gdp's Comments

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: “Do you wear cotton poly blend?”

Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:21:54 +0000

That's not quite the point (especially since the ancient Hebrews were, unless we've really underestimated the state of their chemical industry, quite incapable of wearing polyester anything). Is there something intrinsically immoral in, say, wearing linsey-woolsey (as many Americans back in frontier days did), or in breeding horses with donkeys to produce mules (as many Americans still do)? There is nothing in the law itself that limits it to one particular climate (orthodox Jews still observe it even when living in cold northern European or American climates, after all) or temperature range. Presumably the point of both laws is to symbolically reinforce the idea of not admixing the culture, worship practices, and ethics of the elect people with those of outsiders who do not worship the true God. If so, why did it become unnecessary (or, if it had some other reason, why did that reason cease to apply?)? Are these rules part of the moral, civic, or ceremonial law, and how does one tell?

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: He opens our eyes.

Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:28:25 +0000

Apparently, in your universe, no one has ever impersonated a police officer, or misrepresented the law.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: Native Indians.

Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:25:04 +0000

I'm not sure that that follows; Marianne may be making a distinction between being saved by Jesus and knowing explicitly that it is Jesus who has saved you.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: Native Indians.

Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:23:43 +0000

I think Marianne's point was that God can save people without evangelism -- that the spread of the gospel and the possibility of repentance and conversion exists even in the absence of missionaries and preachers, and that Christians preach not because it is necessary to save other people but simply because God commanded it. This is explicitly the strong Calvinist position: God sovereignly declares who will repent and convert, and who will remain in rebellion and sin and be damned, without regard for any human action or choice, but He still commands believers to spread the gospel. Whether Marianne is a strong Calvinist or has simply converged on a similar position through a different path I cannot say. I do think she would have come across as more gracious and loving if she'd just noted that Ray nowhere hinted at the answer she offers and hence a legitimate question remained after his post.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: If I were God...

Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:19:12 +0000

I've met a number of people who were converted to Christianity; it is harder to tell whether they've been radically changed, or are just the same old person with a few new beliefs, and even harder to determine whether that change was caused by some supernatural force or merely by their belief in some supernatural force.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: If I were God...

Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:16:52 +0000

Ray is attempting to refute the claim that he is a poor spokesman for God by arguing that God chooses human messengers to deliver a foolish-seeming message. I was pointing out that even if we grant his premise, his desired conclusion -- that he is one of those messengers -- does not follow from it. Is your post what passes for reading comprehension these days?

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: “Everyone is born atheist.”

Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:14:13 +0000

Upon reflection, I concede your point. Indeed, I've read comments by atheists that conclude that no one ever really coverts from atheism to religious belief, because "true" atheism requires a commitment to logical, evidence-based thinking that no puppy or tree is capable of. Even if we reject that assertion, the term "atheist" has from its beginnings emphasized rejection of society's common views on what God or gods exist and whether they should be worshiped. At least some atheists have looked forward to a post-atheist age, pointing out that atheism itself would cease to exist if there were no religious views for it to react against. That being said, however, doesn't this imply that you are wrong to equate evolutionary (whether cosmic, geological, or biological) ideas with "atheism?" Evolution is an idea about the diversity and complexity of life; it is not an idea about the Bible or prayer or God.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: Those who never heard.

Tue, 9 Feb 2016 14:43:51 +0000

Ray, according to your own oft-expressed theology: [1] Everyone since Adam and Eve is born with a "sin nature" that makes it impossible for them not to sin. This in itself is hard to square simultaneously with the propositions that God is omnipotent and that He desires that all shall be saved (since the first implies that He could cause Adam's descendants to be born without a sin nature and the second implies that He would if He could), but the point for purposes of this discussion is that everyone will be damned who is not saved by Jesus' sacrifice. [2a] God has determined to extend the saving message of the gospel through the mechanism of preaching by fallible, foolish-seeming men (this was the point of your previous post). All people (excepting those who are not accountable by reason of tender years or feeble minds) will be damned who do not accept the gospel, repent, and convert. [2b] Strictly speaking, the above does not rule out the possibility that God will also use some other mechanism to extend the gospel message to places that missionaries have not reached. You should probably address this point in more detail. [3] Putting aside the admittedly important caveat in 2b, this means that all who have not heard of Jesus will be damned, which is pretty much equivalent to saying that they will be damned because they haven't heard of Jesus. Considering, again, that an omnipotent God could raise up prophets and apostles in the interior of Papua New Guinea or the Andes in the first century as easily as He could in Jerusalem or Antioch, this rather raises the question of why He didn't. The existence of obvious problems and contradictions within a message (e.g. the above-noted juxtaposition of the propositions that God desires that all be saved, that God could make it easier for all to be saved, and that God has not made it easier for all to be saved) raises questions of whether the message is true. It is unreasonable to ask us to put aside questions of whether your message makes sense and just accept it before we worry about the problems inherent in it.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: If I were God...

Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:23:06 +0000

Shortly before the Super Bowl, a self-proclaimed prophet named Rick Joyner declared that if the Panthers won, it would usher in a great spiritual revival in the United States. A large fraction of the people who were aware of this prophecy thought it was foolish; does this give any reason to suppose that it was actually a message from God? To reason from Paul's assertion in 1 Corinthians (which referred to his unfashionable method more than to the vessel that delivered it) to the conclusion that you are actually speaking for God just because a lot of people think you're foolish is to affirm the consequent, a formal logical fallacy (which just makes you look foolish, of course, which does not establish that you actually speak for God). Also, just because Clint Barton, in Avengers: Age of Ultron, notes that it's kind of silly to be fighting the robot apocalypse with a bow and arrow, that doesn't mean it stops being kind of silly. By the same token, when Paul notes that many people find his message foolish, Paul doesn't actually prove that it is in fact wise and true.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: Better off.

Sat, 6 Feb 2016 04:03:01 +0000

Hebrews speaks of a "raging fire that will consume the enemies of God;" in chapter 10, a few verses before the one about how fearful it is to fall into God's hands. That might be a reference to Hell, as traditionally conceived, but that which is consumed ceases to exist. Even in Hebrews, there is no clear teaching of eternal conscious torment. It seems to me something of a stretch to assume that if Paul alludes to one phrase or passage in Isaiah (especially if he expands on it), that he means to imply every other phrase in its vicinity, but perhaps he did mean to do so. I note that "enduring states" are not necessarily "eternal states," and that being "put to shame" does not mean quite the same thing as "tossed into eternal hellfire without hope of reprieve or even of cessation of existence. One might be put to shame and then be obliterated; one might even be forgiven, eventually. I still think you are reading more into the text than the text in fact says.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: Better off.

Sat, 6 Feb 2016 03:55:15 +0000

So much, I suppose, for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: Native Indians.

Fri, 5 Feb 2016 14:18:02 +0000

I know little of Native American pre-Columbian religions, and what I do know is mainly about the Mesoamerican and Andean cultures, with cities and polytheistic pantheons analogous to those of, say, ancient Mesopotamia or Greece. But I'm pretty sure that [a] different cultures believed in different gods and [b] that would in most cases be "gods," plural, an assortment of departmental deities and local nature spirits. Many, certainly, believed in some sort of creator deity, who might be remote from his creation and unimportant to normal religious life (though he would give Christian missionaries somewhere to start in introducing their own ideas about the Creator and His son). And of course they already had names for the various beings they worshiped or propitiated or credited with creating the world.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: He opens our eyes.

Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:23:00 +0000

Apparently, you see no need for God to force people (in the sense of punishing them if they do not) to submit to Him in worship. After all, you offer no justification for this, no benefit to God from our worship (or, conversely, any benefit to us); you simply repeat the claim that He does behave this way, for some reason.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: Better off.

Thu, 4 Feb 2016 03:46:47 +0000

(1) Timothy is mentioned as a fellow Christian of the author and his audience. I was unaware that the apostle Paul was the only other Christian that Timothy knew or ever traveled with. (2) Point taken, and it was not the only early compilation of scripture to do so. (3) But it has often been noted that the vocabulary and phrasing are not Paul's. For that matter, it differs from all of Paul's epistles (as well as epistles claiming to be Pauline, whose authorship is disputed by modern scholars) in that it does not identify its author at all. That is not a small matter. (4) Eusebius noted that the church in Rome, and some others, disputed the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, which would suggest that he was well after the first person to question whether Paul wrote this book that does not bear his name or claim his authorship. Clement, early in the second century, noted the completely un-Pauline style of the text but argued that this is because Paul originally wrote it in Hebrew and someone else translated it into Greek -- a possibility, I suppose, but the differences are equally compatible with the idea that it was originally written in Greek, but by someone who was not Paul. You and I hold somewhat different standards of what is reasonable.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: Wisdom teeth.

Wed, 3 Feb 2016 02:20:17 +0000

Okay, so we're dealing with a protein that is normally present in the brain, not an infectious foreign agent. Note that the protein is functional; the brain needs it. Presumably the GULO pseudogene, once it arose through mutation, could spread through the population because the GULO gene was no longer needed (since the mutation spread through populations that got their vitamin C from fruit in their diet, and didn't need to make it themselves). In such circumstances, mutations to the GULO gene are not very strongly favored by selection (though mutations that render one unable to make it might actually be slightly favored, since one saves energy and resources for other functions rather than using them to make a GULO enzyme that is not needed. There is no reason to suppose that any particular gene-disabling mutation is favored in preference to any other. But -- here is the point -- there is plenty of reason to suppose that a given way of modifying a functional, necessary gene (as opposed to an unnecessary gene or pseudogene) might be favored by natural selection in two different lineages (e.g. there are distantly related fish that have identically-altered proteins to produce antifreeze in their blood). It is, admittedly, quite unclear what sort of selective pressure would favor a protein in humans, chimps, and gorillas (but not orangutans) converging on the same modification as occurred in some bovid species, but it is much more plausible than natural selection causing a similar convergence in genetic sequences (like the GULO pseudogene) that should not be under selection at all. Regarding your claim about dating fossils, it presumes that [a] radiometric dating of adjacent layers is completely impossible and [b] that, e.g. scientists could suddenly, after a century or so of regarding it as Precambrian, decide that the Canadian shield is really Neogene in age. I think geologists might protest.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: Better off.

Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:56:12 +0000

I point out, again, that Paul's writings, Romans included, don't put much emphasis on the horrors of falling into the hands of the living God (true, he does warn the Corinthians that those who exclude the poor from the Lord's supper and keep all the food and drink to themselves may be punished -- in this life, with sickness or even death; he makes no mention of Hell). In general, the harshness of God's perfect justice is not really one of Paul's central points. And I point out, again, that under your theology (that we are fallen creations born rebellious and alienated from God due to a curse placed on us due to the sins of our distant ancestors), God created us to be His enemies. On the other hand, being infinitely powerful and immutable, it's not as though He has anything to fear from enemies. All this suggests that "infinite holiness and justice" is just a phrase that applies to anything you claim God chooses to do: it's good because God does it, and not for any other reason. And technically, given Paul's repeated injunctions to refrain from fornication, greed, and slander and his recommendations for charity and helpfulness, aren't Christians supposed to be better than non-Christians?

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: Why was the Law given?

Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:47:46 +0000

On your own view, the law was given some fourteen centuries before the cross, which seems a bit inconvenient for all those generations of Jews it was supposedly pointing to the cross. Even on the view that the law originated centuries later and in stages, several centuries elapse between the completion of the Torah shortly after the end of the Babylonian exile and the ministry of Jesus. Yes, a thousand years in God's eyes may be as a single day, but in human eyes (cf. "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath") it's quite a few generations being born and dying, having no chance to do what the law was supposed to impel them to do. I was going to point out that, again on your own telling, God seems to have neglected to raise up prophets and provide the Law to any of the other thousands of ethnic groups and nations on the Earth during Old Testament times. But on the one hand, I suppose if He could make the Jews wait a millennium and a half after He pointed them to the cross, He could just delay pointing the Gentiles to the cross until there was actually a cross to point them to. And on the other hand, most nations seem to have had a moral law with principles broadly similar to those of the Mosaic code (only sometimes with fewer commands to massacre neighboring populations and make sex slaves out of their virgin daughters). Confucius, for example, famously advised not to do to others that which you would find hateful if done to yourself. This raises the question of whether the specific Law you refer to is even necessary or particularly useful for what you claim is its primary purpose (it seems to me that its primary purpose seemed, to the Old Testament writers, to be providing a way to live here and now, or there and then, not merely pointing to some future Savior)

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: Headline warning.

Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:20:21 +0000

Surely the question is whether the scriptures Ray extols are actually the word of the Lord (and to some extent whether his interpretation of them is the right one). Ray is simultaneously providing us with one explanation of how we came to have a conscience, and on the other hand urging us to override that conscience with a set of rules that, themselves, the conscience apparently does not provide for us.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: Headline warning.

Sat, 30 Jan 2016 04:35:15 +0000

I was thinking the New Testament, of course. I don't think the Psalms or prophets really make clear that, e.g. lusting after a woman in secret is the same as adultery. But in Exodus 23 there is a command to, if you find your enemy's livestock wandering around off his property, you should return it to him. That is interesting, at least: it indicates a respect for property rights going beyond simply not stealing from people, and it applies even to people you don't regard as neighbors. I'm not sure this implies in any way that "hate is the same as murder;" merely hating my enemy is unlikely to do much to worsen his health, whereas not returning his donkey leaves him out a donkey as much as if I'd actually stolen it. But it does suggest going beyond the narrowest and most literal reading of the prohibitions contained in the law. But that is not what Ray was arguing.

http://onthebox.us/ : Words of Comfort: “How do I share the Gospel with a Jew?”

Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:46:30 +0000

It does not seem to me that Peter's sermon on Pentecost followed, very closely, the formula you prescribed; if he actually went through the law and demonstrated to the people that, given his own definitions of of "adultery," "murder," and "idolatry" they were all guilty and needed to repent, the author of Acts does not record this part of the sermon. For that matter, your methodology does not seem to be particularly evident in the conversion of Paul, who credits hi conversion to a vision of Christ that he received. Now, I realize that you're not speaking to me, but to people who assume, for some reason, that the Bible says, not what it actually says, but what you imagine it to say, but your argument might flounder if they actually decided to embrace the scriptures rather than what you say about the scriptures. It also seems to me that your method runs into a problem. If a Jew actually embraces the scripture, he's going to embrace a Jewish understanding of it, and be left unconvinced by your exposition of the law. If he professes a form of godliness but does not embrace the scriptures, he's not likely to be persuaded by references to a set of tribal rules from the early iron age, many of whose prescriptions he finds outmoded and abhorrent (and of course he's not going to see why he should accept your interpretation of Jesus' interpretation of what those rules really mean). I was going to ask if your methods had worked on Jews any time since the first century (assuming for the sake of argument that they actually worked then). But of course you will cite your own case, although you do not seem, on your own telling, to have professed godliness before your conversion nor do you seem, now, terribly familiar with Jewish ways of thinking about the scriptures.