09
Oct
2016
The Trial Is Over
I was listening to Vernon McGee and he said something interesting, which I will paraphrase:
Contrary to the opinion of many non-believers, the gospel’s message is NOT: “You are about to go on trial.” Rather, the gospel’s message is, “You are already convicted and in prison, waiting for your execution, and you are offered a full pardon. Do you want it?”
Zactly right, Bob. Here is a series of questions based on the New Covenant that Bob George used to ask callers on his radio program that were confused about sin, salvation, and forgiveness – especially those that misunderstood 1 John 1:9 as a verse about needing to confess your sins to get forgiven.
Have your sins been judged? YES
How many of them? ALL OF THEM
Where were they judged? AT THE CROSS
What was the verdict? GUILTY
What was the punishment? DEATH
Who took it? JESUS
How much of it? ALL OF IT
How much is left for you? NONE
If there was any further forgiveness to be executed on your or my behalf, what would Christ have to do again? DIE AGAIN.
Is He going to come back and shed His blood again? NO, HE WILL COME BACK A SECOND TIME WITHOUT REFERENCE TO SIN.
I’m not so keen on a justice system that judges me thousands of years before I was born.
I didn’t agree to that.
So we have to start all over again on a new justice system every time someone is born? Or you wait until you are an adult to agree to various laws, etc.? Seems kind of silly, don’t you think? We don’t expect that on a physical level – why should it be different on a spiritual one? This goes back to Romans 9:20. No criminal likes the justice system that judges him.
There are all kinds of things that exist that we didn’t agree to. But how can you possibly argue against a justice system, as you call it, that rightfully finds you guilty – with a penalty of death – and yet the Judge has paid your penalty for you? Shouldn’t your reaction be thanksgiving rather than objection?
“rightfully finds you guilty”
Any legal system that “rightfully” finds people guilty for existing, is wrong.
Not aware of that one.
Who cares what you did or did not agree to? I would think that, as you are unable to create a universe, you would be a realist to accept the judgment of one who did create a universe as to how things work.
Mark’s remarks are spot on: this is just “Wah! I don’t want to clean my room!” done on a cosmic scale.
Can always count on Gene to treat posters here like little children.
Such class.
/s
There is a difference between accepting the belief that a God created the universe, and accepting a particular story of the Bible, or any other particular belief such as the creator enforcing its own judgment on us rather than humans judging themselves from a radical cosmic libertarian standard.
“There is a difference between accepting the belief that a God created the universe, and accepting a particular story of the Bible…”
This is absolutely true, Major. But it does not back Tel’s complaint at all. Because there are two basic possibilities (shades of gray are possible, but they don’t really modify this analysis):
1) The Bible IS, in fact, the revealed word of the creator. In that case, my “who cares?” applies. Who is Tel to judge a being who can create a universe?
2) The Bible is NOT in fact the revealed word of the creator. In that case, the problem is that it makes false claims, not that Tel did not agree to its claims.
It’s an awful analogy too. If I had a child who didn’t want to clean their room, I couldn’t just give any judgement I wanted on them. Some (if not all) punishments would be unethical. I think there’s some good arguments for God being just, but the argument that you must accept any judgement is silly.
[Ludicrous claims about another commenter deleted by RPM.]
Regarding the “ludicrous claims”, I was making a joke, which is exactly what Gene claimed to have done quite a while after he made the joke referenced in my post. I made it purposely obvious in the post that it wasn’t true by saying things like “I heard” and “extremely” if I recall correctly – I won’t post what I said again out of respect for RPM’s choice here.
I don’t think threatening to sue other people and engaging in doxxing-like tactics is okay. Ironically, MF could say he was “joking”, and then threaten to sue Gene under the logic Gene used (Gene made a claim about MF which MF could claim was false because it was a joke, thus hurting his reputation).
“I was making a joke, which is exactly what Gene claimed to have done quite a while after he made the joke referenced in my post.”
A said that “quite a while” after making the post, and also IMMEDIATELY after making the post. The fact it was a joke was obvious to anyone but a three-year-old. Look, when you need to repeatedly be hired as a teacher, it is NO JOKE if your potential employers find repeated online references to “Gene threatened to kill me.” I threatened to sue, and… lo and behold! Major stopped his nonsense claims. Mission accomplished.
And by the way, I support Jill Stein for president. You can search my blog for my endorsement.
“A said that “quite a while” after making the post, and also IMMEDIATELY after making the post.”
Show me where then. MF said he believed it was true in that thread, I did not see you say otherwise in the thread: http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/07/law-and-knowledge.html#comment-21221
Your only comment on it was that it was “a bit provocative” as far as I can see. I think you’re lying, Gene, but I’ll happily admit I’m wrong if you point to the post.
“Look, when you need to repeatedly be hired as a teacher, it is NO JOKE if your potential employers find repeated online references to “Gene threatened to kill me.””
Where did MF say this, anyway? I can only find “murder advocate” and the like. In any case, it wasn’t libel, which is what you threatened to sue for, as I pointed out previously.
You know what looks pretty bad to employers? Demanding contact information online so that you can sue someone. Not some random internet commenter claiming that you threatened to kill them, which I can’t find evidence of anyway (it doesn’t come up in a Google search). Did Bob delete the comments?
To hope fully kill this nonsense off, what I originally said was something like “I’m not in favor of the death penalty (although in Major’s case I’d make an exception)”
This could be seriously regarded as a THREAT only if:
1) I was a trial judge in a state with the death penaly;
2) I was hearing Major’s trial; and
3) He had been brought up on capital charges.
Since I am NOT a trial judge, and Major has NOT been brought up on any capital charges… it was obvious to anyone above the age of 3 that this was a joke. I have no ability whatsoever to apply the death penalty to anyone!
Even Major knew it was a joke. But he just wanted to continually smear me, so for years and years after my comment he repeatedly claimed I had “threatened to kill him.”
I never said you didn’t support a an extreme woo candidate who wants to ban pesticides or that you supported Trump. The original comment on that was deleted by Bob though, so I won’t repeat the claim I did make.
“To hope fully kill this nonsense off, what I originally said was something like “I’m not in favor of the death penalty (although in Major’s case I’d make an exception)””
“This could be seriously regarded as a THREAT only if:
1) I was a trial judge in a state with the death penaly;”
Killing heretics was not done by judges, and wasn’t always ordered by judges.
“2) I was hearing Major’s trial; and”
Again, judges have nothing to do with this.
“3) He had been brought up on capital charges.”
Lol, what? You said you were in favor of burning him for being a heretic, not for killing someone. I literally just posted the comment, don’t lie about this.
I read it as a joke, but wasn’t completely unreasonable to seriously think you were in favor of violence against MF. Especially after your further comments, such as wanting to drive him out of “cowardly anonymity”.
Edit to the above: Or doing anything else that warranted “capital charges” under the current system. You were declaring MF already to be guilty. Capital charges are irrelevant, as are judges here.
Just to reiterate how incredible your response was, your original comment was:
“I’m willing to make an exception in the case of Major Freedom [for burning heretics being okay]”
Your response was that you aren’t a trial judge and MF isn’t on trial for capital offenses.
I claimed I said “something like that”: that is not a lie. Frankly, I was just making a little gag, and I hardly remember what I said, only that it was LIKE that. My point stands: I am in any position to put anyone on trial for heresy? No, I am NOT. So it was obviously a joke.
Ok, Reece, I am not an Inquisitor, and Major is not on trial for heresy. Does that now satisfy you, imbecile?
In fact, Reece, now that you have brought back to my mind what I originally said, I have to thank you for making my point EVEN MORE STRONGLY: The US actually has the death penalty for capital crimes. So there is the vaguest possibility that just somehow I MIGHT have been trying to get the Major brought up on capital charges.
But are you privy to any actual cases in US history where someone was tried for heresy, and then burned at the stake? So your bringing up the actual content of my quip only makes the case MORE STRONGLY that this was obviously a joke. Imbecile.
Unfortunately, I included two links in one comment, so it is awaiting approval. In the meantime, I’ll point out that you lack basic knowledge about history. People burned for heresy were often not given any trial, nor did any Inquisitor find them guilty of anything. They were often burned by mobs.
Look at the list on Wikipedia, and click on some of them. The first link, on who may have been the first person burned as a heretic:
“[A]n angry mob (unclear whether or not it was, in fact, priest, the locals of Cambrai, or even both) seized Ramihrdus from where he was being kept in a hut… and burned him as a heretic. It is possible, therefore, to consider him the first person burned as a heretic, and to have died as a martyr, in Europe.”
The second link:
“Peter of Bruys… was a popular French religious teacher, who is called a heresiarch (leader of a heretical movement) by the Roman Catholic Church because he criticized infant baptism… An angry mob killed him in or around the year 1131.”
The third person was found guilty by an Inquisitor, and the fourth person has no easy to find information.
The point is pretty clear. A significant number were not given a trial nor were they found guilty by an Inquisitor. And you gave no mention of a trial, you simply stated that you would make an exception for MF.
No, you’re missing the point. I don’t think anybody, including MF, thought you were seriously going to burn someone alive, although I don’t see why you keep bringing up a trial.
The point is that it could be reasonably interpreted as a threat. If I yell “I’m going to kill you” at someone, the person probably won’t think that’s what I’m going to do. They probably think I’m going to attempt to beat them up. There are some more graphic threats that people say that they are obviously not going to do. It isn’t the exact threat that you make, but the fact that you’re making a threat that is the problem. And this could easily be interpreted as a threat, which leads us to the problem.
So again Reece, thank you for bringing up my actual joke, because what I recalled could remotely be taken seriously.
An actual “death threat” against the Major would have been, “I’m going to find out where you live, and come shoot you.”
To interpret what I said as a “threat,” one would have to think:
1) Gene first plans on re-establishing the dominance of the Catholic Church in the west.
2) Gene second plans on re-establishing the Inquisition as an institution within the Catholic Church.
3) Gene third plans on re-establishing a secular death penalty for heresy. (Because the Inquisition never sentences anyone to death.)
4) Gene finally plans to get the Major charged with heresy.
Would a ludicrous way of “threatening” someone! Yes, I threaten you with death, by a method in which I am first going to have to change the entire direction of Western Civilization, just so I can get at you!
The funny thing is that you’re now implying that it could be interpreted as a threat *if you could enact it*. But every single one of your excuses involves judges or the church or the Inquisition or the death penalty or trials – none of which are necessary for burning heretics. I specifically posted cases where this was not the case, including what may have been the first case. Regular people often killed heretics. And posting a threat does not mean that is exactly how you’re going to hurt a person.
Your comment is also completely lacking in history, even ignoring that you don’t understand people were often killed by mobs. Not everyone who was burned as a heretic was given a trial (for example, Fra Dolcino’s case was just decided by the Bishop, the Inquisition, and some other important people). Nor was there an Inquisition for every case (like Patrick Hamilton from Scotland). But that doesn’t really matter here.
“You know what looks pretty bad to employers? Demanding contact information online so that you can sue someone.”
Oh, wow, Reece, I stand corrected! I have suddenly realized that NO corporation has EVER threatened someone with a lawsuit to protect its reputation! What an idiot I was to think that corporations might see such behavior as a tremendous plus!
Corporations sue for actual libel sometimes. They don’t first post a joke about burning someone as a heretic, then threaten to sue the person who takes that seriously, and finally say that they will drive them out of their cowardly anonymity, while posting lies about it (such as claiming they said it was a joke immediately afterward and saying that they thought the joke was something drastically different even after being informed otherwise). They would also generally include evidence of the person saying what the corporation claimed they said.
In other words, they wouldn’t act remotely like you.
““[A]n angry mob (unclear whether or not it was, in fact, priest, the locals of Cambrai, or even both) seized Ramihrdus from where he was being kept in a hut… and burned him as a heretic…”
Ah, now I get it, Reece! My actual threat was that I would rouse an angry mob of current US residents who would be willing to burn the Major at the stake for heresy! Because, you know, such mobs are a dime a dozen in the US today, and heresy burnings by such mobs happen all the time!
How are you this bad at this?
– You don’t need a mob to burn someone.
– A threat often involves things that you won’t literally do. Most graphic threats include harsh things that won’t happen (“I’ll rip you apart!”). It obviously doesn’t mean it isn’t a threat.
– You just spent several comments rambling on about judges and Inquisitions. Now that you finally learned that your understanding of history was hilariously inaccurate, you decided to completely forget your earlier statements, all of which only required meeting the judgment for death. It never required the actual executioners (the first example only involved you being a judge), because obviously anyone can carry out the execution. Now that you realized that a judgment isn’t necessary, you moved the goalpost.
Let me explain a threat, Reece: IMAGINE that I said, “I hope one day to meet you face-to-face, so that I can punch you for calling me a liar.” THAT would be a threat. You see how threats work?
“Now that you finally learned that your understanding of history was hilariously inaccurate…”
Right, because until you pointed it out to me, I never knew that mobs sometimes kill people! Imbecile.
Gene, before you said a few times what was necessary for what you said to be considered a threat. For example:
“To interpret what I said as a “threat,” one would have to think:”
Your requirements included things like establishing the catholic church as the major religion, bringing back the Inquisition, bringing MF on trial, etc.
If I said that it was necessary for me to have a bike to go the store, and someone pointed out that I could drive or walk or use a skateboard or whatever, then I clearly would have been wrong.
Furthermore, imagine if I had said that I don’t ever leave the house, but I’m willing to make an exception for the store. If I later claimed that the only way people could take it seriously in the sense of me threatening to go to the store is if I had a bike, then clearly I would be suggesting that it would be reasonable to think I was threatening to go to the store if I could get to the store.
That requirement has been met. Now you’re just moving the goalposts.
Also, I get why that paragraph of the comment was deleted, since the first sentence of it was antagonizing and could possibly be misunderstood without the context, but I’m not a fan of having deleted comments being called ludicrous since it’s completely one-sided at that point.
” I’ll point out that you lack basic knowledge about history.”
Right, imbecile: how many scholarly publications have you had on historical topics?
None. And yet I haven’t made numerous historical inaccuracies in this thread. You have.
Since you’ve randomly moved the thread here, and my other post hasn’t been approved, I’ll split it up:
Link 1: https://postimg.org/image/qskwx9ff3/
Image 1: Gene reads a response that shows he did not declare it to be a joke in that thread. He then says that it was after many, many times that he declared it to be a joke.
Image 2: Gene claims that he said it was a joke “IMMEDIATELY” after he made the joke.
Link 2: https://postimg.org/image/q40zzg89d/
Image 1: Gene’s original statement.
Image 2: Gene says he thinks the original claim was about capital punishment. A commenter corrects him, which he replies to
Image 3: Gene again says he thinks the original claim was about capital punishment
Two of the cases here where you seem to be lying. Ironically, you threatened to sue MF and “drive” him out of his “cowardly anonymity” because he was making false claims that could hurt your reputation. Well, here you are making false claims that could hurt his reputation (and mine, for that matter). How do you think that is okay?
“And yet I haven’t made numerous historical inaccuracies in this thread”
Nor have I. You just jumped from “Gene mentioned the Inquisition” to “Gene therefore thinks the only possible way someone could be killed for heresy was through the Inquisition.” Like an… imbecile!
No, Gene, that is not what I said. I see you did not respond to your other problems with honesty either.
You listed the Inquisition as a *requirement* for your “threat” to be taken as a threat, along with other things. I pointed out that it was unnecessary, and then you again listed off unnecessary requirements, none of which were necessary.
Also, please don’t put your false interpretations (or even what you think are correct interpretations) of what I said in quotes. It’s misleading, and makes it look like those are actual quotes from me.
If Reece and Gene say, “We are going to continue this discussion,” I think that constitutes a threat to the rest of us.
What if I say, “I don’t support continuing conversations, but I’m willing to make an exception in the case of this conversation with Gene.” Only an imbecile could think that could be interpreted as a threat to continue the conversation!
Often, the posters here ARE like little children. Then how else should they be treated?!
“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus”
“you would be a realist to accept the judgment of one who did create a universe as to how things work.”
A realist would accept the fact that human minds are not structured to know the Mind of God, or the way God’s morality works.
How would a realist know that?
Because there are truths about reality that humans do not know.
The Mind of God includes the sum total of all truths of reality.
Or, “it takes one to know one.”
Right. So stop complaining about it, as Tel did!
And because you reject his Messenger you will burn in eternal fire. You accept, of course, this judgment of Allah?
I guess once you have used the argument “Who cares what you think, just suck it up,” you then have nothing else to say when everyone else uses the exact same argument.
Some terrorist bomber grabs a pressure cooker and a bag of roofing nails; he doesn’t have to worry what you think either, he’s gonna get virgins, it’s all good. If you don’t like it, then “Wah!”
By the standards you have just put forward, all actions that happen in this universe must be equally OK. Don’t expect help from God on that, after all He allowed it to happen. I personally don’t much like your standards of judgement, but God seems pretty happy to allow me to ignore your opinion when it suits me… which I certainly intend to do.
Not a whole lot you can do about that either.
What a stupid response! I’m saying “Who cares what you think?” about the designs of THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. Your response is that therefore no one is entitled to care what anyone thinks about anything. What an imbecile!
Does the Creator of the universe want you calling His children “imbecile” Gene?
Yes! It can be a wake up call!
Of course, Tel is not inherently an imbecile. None of us are. (But each of us is always capable of taking on the role of imbecile.) I’ve seen his posts here, and often he is very clever. But in this case…
Carrots and sticks are both necessary. You like carrots…
Think of Jeremiah: did he always say only nice, pleasant things about the Israelites? Sometimes, you have to be cruel to be kind.
Jeremiah called both Israel and Judah “harlots”: hardly a “nice” thing to say about any person, let alone two whole nations. Yet did the creator of the universe approve of him saying this? Apparently so!
Gene, I might have somehow got the impression, that you perceive a significant overlap between your own opinion and God’s designs.
Fair enough that you have now clarified no such overlap exists, so I’ll just make sure to also clarify that it is your opinion that I feel free to ignore, and should God ever sit down in my lounge room, and explain the design of the universe that would be an entirely distinct matter.
In the meantime, I still didn’t agree to any system of justice that has already judged me before I was even born, and I’m not planning on doing that anytime soon, because it confounds the sense of justice that the creator of the universe appears to have entrusted me with.
Fair enough that you have now clarified no such overlap exists, so I’ll just make sure to also clarify that it is your opinion that I feel free to ignore, and should God ever sit down in my lounge room, and explain the design of the universe that would be an entirely distinct matter.
What if He wrote a book? He has a lot to say, not sure a single conversation in your lounge would cover it all.
You still have not explained your rejection of His teachings, as revealed in the Koran.
1) To God, time is not the same. He knows what you “will” do anyway.
2) You don’t have to agree. You can simply be damned.
3) You are not guilty for existing, you are guilty for the sins you will undoubtedly commit whilst existing.
This is how I would interpret it if I believed God existed.
Are these religious posts purely for your own record, or do you seek responses? Positive or negative?
I recall something about a trial after the Son of Man comes in glory. Is McGee saying that Jesus lied in Matthew 25? That’s an awfully harsh judgment on the Gospels.
The separation of the nations in Matthew 25 has nothing to do with the sin issue. That was dealt with once and for all at the cross two thousand years ago.
So Jesus was just kidding when he gave us the beatitudes? Or are you saying only some nations follow the beatitudes, as nations, and all the others go to hell? In that case, no individual is offered the choice stated by McGee. How convoluted (and wildly unchristian) can we make this?
You need to understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants. Jesus taught under the Law (while proclaiming the coming New Covenant.) No one is saved by keeping the Law, the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, or anything else. And Jesus doesn’t save groups whether you think in terms of nations, denominations, whatever. He only saves individuals.
You just distinguished between the Old and the New, and then lumped the Beatitudes with the Commandments!
Right. Read a few more sentences and you will find where Jesus explains why no one can follows law. Simply calling someone names makes you run afoul of the “Thou shalt not kill” one.
That’s why I pointed out that Jesus taught under the Law. Both the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes were prior to the New Covenant – that started at Jesus’ death (not with the Gospels.) I was just pointing out that anything that people use (the Ten Commandments being the most commonly used, I’m sure) that makes you acceptable to God is baloney. Any commandments that Jesus gave (e.g., “you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” Matthew 5:48) were not given in the expectation that we could keep them or live by them, but to bury us. To show us that we are incapable of keeping them. Otherwise Jesus could have stayed home. Why humble himself by becoming a man and then be crucified for our sins? It’s why Paul said,
“…no one is justified by the Law…For if a law had been given which was able to impart life [that’s the issue – we are spiritually dead], then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin…Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” Gal. 3:11, 21-25
So we have to start all over again on a new justice system every time someone is born? Or you wait until you are an adult to agree to various laws, etc.? Seems kind of silly, don’t you think? We don’t expect that on a physical level – why should it be different on a spiritual one? This goes back to Romans 9:20. No criminal likes the justice system that judges him.
There are all kinds of things that exist that we didn’t agree to. But how can you possibly argue against a justice system, as you call it, that rightfully finds you guilty – with a penalty of death – and yet the Judge has paid your penalty for you? Shouldn’t your reaction be thanksgiving rather than objection?
Sorry – I posted this as a reply Khodge, when it was meant for Tel. I’ll reply to the correct poster, as well.
That’s why we end up with democracy. Because when those “criminals” are in the majority and the “judges” are in the minority then what happens is a new system comes along and sets it straight again. God seems to approve, or at least has yet to show any obvious disapproval.
But wait. That would imply that justice is an agreement among men.
I agree that is the gospel’s message. It is so helpful when believers put the case against themselves so forthrightly, it saves me the time. You are stipulating your god is unjust.
What church teaches that it is a *full* pardon, rather than something like getting a death sentence reduced to parole with community service, conditional on admission of guilt?
Is there any church which teaches that I can just say “I accept the pardon” and then go on with my life, never giving another thought to God, Jesus or the Bible?
Is there any church which teaches that I can just say “I accept the pardon.” and then go on with my life with no obligation to admit guilt or give any further thought to God, Jesus or the Bible? That’s what a pardon is.
Every church I know of teaches that it is less like a pardon and much more plea bargaining to get a death sentence reduced to parole with community service and fines, conditional on admission of guilt.
Yes, that’s the deal. Full pardon. “Go and sin no more” is the target. You aren’t expected to be sinless the rest of your life, merely repentant when you inevitably miss the mark.
Interestingly, your namesake, James, explains what you are having troubles with. When he says, “Faith without works is dead”, he’s not saying that works are required, rather that if you really are repentant you will leave good works in your wake, much like you leave footprints if you traverse a field of new snow.
That does not answer James’ question.
The correct answer is: “yes, to one degree or another, there are some – not all – Protestant denominations that make that claim.”
Prior to the revolution the answer was: “No.”
That does not answer James’ question.
The correct answer is: “yes, to one degree or another, there are some – not all – Protestant denominations that make that claim.”
Prior to the revolution the answer was: “No.”
Watch out for those denominations. (I don’t know of one, but I’m not familiar with all sects, either)
Such an interpretation is probably possible only if you take Pauline epistles as the final word, and even then if you ignore the parts where Paul talks about renewal of the soul. But, yeah, some of the Pauline doctrine is easy to get wrong.
James, the pardon applies to sins already committed. Once you accept it, your sins are as far removed from you as the east is from the west, and God remembers them no more.
After your very next sin (like the fleeting thought that some woman not your wife is hawt), you are offered a new pardon. Same terms.
Then why wouldn’t someone just wait until the end of their life to accept the pardon? That way they do whatever sins they want to for their whole life, and then they die and go to heaven?
Two reasons:
1. That’s a super risky and lousy bet, since no one knows the exact time of their death, the possible upside is a relatively infinitesimally small period of behavior which oftentimes isn’t very fulfilling anyway, and the possible downside is eternal damnation.
2. There are many biblical references to rewards for behavior that come in the afterlife, beyond black-and-white unmerited salvation.
Poppies is right, though for me, it’s more like why I don’t drink as much as I did in college. Just not how I prefer to spend my present.
Bob has gone over the thing about God’s world, God’s rules before, so I won’t belabor it, even if I don’t understand the rationale behind the rules. The system as Jesus presents it is sufficiently anarcho-capitalist I have no real problems aspiring to live that way.