5' 10” hamson neb

just Harry

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@niceanRick @ExaminingMoscow (2/2) The real issue is that many of us Christians - I’m guilty of it - get hard-hearted to the particularly hard teachings of Scripture that inherently invite hostility & disapproval from the culture. Then we get hostile to faithful Christians who preach them without fear.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@niceanRick @ExaminingMoscow Rick is right. Replacing the gospel with politics in preaching is not at all the same as applying the word of God to politics and culture or talking about abortion in a sermon. Paul preached Christ crucified, but he also taught other things. Gospel-centered is not Gospel-only.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@ExaminingMoscow I don’t think @brian_tromburg’s question conflates the two though. Paul calls obedience the “obedience of faith” (Roman 1:5) and states that what matters is only faith “working through love” (Galatians 5:6). They are distinct, but surely obedience necessarily flows from faith.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@Funslinger62 @AndrewLSeidel Yes, but you just shifted the focus from the morality itself to the following of that morality. God’s morality is still objective as a morality because He defines it, even as our following of it is “subjective,” in that we are choosing to follow said objective morality.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@MakiN47550299 @AndrewLSeidel (2) but conversations like these will always end up in the same place I think: what do we ultimately believe about reality? If there is a God, and God has really communicated to us “love your enemies” & “do not envy” etc, then it’d stand regardless of our whim or interpretation.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@MakiN47550299 @AndrewLSeidel Yeah, and I agree with that in part. I think that’s where Andrew makes his best and most thoughtful point. Divine authority applied to human whim makes the whim, whether or good or bad, a matter of must for believers. Human whim may be “safer” in that regard, though I’m not sure.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@Funslinger62 @AndrewLSeidel (2) this applies even in light of human interpretation of God’s communication, say of the Bible or else. All communication depends on interpretation. And there is right interpretation, and there is wrong interpretation. We can’t avoid that.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@Funslinger62 @AndrewLSeidel Yes, but at that point, it depends on what reality actually is. If God doesn’t exist, then it’s all just human whim, & it’s all subjective to humans. But if God does exist, & God has communicated to us, while it is subjective to God, it is still objective to - outside of - us.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@AndrewLSeidel @TonyDLeonardi 100% agree that humans can uniquely leverage the pretense of “divine sanction” to impose their own whims in dangerous ways. But still, human and natural rights are just as susceptible to the whim of their human definers as well as mindless obedience by their human followers.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@AndrewLSeidel @TonyDLeonardi it still doesn’t go tho... the “God-given rights” argument is about the grounds for human rights, not about the nuances of the rights themselves. Of course different people have different nuances; so do atheists. There’s still no objective foundation for human rights w/o God.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@AndrewLSeidel All that said... thanks for replying man. Not wanting to seem antagonistic, just honestly challenging your claims. Stay well and safe ! I’ll read the article too.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@AndrewLSeidel Again, equally applicable to human-given human rights. Beliefs about God and the rights God gives vary, absolutely. But at least one of them may be correct. Human-given human rights are purely subjective and self-defined, so outside the realm of correct or incorrect altogether.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@AndrewLSeidel This is what I’m talking about... “God-given” rights depend on those (human beings) who claim to know and interpret God’s will. Yes. But human-given rights depend on those (human beings) who know and interpret their own will. Different rationale, same variability.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@AndrewLSeidel Yes, I was just responding to the thread. I didn’t think you did. I do need to read the article tho! I agree with your point about “God-given human rights.” All I’m saying is that it’s also true of human-given human rights. Both depend on human definition, interpretation, geo...

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@AndrewLSeidel (4) So, human beings fall into three groups. Those who say human rights (or the lack thereof) are true
1) “because I said so.”
2) “because I said God said so.”
3) “because God said so.”
and so it all falls right back to what we believe about reality and whether we’re right.

[5' 10” hamson neb @deermooseelk]

@AndrewLSeidel (3) Otherwise, we are left to ourselves: human beings defining and redefining our own rights according to our own whims.

[Zombie Lou Bega @ConnerBoof]

The guy with this license plate ran a red light immediately after this photo was taken