faith without works is dead as a body without a spirit is dead - not that works are evidence of faith as a spirit is evidence of a body, because of course a spirit isn't evidence of a body.
I understand that you disagree with me, but I feel like you are not providing any reason for disagreeing with me other than providing your modern, English interpretation of an ancient, Greek text. I have provided specifics about each verse in context, overall contextual application based on audience and authorial intent, and can even dig deep into the Greek if you wish. At the end of the day, would you actually listen to anything I have to say with an open mind? If you simply want to be argumentative, then we're done discussing. You are incorrect in your assertions about James and Paul. This is widely understood in the Christian community, as many people have spent countless hours studying the depth of the text and have come to the same conclusion. James and Paul are in harmony. Their audiences are different, their usages of words are different, the problems they are addressing are different. To equate any of those things is to commit equivocation and thereby misunderstand the passages. I'm sorry I can't help you see that.
... None of that answers my question. How is someone without faith, who isn't a Child of God and believes God is flat out evil, supposed to believe God is good? You're basically telling me he is good because you just have to accept it.
The simple answer is that the person you described cannot. A person devoid of faith and in a place where they believe God is evil will never believe God is good until they have a change of heart and come to a place spiritually where they can accept the truths about God.
Even if I accept that humans 'aren't good', that doesn't automatically make God good by extension. He could just as easily be evil and set the same kinds of rules and expectations of faith, and we would have no way of knowing.
You are correct sir. We would have no way of knowing. That's why faith is not a function of direct experiential knowledge.
Judges aren't perfect arbiters, that's why we have an appeals system. Parents don't always know what's best for their children. Using the parental analogy, God is abusive and we should probably be taken from him by Social Services. No good parent slaughters his children when they disobey, or when they're told that so-and-so's parents are nicer and they want to go live with them.
I'd rather not delve into this because that's a completely separate side topic (namely, God's relationship with Israel in the Old Testament) that I'm not very qualified to discuss. There are significant cultural and theological elements that I know very little about, and I would more often than not come up short in being able to provide you a reasonable explanation. Not trying to cop out, just being honest with you on it.
What? No. I'm saying that James is discussing the perspective of how Man views salvation whereas Paul is discussing the perspective of how God views salvation.
Yes, and James is saying one requires works to be saved, and Paul is saying you don't.
Therefore, if Paul is taking the perspective of how God views salvation, James is disagreeing with Paul and God.
Thus, you are saying that James is disagreeing with God.
James is saying that we, as people, can only affirm that someone is saved by observing their works.
No. He is saying someone is only saved through works, not faith alone.
Quote from James 2:8-26, Oremus Bible Browser »
8 You do well if you really fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ 9But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11For the one who said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’, also said, ‘You shall not murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13For judgement will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgement.
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. 20Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith without works is barren? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’, and he was called the friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.
Notice how James is affirming salvation through works. "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
God doesn't need works to know I'm saved
Then do you believe a person is justified by faith alone?
If so, then you disagree with James. For James said, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
I'm not sure how you can read the above and argue the two are compatible viewpoints. James is talking about justification through the Law and through works. Paul rejects both, saying that salvation is through faith alone. They are entirely opposite viewpoints.
In fact, they're both entirely contradictory takes on Abraham as well as justification on faith and works:
Quote from Romans 4:1-9, Oremus Bible Browser »
What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ 4Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness irrespective of works:
7 ‘Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin.’
Paul is saying Abraham was justified by faith alone, James is saying Abraham was justified through his works. They're both conflicting viewpoints.
The reason they work together is because the works will naturally follow from saving faith. The point of faith alone theology is to point out that we cannot work our way to heaven.
But that is entirely contrary to what James is saying. James specifically says that a person "is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
This is widely understood in the Christian community, as many people have spent countless hours studying the depth of the text and have come to the same conclusion.
"Don't be ridiculous, Martin, many people have spent countless hours studying the depth of the text, and have concluded that we are saved by more than faith alone."
And then Martin Luther was convinced, and went and took down his theses. The end.
Yes, and James is saying one requires works to be saved, and Paul is saying you don't.
Therefore, if Paul is taking the perspective of how God views salvation, James is disagreeing with Paul and God.
Thus, you are saying that James is disagreeing with God.
No. He is saying someone is only saved through works, not faith.
Notice how James is affirming salvation through works. "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Then do you believe a person is justified by faith alone?
If so, then you disagree with James. For James said, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
I'm not sure how you can read the above and argue the two are compatible viewpoints. James is talking about justification through the Law and through works. Paul rejects both, saying that salvation is through faith alone. They are entirely opposite viewpoints.
But that is entirely contrary to what James is saying. James specifically says that faith without works is not justified, only faith with works is. Clearly, one requires works to be saved according to James.
What I am noticing is that you don't want to provide sound exegetical practices and then wonder why my answers don't satisfy. It is not enough to read the English interpretation of a Greek text and apply 2014 reasoning to a 2000+ year old document. Please go back and read the post that I wrote to you where I supply contextual background for why James and Paul use the words as they do based on the audience they are speaking to and the problems they are trying to address. If you cannot respond with reasoning beyond "didn't you read what James wrote? You're clearly wrong," then we're done here. It is not a debate when you repeat the same statement that I've already answered. However, to specifically address this point, here's a link to you multiple commentaries that speak to the matter. Read to your heart's content.
Ok, would you care to demonstrate where the translation error happened?
Please go back and read the post that I wrote to you where I supply contextual background for why James and Paul use the words as they do based on the audience they are speaking to and the problems they are trying to address.
I read that. I find your argument problematic, as I will detail further.
If you cannot respond with reasoning beyond "didn't you read what James wrote? You're clearly wrong," then we're done here. It is not a debate when you repeat the same statement that I've already answered.
But you haven't answered it. The closest you've come to on the subject is, "They can't be talking about the same thing because if they were, then they would be contradicting each other," which is exactly what we're discussing. Why can't they contradict each other?
You wrote this to Blinking Spirit in a post above:
Their audiences are different, their usages of words are different, the problems they are addressing are different.
Except they're not addressing different problems, and they're not using different words. They're addressing the same exact subject: Abraham, and why Abraham was justified. James is saying that Abraham is justified by his works and not faith alone, Paul is saying Abraham is justified by faith and not works.
Either someone is justified not by faith alone or by faith alone. It cannot be both.
Now you are trying to argue that James is not saying that one is justified in God's eyes by works, but instead is saying that's just how we recognize people who are justified, and really, people are just justified through faith alone.
But the problem with your case is that this is not what James is saying:
"21Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’, and he was called the friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Both James and Paul address Abraham, and Abraham's justification in the eyes of God.
James points to Abraham's works — specifically his offering of his son upon the altar — and says that this demonstrates that someone is justified by works and not by faith alone. Note specifically what he says: "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" He's saying that Abraham's works are what justified him, not only Abraham's faith, and from studying this case, we can see "that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Meanwhile Paul points to Abraham and says exactly the opposite thing. "But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness irrespective of works:" To Paul, Abraham's salvation came irrespective of his works.
So either Abraham's salvation came through Abraham's faith alone, or through Abraham's works. Nor can it be said that James is arguing that Abraham was saved through faith alone, but it is by Abraham's works that we — that is, mortal men — can know that Abraham was redeemed because it is demonstrated that this isn't what James says. He specifically says that it is through works and not faith alone that Abraham was justified.
So which is it? Is Paul correct or is James correct about by what means Abraham was justified?
You have argued earlier that they are using different words, but they aren't. I would recommend going through the Greek again. Romans 4:2 uses the same terminology as James 2:21. Their word for works is "ergon." Their word for justified is "edikaiothe." Both Romans and James use the word "pistis" for faith. They use the same words.
However, to specifically address this point, here's a link to you multiple commentaries that speak to the matter.
And there are multiple commentaries, nay, entire traditions, that believe exactly the opposite of what you do, and who point to the very same quote from James you post and say that no, James is most emphatically not arguing that one is saved by faith alone.
So why should I accept your appeal to authority over their appeal to authority? You have to make a case for this. The case that James is not arguing for being saved by faith alone is obvious:
"24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
That's what James says. You are asking me to read someone who says that a person "is justified by works and not by faith alone," and asking me to interpret that as someone saying, "People are justified by faith alone and not by works," which is the exact opposite of the above.
I understand that you disagree with me, but I feel like you are not providing any reason for disagreeing with me other than providing your modern, English interpretation of an ancient, Greek text.
I was actually looking at the Greek text when I wrote that. It's why I wrote that demons "have faith" rather than "believe" - because James uses the same word πιστευο for both human and demonic faith. It's also why I didn't say anything about his statements on Abraham - because the Greek word εδικαιωθη translated as "justified" or "considered righteous" really is ambiguous.
Yes, I disagree with you. These are my reasons why. They are not explained away by differences in audience and authorial intent from Paul. In fact, they have nothing to do with the Pauline passage at all. I concur with what you said, that James' "audience are Christians where one problem was that some people were making proclamations of faith and then continuing in their path of wicked ways." The fact remains that he is describing works not as the byproduct of and evidence for faith, but rather as an entity independent of and auxiliary to faith. This conceptualization still solves James' problem that you stated - telling Christians that they can't just profess their faith and continue to do bad things. Hence audience and authorial intent are nonissues. Now, how can we tell that he's conceptualizing works this way? Because your way does not make sense of his words, in Greek or in English. If he thought works were evidence of faith, it would not make sense for him to say that demons have faith. If faith leads to good works as you say, and demons have faith, then demons must do good works, but it's obvious that James thinks they don't. And it would not make sense for him to say that faith and works are analogous to body and spirit. You say that works flow from faith, and that people perceive works in order to ascertain the imperceptible faith. But the spirit (under a Christian understanding) does not flow from the body, and mortals certainly do not perceive the spirit in order to ascertain the imperceptible body. You want us to believe this is James' core message, but the analogy he chose to use does not fit that message at all. It much better fits the message that faith and works are discrete partners in salvation, the way body and spirit are discrete partners in human life. So clearly James has a different conceptualization of "faith" and "works" than you do.
Now, are you just going to complain about my effrontery in reading the Bible and forming my own opinion rather than accepting the pronouncements of my elders and betters (but only the Protestant ones, since Catholic theologians obviously aren't part of the "Christian community")? Or are you actually going to take your own advice and listen to what I say with an open mind?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
At this point, I regretfully will disengage. I was not attempting to get into a debate regarding the intricacies of James and Paul, as noted by my original post about not being here to debate. The author of this thread has not responded to my original post to him, but if he does, at that point, I will engage him, which was my primary purpose in posting to begin with. I understand that this post is most likely dissatisfactory to those of you with whom I have been discussing these points. Fact of the matter is, I don't have the time to continue to engage on the topic in a fashion that would do you justice. I may be able to spend some time over the holidays doing additional research to be able to adequately address each of your questions. I do regret not be able to spend more time discussing it, as I enjoy it. My time is just not as available as it was 10 years ago when I used to debate this kind of stuff all the time. My apologies to anyone I disappoint. I promise I'm not running away or closing off my mind to what any of you have stated. I just genuinely believe that I cannot do justice to your questions because, despite my best efforts with the time I've allocated, none of you have felt that I have satisfactorily answered your questions.
Again, my apologies for leaving in the middle of our discussion. If time magically pops up in my life, I will be sure to start a thread on the topic and hope to see each of you there.
God is light, God is a spirit, God is everything from the alpha to the omega, He is good for it is written that he is? This is true because not only is it written but because if He is real and that if He made everything and if everything is OK, is it not OK?
@highroller : "Yes, and James is saying one requires works to be saved, and Paul is saying you don't.
Therefore, if Paul is taking the perspective of how God views salvation, James is disagreeing with Paul and God.
Thus, you are saying that James is disagreeing with God."
So, if that's right then that means that it was James' opinion? Or maybe his view? Maybe it doesn't contradict each other in a certain way? I don't think you're thinking of it.
There are differences yes but between them there is truth, don't you see that?
"If so, then you disagree with James. For James said, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.""
but if you disagree then that means that there is a different opinion, is it not? I Think so, for there is much more reward in faith in work than work in faith, is it not? I assume that.
"No. He is saying someone is only saved through works, not faith alone."
what did he actually in the context in the bible have him say?
". My faith is placed in the God as portrayed in Scripture, and He is not portrayed as a malevolent being. I have faith that the Bible is an accurate depiction of God and not a fabricated one by Man or a falsified one by a malevolent being who wants to pose as a benevolent being to subvert Man to his own wishes. These are things that I must put my faith in to hold the beliefs that I do. And it's not easy, and it's not always simple. But to me, it is both truth and a reality."
By what standard do you find the depiction of God in the Bible to be benevolent? By any commonly accepted standards of behavior, the God of the Bible is extreemly malevolent: he creates humanity, picks the hebrews as his chosen people and orders them to engage in all manner of awful acts upto and including Genocide , creates a set of rules that are impossible for his creation to follow, sets the punishment for this as toture unimaginable to the humna mind for ALL TIME, and then gives a very narrow way out (Jesus). He also creates this world with a set of scientific laws that appear to contradict lots of information in the only guidebook to getting to that one way out.
God as depicted in the Bible is psychotic by any common standard of evaluating behaviour.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
". My faith is placed in the God as portrayed in Scripture, and He is not portrayed as a malevolent being. I have faith that the Bible is an accurate depiction of God and not a fabricated one by Man or a falsified one by a malevolent being who wants to pose as a benevolent being to subvert Man to his own wishes. These are things that I must put my faith in to hold the beliefs that I do. And it's not easy, and it's not always simple. But to me, it is both truth and a reality."
By what standard do you find the depiction of God in the Bible to be benevolent? By any commonly accepted standards of behavior, the God of the Bible is extreemly malevolent: he creates humanity, picks the hebrews as his chosen people and orders them to engage in all manner of awful acts upto and including Genocide , creates a set of rules that are impossible for his creation to follow, sets the punishment for this as toture unimaginable to the humna mind for ALL TIME, and then gives a very narrow way out (Jesus). He also creates this world with a set of scientific laws that appear to contradict lots of information in the only guidebook to getting to that one way out.
God as depicted in the Bible is psychotic by any common standard of evaluating behaviour.
Killane,
I unfortunately am not expending the time to engage in deep theological/philosophical discussions at this time. My apologies for not being able to dive into the conversation. I would only like to say that oversimplification of a broad and complex topic is not a good approach to discussion. Let's take a simple topic. I tell you that a man beats his child every night and then ask, is this man being benevolent of malevolent? Without any additional information presented, the more common conclusion would be that this man is being malevolent, for even if he were disciplining his child, surely he would recognize that the beatings he is issuing are not effective and another type of discipline is required. However, if I were to tell you that his child had Cystic Fibrosis and the beatings he provided on his child's back every evening helped dislodge the mucus that would form around his lungs and further prevent the possibility of bacterial infection taking root, you would of course agree that the father is being benevolent. This is a simple example of how oversimplification of information can lead to erroneous conclusions.
My apologies again for not being able to go into this discourse with you. All I can say is that if you really want to know, study it yourself. The more you dig into the "why" of God's actions, the more you'll understand His benevolence.
I would only like to say that oversimplification of a broad and complex topic is not a good approach to discussion. Let's take a simple topic. I tell you that a man beats his child every night and then ask, is this man being benevolent of malevolent? Without any additional information presented, the more common conclusion would be that this man is being malevolent, for even if he were disciplining his child, surely he would recognize that the beatings he is issuing are not effective and another type of discipline is required. However, if I were to tell you that his child had Cystic Fibrosis and the beatings he provided on his child's back every evening helped dislodge the mucus that would form around his lungs and further prevent the possibility of bacterial infection taking root, you would of course agree that the father is being benevolent. This is a simple example of how oversimplification of information can lead to erroneous conclusions.
Ok, now what you need to do is explain how on earth that's analogous to a God who kills his children, advocates his children kill each other, abandons those children to eternal darkness (which may or may not include infinite agony and suffering), and proclaims that to be righteousness.
The fact of the matter is that God in the Bible does not behave benevolently. Reading it should confirm to any sensible person that the deity being described is horrifying. Reading it should confirm to someone that if there is a benevolent, good God in the universe – as I believe there certainly is — then such a benevolent, good God is profoundly misrepresented by the claims of the Bible.
My apologies again for not being able to go into this discourse with you. All I can say is that if you really want to know, study it yourself. The more you dig into the "why" of God's actions, the more you'll understand His benevolence.
I object to the implication that non-Chistians have just not sufficiently studied the Bible. Biblical scholarship is in fact a cornerstone of modern Western freethought, skepticism, agnosticism, and atheism. Just try telling Spinoza or Jefferson or Ingersoll that he needs to study the Bible more. I can say that the more you study the Bible, the more you'll realize its fiction and barbarism, just as easily as you can say the reverse. This kind of passing-of-the-buck gets us nowhere.
I was an evangelical charismatic for years. I spoke in tongues, engaged in Faith-Healing type activities, and preached constantly. You can see some of my Christian Apologist posts on this very forum if you search back around 2012. I've read the Bible cover to cover numerous times, in several diffrent versions. Reading it over and over is part of what led to my profound distaste for it.
What an assumption. Wow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Ok, now what you need to do is explain how on earth that's analogous to a God who kills his children, advocates his children kill each other, abandons those children to eternal darkness (which may or may not include infinite agony and suffering), and proclaims that to be righteousness.
The fact of the matter is that God in the Bible does not behave benevolently. Reading it should confirm to any sensible person that the deity being described is horrifying. Reading it should confirm to someone that if there is a benevolent, good God in the universe – as I believe there certainly is — then such a benevolent, good God is profoundly misrepresented by the claims of the Bible.
I never said it was analogous. I said it was an example of how oversimplification of information can lead to erroneous conclusions. The example stands on its own and proves its point. I then take that conclusion and object to the oversimplification of information regarding God's actions as presented in the Bible with respects to drawing a conclusion regarding His character.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Might we even say that it is an oversimple example?
My example sufficiently proved what I was stating and in a succicint manner. How does that make it "over" simple?
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
I object to the implication that non-Chistians have just not sufficiently studied the Bible. Biblical scholarship is in fact a cornerstone of modern Western freethought, skepticism, agnosticism, and atheism. Just try telling Spinoza or Jefferson or Ingersoll that he needs to study the Bible more. I can say that the more you study the Bible, the more you'll realize its fiction and barbarism, just as easily as you can say the reverse. This kind of passing-of-the-buck gets us nowhere.
You're right, it does get it us nowhere... but I have already made the statement that I cannot provide the time necessary to get us anywhere. I am taking the time to provide ancillary responses because I feel obligated to, but I just don't have the time for hours upon hours of lengthy discussion (as I know this would be). I'm sorry if that's not satisfactory to you, but what else can I do? If I post a link to someone else's research, I'm information dumping and that's not helpful. If I suggest further research, I'm passing the buck, also not helpful. And yet, I do not have the time to devote. Do you have a better suggestion?
Quote from Killane »
I was an evangelical charismatic for years. I spoke in tongues, engaged in Faith-Healing type activities, and preached constantly. You can see some of my Christian Apologist posts on this very forum if you search back around 2012. I've read the Bible cover to cover numerous times, in several diffrent versions. Reading it over and over is part of what led to my profound distaste for it.
What an assumption. Wow.
It was less an assumption and more the only thing I could write given the information and time I had available. I had no way of knowing (short of researching all your previous posts, an effort that was not necessarily going to be fruitful) your background. I don't know you from Adam. So, without the time to delve into the discussion, all I can recommend is for you to research it yourself. Already done your homework and come to your own conclusion? Fantastic! I hate that it differs from my conclusion, but not everyone will form the same opinion. Honestly, if you want to discuss this with me one on one, I wouldn't mind doing a PM message discussion. It helps prevent the conversation from bifurcating into a thousand different directions as other people chime in... but I can't promise timely responses. It will probably be several days in the making for a response depending on the level of detail. But that's the best I can offer at this time.
I have no interest in a PM discussion. Thsi sort of thing should be discussed in an open forum.
Please point out how the depiction of God in the old Testament is anything other than one of the most vile creatures in literary history? I don't think I oversimplified anything- I distilled it to its essence.
You make the excuse that you don't have time for lengthly debate, but you do have time to log on to the debate subsection of forum dedicated to an extremely expensive and time-consuming hobby? It sounds more like you lack a reasonable counter-argument, but rather than remain quiet, you basically say "you clearly don't understand the subject" and attempt to blemish on my post by attacking my background instead of actually addressing my argument.
Exactly - you had no way of knowing- so you assumed I didn't understand the subject and so attacked me instead of my views. Not a great choice for a debate forum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Please point out how the depiction of God in the old Testament is anything other than one of the most vile creatures in literary history? I don't think I oversimplified anything- I distilled it to its essence.
If you don't adhere to a pacifist perspective, then the OT God's actions aren't exactly anything out of the ordinary. He is the Jewish God, and so he acted to protect and teach his people.
Ok, so if you're argument is that YHWH is just as bad a Zeus, Odin, Shiva, etc... fine. i don;t knwo enough about actual (as opposed to comic-book) real world mythology to argue with you about it.
But so what?
I don't get your point. my point is that YHWH is awful (as portrayed in the Bible) - you are essentially saying "yeah, but so are all these other guys". And? Doesn't change how awful YHWH is (as protrayed in the Bible).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
... None of that answers my question. How is someone without faith, who isn't a Child of God and believes God is flat out evil, supposed to believe God is good? You're basically telling me he is good because you just have to accept it.
Even if I accept that humans 'aren't good', that doesn't automatically make God good by extension. He could just as easily be evil and set the same kinds of rules and expectations of faith, and we would have no way of knowing.
Judges aren't perfect arbiters, that's why we have an appeals system. Parents don't always know what's best for their children. Using the parental analogy, God is abusive and we should probably be taken from him by Social Services. No good parent slaughters his children when they disobey, or when they're told that so-and-so's parents are nicer and they want to go live with them.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I understand that you disagree with me, but I feel like you are not providing any reason for disagreeing with me other than providing your modern, English interpretation of an ancient, Greek text. I have provided specifics about each verse in context, overall contextual application based on audience and authorial intent, and can even dig deep into the Greek if you wish. At the end of the day, would you actually listen to anything I have to say with an open mind? If you simply want to be argumentative, then we're done discussing. You are incorrect in your assertions about James and Paul. This is widely understood in the Christian community, as many people have spent countless hours studying the depth of the text and have come to the same conclusion. James and Paul are in harmony. Their audiences are different, their usages of words are different, the problems they are addressing are different. To equate any of those things is to commit equivocation and thereby misunderstand the passages. I'm sorry I can't help you see that.
Daniel
The simple answer is that the person you described cannot. A person devoid of faith and in a place where they believe God is evil will never believe God is good until they have a change of heart and come to a place spiritually where they can accept the truths about God.
You are correct sir. We would have no way of knowing. That's why faith is not a function of direct experiential knowledge.
I'd rather not delve into this because that's a completely separate side topic (namely, God's relationship with Israel in the Old Testament) that I'm not very qualified to discuss. There are significant cultural and theological elements that I know very little about, and I would more often than not come up short in being able to provide you a reasonable explanation. Not trying to cop out, just being honest with you on it.
Daniel
Therefore, if Paul is taking the perspective of how God views salvation, James is disagreeing with Paul and God.
Thus, you are saying that James is disagreeing with God.
No. He is saying someone is only saved through works, not faith alone.
Notice how James is affirming salvation through works. "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Then do you believe a person is justified by faith alone?
If so, then you disagree with James. For James said, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
I'm not sure how you can read the above and argue the two are compatible viewpoints. James is talking about justification through the Law and through works. Paul rejects both, saying that salvation is through faith alone. They are entirely opposite viewpoints.
In fact, they're both entirely contradictory takes on Abraham as well as justification on faith and works:
Paul is saying Abraham was justified by faith alone, James is saying Abraham was justified through his works. They're both conflicting viewpoints.
But that is entirely contrary to what James is saying. James specifically says that a person "is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
"Don't be ridiculous, Martin, many people have spent countless hours studying the depth of the text, and have concluded that we are saved by more than faith alone."
And then Martin Luther was convinced, and went and took down his theses. The end.
What I am noticing is that you don't want to provide sound exegetical practices and then wonder why my answers don't satisfy. It is not enough to read the English interpretation of a Greek text and apply 2014 reasoning to a 2000+ year old document. Please go back and read the post that I wrote to you where I supply contextual background for why James and Paul use the words as they do based on the audience they are speaking to and the problems they are trying to address. If you cannot respond with reasoning beyond "didn't you read what James wrote? You're clearly wrong," then we're done here. It is not a debate when you repeat the same statement that I've already answered. However, to specifically address this point, here's a link to you multiple commentaries that speak to the matter. Read to your heart's content.
Daniel
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/jam2.pdf
Ok, would you care to demonstrate where the translation error happened?
I read that. I find your argument problematic, as I will detail further.
But you haven't answered it. The closest you've come to on the subject is, "They can't be talking about the same thing because if they were, then they would be contradicting each other," which is exactly what we're discussing. Why can't they contradict each other?
You wrote this to Blinking Spirit in a post above:
Except they're not addressing different problems, and they're not using different words. They're addressing the same exact subject: Abraham, and why Abraham was justified. James is saying that Abraham is justified by his works and not faith alone, Paul is saying Abraham is justified by faith and not works.
Either someone is justified not by faith alone or by faith alone. It cannot be both.
Now you are trying to argue that James is not saying that one is justified in God's eyes by works, but instead is saying that's just how we recognize people who are justified, and really, people are just justified through faith alone.
But the problem with your case is that this is not what James is saying:
"21Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’, and he was called the friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Both James and Paul address Abraham, and Abraham's justification in the eyes of God.
James points to Abraham's works — specifically his offering of his son upon the altar — and says that this demonstrates that someone is justified by works and not by faith alone. Note specifically what he says: "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" He's saying that Abraham's works are what justified him, not only Abraham's faith, and from studying this case, we can see "that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Meanwhile Paul points to Abraham and says exactly the opposite thing. "But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness irrespective of works:" To Paul, Abraham's salvation came irrespective of his works.
So either Abraham's salvation came through Abraham's faith alone, or through Abraham's works. Nor can it be said that James is arguing that Abraham was saved through faith alone, but it is by Abraham's works that we — that is, mortal men — can know that Abraham was redeemed because it is demonstrated that this isn't what James says. He specifically says that it is through works and not faith alone that Abraham was justified.
So which is it? Is Paul correct or is James correct about by what means Abraham was justified?
You have argued earlier that they are using different words, but they aren't. I would recommend going through the Greek again. Romans 4:2 uses the same terminology as James 2:21. Their word for works is "ergon." Their word for justified is "edikaiothe." Both Romans and James use the word "pistis" for faith. They use the same words.
And there are multiple commentaries, nay, entire traditions, that believe exactly the opposite of what you do, and who point to the very same quote from James you post and say that no, James is most emphatically not arguing that one is saved by faith alone.
So why should I accept your appeal to authority over their appeal to authority? You have to make a case for this. The case that James is not arguing for being saved by faith alone is obvious:
"24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
That's what James says. You are asking me to read someone who says that a person "is justified by works and not by faith alone," and asking me to interpret that as someone saying, "People are justified by faith alone and not by works," which is the exact opposite of the above.
And I would like to know why I should do that.
Yes, I disagree with you. These are my reasons why. They are not explained away by differences in audience and authorial intent from Paul. In fact, they have nothing to do with the Pauline passage at all. I concur with what you said, that James' "audience are Christians where one problem was that some people were making proclamations of faith and then continuing in their path of wicked ways." The fact remains that he is describing works not as the byproduct of and evidence for faith, but rather as an entity independent of and auxiliary to faith. This conceptualization still solves James' problem that you stated - telling Christians that they can't just profess their faith and continue to do bad things. Hence audience and authorial intent are nonissues. Now, how can we tell that he's conceptualizing works this way? Because your way does not make sense of his words, in Greek or in English. If he thought works were evidence of faith, it would not make sense for him to say that demons have faith. If faith leads to good works as you say, and demons have faith, then demons must do good works, but it's obvious that James thinks they don't. And it would not make sense for him to say that faith and works are analogous to body and spirit. You say that works flow from faith, and that people perceive works in order to ascertain the imperceptible faith. But the spirit (under a Christian understanding) does not flow from the body, and mortals certainly do not perceive the spirit in order to ascertain the imperceptible body. You want us to believe this is James' core message, but the analogy he chose to use does not fit that message at all. It much better fits the message that faith and works are discrete partners in salvation, the way body and spirit are discrete partners in human life. So clearly James has a different conceptualization of "faith" and "works" than you do.
Now, are you just going to complain about my effrontery in reading the Bible and forming my own opinion rather than accepting the pronouncements of my elders and betters (but only the Protestant ones, since Catholic theologians obviously aren't part of the "Christian community")? Or are you actually going to take your own advice and listen to what I say with an open mind?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Again, my apologies for leaving in the middle of our discussion. If time magically pops up in my life, I will be sure to start a thread on the topic and hope to see each of you there.
Daniel
Spam warning. - Blinking Spirit
Therefore, if Paul is taking the perspective of how God views salvation, James is disagreeing with Paul and God.
Thus, you are saying that James is disagreeing with God."
So, if that's right then that means that it was James' opinion? Or maybe his view? Maybe it doesn't contradict each other in a certain way? I don't think you're thinking of it.
There are differences yes but between them there is truth, don't you see that?
"If so, then you disagree with James. For James said, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.""
but if you disagree then that means that there is a different opinion, is it not? I Think so, for there is much more reward in faith in work than work in faith, is it not? I assume that.
"No. He is saying someone is only saved through works, not faith alone."
what did he actually in the context in the bible have him say?
but is that it means that it isn't the only way possible for him to be repented, saved but also not condemned?
". My faith is placed in the God as portrayed in Scripture, and He is not portrayed as a malevolent being. I have faith that the Bible is an accurate depiction of God and not a fabricated one by Man or a falsified one by a malevolent being who wants to pose as a benevolent being to subvert Man to his own wishes. These are things that I must put my faith in to hold the beliefs that I do. And it's not easy, and it's not always simple. But to me, it is both truth and a reality."
By what standard do you find the depiction of God in the Bible to be benevolent? By any commonly accepted standards of behavior, the God of the Bible is extreemly malevolent: he creates humanity, picks the hebrews as his chosen people and orders them to engage in all manner of awful acts upto and including Genocide , creates a set of rules that are impossible for his creation to follow, sets the punishment for this as toture unimaginable to the humna mind for ALL TIME, and then gives a very narrow way out (Jesus). He also creates this world with a set of scientific laws that appear to contradict lots of information in the only guidebook to getting to that one way out.
God as depicted in the Bible is psychotic by any common standard of evaluating behaviour.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Killane,
I unfortunately am not expending the time to engage in deep theological/philosophical discussions at this time. My apologies for not being able to dive into the conversation. I would only like to say that oversimplification of a broad and complex topic is not a good approach to discussion. Let's take a simple topic. I tell you that a man beats his child every night and then ask, is this man being benevolent of malevolent? Without any additional information presented, the more common conclusion would be that this man is being malevolent, for even if he were disciplining his child, surely he would recognize that the beatings he is issuing are not effective and another type of discipline is required. However, if I were to tell you that his child had Cystic Fibrosis and the beatings he provided on his child's back every evening helped dislodge the mucus that would form around his lungs and further prevent the possibility of bacterial infection taking root, you would of course agree that the father is being benevolent. This is a simple example of how oversimplification of information can lead to erroneous conclusions.
My apologies again for not being able to go into this discourse with you. All I can say is that if you really want to know, study it yourself. The more you dig into the "why" of God's actions, the more you'll understand His benevolence.
Daniel
The fact of the matter is that God in the Bible does not behave benevolently. Reading it should confirm to any sensible person that the deity being described is horrifying. Reading it should confirm to someone that if there is a benevolent, good God in the universe – as I believe there certainly is — then such a benevolent, good God is profoundly misrepresented by the claims of the Bible.
I object to the implication that non-Chistians have just not sufficiently studied the Bible. Biblical scholarship is in fact a cornerstone of modern Western freethought, skepticism, agnosticism, and atheism. Just try telling Spinoza or Jefferson or Ingersoll that he needs to study the Bible more. I can say that the more you study the Bible, the more you'll realize its fiction and barbarism, just as easily as you can say the reverse. This kind of passing-of-the-buck gets us nowhere.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I was an evangelical charismatic for years. I spoke in tongues, engaged in Faith-Healing type activities, and preached constantly. You can see some of my Christian Apologist posts on this very forum if you search back around 2012. I've read the Bible cover to cover numerous times, in several diffrent versions. Reading it over and over is part of what led to my profound distaste for it.
What an assumption. Wow.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
I never said it was analogous. I said it was an example of how oversimplification of information can lead to erroneous conclusions. The example stands on its own and proves its point. I then take that conclusion and object to the oversimplification of information regarding God's actions as presented in the Bible with respects to drawing a conclusion regarding His character.
My example sufficiently proved what I was stating and in a succicint manner. How does that make it "over" simple?
You're right, it does get it us nowhere... but I have already made the statement that I cannot provide the time necessary to get us anywhere. I am taking the time to provide ancillary responses because I feel obligated to, but I just don't have the time for hours upon hours of lengthy discussion (as I know this would be). I'm sorry if that's not satisfactory to you, but what else can I do? If I post a link to someone else's research, I'm information dumping and that's not helpful. If I suggest further research, I'm passing the buck, also not helpful. And yet, I do not have the time to devote. Do you have a better suggestion?
It was less an assumption and more the only thing I could write given the information and time I had available. I had no way of knowing (short of researching all your previous posts, an effort that was not necessarily going to be fruitful) your background. I don't know you from Adam. So, without the time to delve into the discussion, all I can recommend is for you to research it yourself. Already done your homework and come to your own conclusion? Fantastic! I hate that it differs from my conclusion, but not everyone will form the same opinion. Honestly, if you want to discuss this with me one on one, I wouldn't mind doing a PM message discussion. It helps prevent the conversation from bifurcating into a thousand different directions as other people chime in... but I can't promise timely responses. It will probably be several days in the making for a response depending on the level of detail. But that's the best I can offer at this time.
Daniel
Please point out how the depiction of God in the old Testament is anything other than one of the most vile creatures in literary history? I don't think I oversimplified anything- I distilled it to its essence.
You make the excuse that you don't have time for lengthly debate, but you do have time to log on to the debate subsection of forum dedicated to an extremely expensive and time-consuming hobby? It sounds more like you lack a reasonable counter-argument, but rather than remain quiet, you basically say "you clearly don't understand the subject" and attempt to blemish on my post by attacking my background instead of actually addressing my argument.
Exactly - you had no way of knowing- so you assumed I didn't understand the subject and so attacked me instead of my views. Not a great choice for a debate forum.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
If you don't adhere to a pacifist perspective, then the OT God's actions aren't exactly anything out of the ordinary. He is the Jewish God, and so he acted to protect and teach his people.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Very few gods (or mythologies) claim that they didn't create the world.
But so what?
I don't get your point. my point is that YHWH is awful (as portrayed in the Bible) - you are essentially saying "yeah, but so are all these other guys". And? Doesn't change how awful YHWH is (as protrayed in the Bible).
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.