The Democrat Party Hates America

[Age]

So you're saying that you DO know a way somebody who's like that can be considered "good"? Just how would that be?

I do. It's exactly the same as your method: I use my own standards, derived from a variety of sources.

Oh? So it's now YOU who is the one who only pleases himself? And that makes you a "good" person? But you say you also don't even "pretend that [your] standard is objective"?

I just want to get your story straight. I'd hate to misrepresent it, and at present, it's sounding a little...unconvincing.

Let 'me' see, 'your' story is God has a penis, and a beard, and created absolutely all things, all at once, once upon a time, right?

I would hate to misrepresent your own story, and, at present, the only one you are convincing with 'your story' is you, alone.

[Alexiev]

So you're saying that you DO know a way somebody who's like that can be considered "good"? Just how would that be?

I do. It's exactly the same as your method: I use my own standards, derived from a variety of sources.

Oh? So it's now YOU who is the one who only pleases himself? And that makes you a "good" person? But you say you also don't even "pretend that [your] standard is objective"?

I just want to get your story straight. I'd hate to misrepresent it, and at present, it's sounding a little...unconvincing.

You don't "misrepresent it". You simply fail to understand it. You decide on your moral principles based on what you believe to be true, and what you believe to be good. So do I. We have (slightly) different sources on which we base our beliefs -- but neither I nor you know the mind of God. Nor did the writers of the Bible, although, perhaps, they did their best. Nor did the translators of the Bible. Jesus doubtless preached in Aramaic (or Hebrew); the New Testament is written in Greek. Come on now. Did God translate? Or did people?

Christian faith is one thing; the idiotic notion that the Bible is the literal word of God is simply incredible. Even granting it is "inspired", and correct in its basic meaning, only a fool would think the varied forms of literature it comprises (history, poetry, biography, fable and myth) are equally literally true. Educated Christians recognize this. I'm quite certain my favorite Christian apologists (C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton) would agree with me (since, after all, they both had expertise in literature).

[Immanuel Can]

I do. It's exactly the same as your method: I use my own standards, derived from a variety of sources.

Oh? So it's now YOU who is the one who only pleases himself? And that makes you a "good" person? But you say you also don't even "pretend that [your] standard is objective"?

I just want to get your story straight. I'd hate to misrepresent it, and at present, it's sounding a little...unconvincing.

You don't "misrepresent it". You simply fail to understand it.

Let's say both. I don't understand it, because it's not understandable in the way you're putting it, at the moment. So clear it up for me.

You decide on your moral principles based on what you believe to be true, and what you believe to be good.

I don't, actually. I'm no more insightful then you on that, left to my own means. I listen to what God has said about that. Morality is not my idea; it's His.

We have (slightly) different sources on which we base our beliefs

Really? What are your sources?

[Alexiev]

I don't, actually. I'm no more insightful then you on that, left to my own means. I listen to what God has said about that. Morality is not my idea; it's His.

Really? Hmmm. Listening to God. Does He have a podcast, or maybe He talks to you on the phone. Do you text message?

The whisper of the wind tells me that I don't listen to God. I'm not worthy. Are you?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't, actually. I'm no more insightful then you on that, left to my own means. I listen to what God has said about that. Morality is not my idea; it's His.

Really? Hmmm. Listening to God.

You should try it. He's spoken. All you have to do is to be willing to listen. See Romans 1.

[Belinda]

Exactly right.

It also applies to "shes."

Yes, but what you don't seem to hear is that each of use cannot but originate our separate interpretation from our own learned perspective.

That doesn't follow at all. It's not what Christ was teaching; in fact, you'll find He was teaching the opposite, namely, that there are "perspectives," and even "learned" ones, like the Pharisaic perspective, that was functionally blind to truth.

He who has ears to hear is , in other words, 'woke'.

Not in any modern sense of that half-literate term. But "awakened" to truth? Sure.

Jesus didn’t teach truth by handing down doctrines. He created encounters where truth actually happened. His parables weren’t explanations , they were provocations that forced people to see differently or walk away confused.

Jesus revealed the Kingdom in real time. That’s why he said, “He who has ears to hear.” Hearing wasn’t about agreement with a doctrine , it was about being changed.

For Jesus, truth is not something you own or defend. It’s something that meets you and remakes you.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, but what you don't seem to hear is that each of use cannot but originate our separate interpretation from our own learned perspective.

That doesn't follow at all. It's not what Christ was teaching; in fact, you'll find He was teaching the opposite, namely, that there are "perspectives," and even "learned" ones, like the Pharisaic perspective, that was functionally blind to truth.

He who has ears to hear is , in other words, 'woke'.

Not in any modern sense of that half-literate term. But "awakened" to truth? Sure.

Jesus didn’t teach truth by handing down doctrines.

Yeah, He actually did a lot of that.

He created encounters where truth actually happened.

Yeah, He did that, too.

His parables weren’t explanations , they were provocations that forced people to see differently or walk away confused.

To his detractors and skeptics, yes. But not to those who loved Him, who got clear explanations (Mark. 4:10-12).

Jesus revealed the Kingdom in real time. That’s why he said, “He who has ears to hear.” Hearing wasn’t about agreement with a doctrine , it was about being changed.

It was both. It's not an either-or, you know...it's a both-and.

For Jesus, truth is not something you own or defend. It’s something that meets you and remakes you.

Again, it's both. And you'll find clear examples of both.

You don't get to take the parts of Christ you like, and just leave the rest behind. That's not how a personal relationship works. You either take the whole person, or you get nothing. And nowhere is that more true than in regard to Jesus Christ.

[Belinda]

That doesn't follow at all. It's not what Christ was teaching; in fact, you'll find He was teaching the opposite, namely, that there are "perspectives," and even "learned" ones, like the Pharisaic perspective, that was functionally blind to truth.


Not in any modern sense of that half-literate term. But "awakened" to truth? Sure.

Jesus didn’t teach truth by handing down doctrines.

Yeah, He actually did a lot of that.

He created encounters where truth actually happened.

Yeah, He did that, too.

His parables weren’t explanations , they were provocations that forced people to see differently or walk away confused.

To his detractors and skeptics, yes. But not to those who loved Him, who got clear explanations (Mark. 4:10-12).

Jesus revealed the Kingdom in real time. That’s why he said, “He who has ears to hear.” Hearing wasn’t about agreement with a doctrine , it was about being changed.

It was both. It's not an either-or, you know...it's a both-and.

For Jesus, truth is not something you own or defend. It’s something that meets you and remakes you.

Again, it's both. And you'll find clear examples of both.

You don't get to take the parts of Christ you like, and just leave the rest behind. That's not how a personal relationship works. You either take the whole person, or you get nothing. And nowhere is that more true than in regard to Jesus Christ.

But, Immanuel, nobody can force themself to believe something they don't believe. Belief in and belief that are learning processes.

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus didn’t teach truth by handing down doctrines.

Yeah, He actually did a lot of that.

He created encounters where truth actually happened.

Yeah, He did that, too.

His parables weren’t explanations , they were provocations that forced people to see differently or walk away confused.

To his detractors and skeptics, yes. But not to those who loved Him, who got clear explanations (Mark. 4:10-12).

Jesus revealed the Kingdom in real time. That’s why he said, “He who has ears to hear.” Hearing wasn’t about agreement with a doctrine , it was about being changed.

It was both. It's not an either-or, you know...it's a both-and.

For Jesus, truth is not something you own or defend. It’s something that meets you and remakes you.

Again, it's both. And you'll find clear examples of both.

You don't get to take the parts of Christ you like, and just leave the rest behind. That's not how a personal relationship works. You either take the whole person, or you get nothing. And nowhere is that more true than in regard to Jesus Christ.

But, Immanuel, nobody can force themself to believe something they don't believe. Belief in and belief that are learning processes.

"Force"? No. One can choose. That's quite a different proposition.

[Belinda]

Yeah, He actually did a lot of that.
Yeah, He did that, too.

To his detractors and skeptics, yes. But not to those who loved Him, who got clear explanations (Mark. 4:10-12).

It was both. It's not an either-or, you know...it's a both-and.


Again, it's both. And you'll find clear examples of both.

You don't get to take the parts of Christ you like, and just leave the rest behind. That's not how a personal relationship works. You either take the whole person, or you get nothing. And nowhere is that more true than in regard to Jesus Christ.

But, Immanuel, nobody can force themself to believe something they don't believe. Belief in and belief that are learning processes.

"Force"? No. One can choose. That's quite a different proposition.

True. Jesus didn’t just teach in parables — he also preached a doctrine rooted in the Hebrew prophets, not in the older tribal theology of Yahweh. His message continues the prophetic emphasis on mercy, justice, and inner renewal, transforming the old covenant religion of law and sacrifice into a universal ethic of love and spiritual conscience. In short, Jesus stands in the line of the prophets, not the war-god of Israel.

[Immanuel Can]

But, Immanuel, nobody can force themself to believe something they don't believe. Belief in and belief that are learning processes.

"Force"? No. One can choose. That's quite a different proposition.

True. Jesus didn’t just teach in parables — he also preached a doctrine rooted in the Hebrew prophets, not in the older tribal theology of Yahweh.

Not true. In fact, he said that not one iota of the Law would ever pass away. (Mt. 5:18) That's the whole enchilada, not just the parts you like or find "loving."

[Alexiev]

[
"Force"? No. One can choose. That's quite a different proposition.

Hmmm. If a thief points a pistol at you and says, "Give me your money or I will shoot you," is he "forcing" you to comply? Of course you could choose to be shot, but that's not much fun.

IC thinks we can choose to believe Jesus is our savior or burn eternally in hell. Much the same choice as in the example, isn't it?

[Immanuel Can]

[
"Force"? No. One can choose. That's quite a different proposition.

Hmmm. If a thief points a pistol at you and says, "Give me your money or I will shoot you," is he "forcing" you to comply? Of course you could choose to be shot, but that's not much fun.

IC thinks we can choose to believe Jesus is our savior or burn eternally in hell. Much the same choice as in the example, isn't it?

Not at all. The free choice is whether or not you wish to have a relationship with God. But there are natural and automatic consequences to choosing to reject the only Source of health, life, joy, peace and relationship. And those consequences are sickness, sadness, strife and loneliness, of course.

The choice is free. The consequences are natural.

But don't worry: if you disbelieve in something, it just goes away, right? So you're safe...you must suppose.

[Alexiev]

Not at all. The free choice is whether or not you wish to have a relationship with God. But there are natural and automatic consequences to choosing to reject the only Source of health, life, joy, peace and relationship. And those consequences are sickness, sadness, strife and loneliness, of course.

The choice is free. The consequences are natural.

But don't worry: if you disbelieve in something, it just goes away, right? So you're safe...you must suppose.

I once wrote a letter to the newspaper objecting to educators using the word "consequence" when they mean "punishment". The consequence of being tardy to school is that the late student might miss some gem of knowledge, or disrupt the class. Detention after school is not a "natural consequence" but a "punishment". Educators use "consequence" to place the responsibility for the punishment on the tardy student, rather than their authoritarian selves.

Same with hell (although some kindly theologians, like Lewis in "The Great Divorce", try to show that hell is a mere "consequence").

[Immanuel Can]

Not at all. The free choice is whether or not you wish to have a relationship with God. But there are natural and automatic consequences to choosing to reject the only Source of health, life, joy, peace and relationship. And those consequences are sickness, sadness, strife and loneliness, of course.

The choice is free. The consequences are natural.

But don't worry: if you disbelieve in something, it just goes away, right? So you're safe...you must suppose.

I once wrote a letter to the newspaper objecting to educators using the word "consequence" when they mean "punishment".

"Consequences" can be used as euphemism for "punishment," it's true. But if you are told that stepping off a cliff is bad, and yet you do it, then it's not "punishment" when gravity takes over and you hit the ground. It's just consequences. Some chosen actions set off a sequence of necessities that cannot be avoided.

Most consequences are just like that: you choose badly, you get the results that naturally follow. That's life. And I can't imagine a more natural result of rejecting God, who is the Giver of All Good Gifts (which is actually one of his formal titles), except a whole lot of the opposite. God could not be more fair than to caution you in advance, and then provide an open route to the right consequences, and even sacrifice Himself to obtain you your route...if you are a free individual, though, He cannot force you to do the right thing. He can provide the way; He can't make you choose it.

Don't complain about the consequences if you ask for them. And don't expect stepping off a cliff to be free of consequences, even if you decide not to believe in gravity.