Sunday, July 13, 2008

What Absolute Gall!

I just had to post this travesty before calling it a night. To think that anyone would actually try this stunt is beyond me and to think that a judge would actually think there might be merit in this suit is a definite sign that the world is going to hell in a handbag. And some insist that there is no agenda, no attempt to silence Christians, no attacks or wars or attempts at forcing others to accept depravity as normal, good, just like anyone else.

If this goes to trial, I hope the defendants go for broke so that this jerk is exposed for the pathetic ass he is. It'll be more than a little interesting to see how this story progresses and I hope NewsMax stays on top of it.


UPDATE:

I wasn't planning on bringing up this story, but as another display of gall, I felt it apropriate. It's becoming tiresome to hear charges of "hate" anytime someone opposes the homosexual agenda. But part of that agenda is to characterize opposition is such terms. It's unfortunate that some are falling for lies like this.

39 comments:

4simpsons said...

Agreed. Maybe he will just sue God directly.

Or maybe as lawsuits like this come out people will actually read the offending passages in context and realize how spectacularly clear God was in communicating his plan for human sexuality.

Mark said...

Just more Biblical prophecy coming true. Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. These things are becoming commonplace.

John said...

Get used to it, things are only going to get worse. You are living in a time when the easiest way to win your argument is to accuse your opponent of being a -phobe of some sort. And sadly, you belong to one of the few groups (Christians) which is not allowed to use the -phobe suffix against others.

Mark said...

By supporting Gay marriage, McDonalds is endangering their own customer base. What is their customer base? Kids. How are they endangering it? By promoting same sex marriage, which is incapable of producing offspring, so, by supporting same sex marriage, they will inadvertently decrease the number of their best customers.

Often we are our own worst enemy.

Les said...

That's a great point, Mark, because as we all remember, gay men were able to impregnate their boyfriends until stupid gay marriage came along and made them sterile.

Doc said...

Regarding the Bible suit, per the judge's writing:
"The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims."

Efficacy???

Since Marshall loves my pedantic insistence of clear English, I'll begin with a quote from the Princess' Bride. "...that word, I don't think it means what you think it means."
How the claim can be effective? At what? Making it to trial? Getting me (the judge) media face time? (Oh, um, never mind)

It's the Bible, which the last time I checked was a *book*. Can I sue for feeling oppressed because I commit the sin of eating cheese with beef? Can I sue the publishers of The Divine Comedy because of some lusty thoughts, or from being obese? How about at WASP suing the publishers of Gulliver's Travels, given its biting opinion?

If the court decides to take this even remotely seriously (they shouldn't even get that far and throw this one out on its ear) the only option is finding for the defense under the following simple statement:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Frivolous lawsuits made by attention-seeking nitwits, being treated with mock sincerity by even greater attention seeking judges, are the ruination of our society. I'm not sure what kind of a "-phobe" that makes me, but I'll wear that badge proudly.

RE: McDonalds: I would think they'd have more important things to do, what with being the purveyor of gluttonous obesity, and on their way to Dante's third level of hell.

Marshall Art said...

Gee, Les. Your tart response almost sounds as if you see the push for "gay marriage" as a big waste of time, seeing as how it changes nothing for them.

Les said...

Gee, Art. Your tart response almost sounds as if you think a barren woman marrying a man is a big waste of time, seeing as how it changes nothing for them. Why do you devalue the precious institution of marriage so much?

Mark said...

You're right Les. I stand corrected. I should have said McDonalds is supporting Homosexuality. The practice of which cannot produce progeny. Whether "married" or not, McDFonalds seems to be pushing an agenda that could help decrease their main customer base.

Marshall Art said...

Ah, the "barren couple" ploy. Nice try. Children or not, it still represents the ideal for which state sanctioning seeks to attain, something that stands as an example of that ideal for others. At some point in time, that barren couple, or a couple not wanting kids, could change their minds and adopt, providing what kids need and under which they have been shown to thrive best, a mother and a father.

Anonymous said...

Gay marriage and frivolous lawsuits! Oh my..

Part of me feels like I'm reading Gawker.com. Kind of dirty.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

This whole thing brings on a big "Yawn". Even if the lawsuit is "frivolous" (and that's a legal determination, not something we can decide beforehand) - so what? The guy is entitled not only to his opinion, but to waste his own and quite a few other people's time by filing a lawsuit. I fail to see why you are all so upset by this.

Oh, that's right. It's The Bible the guy's attacking. All that "no idol" stuff stops at the cover of this particular book.

I could pee on it, wipe with it, spit on it, rip out pages, scrawl all kind of filthy language across the onion-skin pages of various versions - and I honestly doubt that God would care. If God doesn't care, why do you?

For the record, I disagree with the guy's position; the Bible is pretty much anti-same-sex anything (since marriage between two persons of the same gender was outside the boundaries of their reasoning, it is little surprise there is no condemnation of it in the Bible). But, again, I say - so what? The Bible supports everything from absolute monarchy (including divinely instituted ones), ethnic-cleansing (all those cities the "Children Of Israel" ransacked in the Book of Joshua), slavery, infanticide, and divine retribution (from the Flood to Elisha calling bears out of the mountains to kill a group of children who mocked his appearance). Taken individually, or even collectively, they hardly paint a happy-smiley picture of what it means to believe in this particular God.

Take a few breaths - in through the nose, out through the mouth - drink a cool beverage of your choice, and move on to something important.

Les said...

Ah, the dismissive "ploy" ploy. How fun. Or is it the "moving the goalposts" ploy? It's hard to tell. Either way, I'd like an explanation from you as to why married straight couples with neither the ability nor the desire to have children should even want to get married in the first place. What good does it do them? Why not just shack up together?

Anonymous said...

I have a couple of scripture verses for Geoffrey, but since he does not value the Bible anymore than that last post indicates, it is probably not meaningful to him.
Prov. 17:27-28
He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

The version that is now used by society goes like, if we keep our mouths shut not everyone will know we are fools, so why open them and remove all doubt.
Mom2

Erudite Redneck said...

This is, like, the third time in two days I've dropped the following into a thread about a stupid s--tstorm that seems to be about religion but really is about over nothing:


I don't think any faith that requires "defending" is worth a pitcher of warm communion wine. What I mean is God can take care of God's self. People rushing to defend their "faith" are only rushing to save face and to prop up themselves and the temporal organizations people *have* to erect to keep from going nuts trying to fathom the unfathomable.


(Howdy, MA!)

hashfanatic said...

I think that it's important to remember that marriage equality is still an issue in play, and it is not only fundamentalists that exploit them in the media, and force the issues themselves through tactics like corporate blackmail, boycotts, etc.

An intolerant, hateful strain of atheists and secular humanists have gained strength and power during the Bush years. Most frankly care nothing about gay people...it is the religious they are after.

They aim to destroy the religions themselves, and remove all vestiges of faith from American life and culture. They are intent on having any views that oppose marriage equality, and gays themselves, criminalized as "hate speech", which has already happened in several nations.

I differ with Marshall and Co. on many aspects of the marriage equality debate, and about the gay question in general.

But I don't believe that, if one questions a pro-gay position, it should be censored or punishable. This is America. We are SUPPOSED to be able to disagree with one another freely.

That is the key. "Freedom of religion" means being able to air unpopular points of view, when faith-based arguments and conflicts must be addressed.

The common enemy is the evangelical atheist, who would remove all pertinent references to religious law in public discourse entirely.

If this is allowed, evil only grows stronger, IMHO.

Marshall Art said...

Well twist my neck and call me Screwy! Hash, was that really you? That was downright beautiful and far more on point than either Geoffrey or ER (Howdy back, dude!). That is indeed the point, that this suit is an assault on the free speech rights of another entity, this being the publisher, and by extension, Christianity in general. Kudos, my man.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

This guy is indeed entitled to his opinion AND to waste his own time. He has no such entitlement regarding wasting either the time or money of other people. The judge would be worth his salt if he understood this.

It's a pretty big leap to assume that God wouldn't care how one treats His Word. But you're welcome to take whatever risks you feel compelled to take. Good luck with that.

Just for the record, it's surprising to see one who is betrothed to a minister have such a strange interpretation of Scripture. Well, OK, not so surprising anymore, but...

The Bible supports absolute monarchy? As I recall, God opposed the idea and only granted Israel a king due to the state of their hearts. Not really support, unless you have a different definition of the word.

The Bible supports ethnic cleansing? Have you been talking with Dan? God didn't hand over anyplace that wasn't due for His punishment. You can call it ethnic cleansing if you like. I don't think you'll find too many scholars apart from Spong (I use the word "scholar" here quite loosely) who would agree with your interpretation.

There's definitely no "support" for slavery in the Bible. Keep in mind that slavery in America is a bit different from slavery in other eras of history. I really don't get the infanticide angle. You must be having that cold one right now.

Divine retribution is God's divine right. Take it up with Him. BTW, it is my understanding that those "children" with whom Elisha dealt were not of the toddler variety, but more akin to gang-bangers. But you're free to buy whatever lib version best suits you.

In the end, it seems as if you discard all the uncomfortable parts of the Bible in favor of the more touchy-feely flower child tracts. Saves a lot of reading, I guess, and fits more easily behind the old pocket protector. Good for you.

Marshall Art said...

ER,

I don't believe that whether or not my faith "requires" defending is the point. I don't believe that God needs to spend one nano-second more on any of this existence. It has nothing to do with whether or not one chooses to defend it. What I don't understand is if you feel doing so can't be another form of devotion for at least some of those who do choose to defend it. You've certainly defended your position on Christianity. How is that different or any less goofy? More often than not, I simply think defenders are merely countering the "new" versions that are seen as per-versions and distortions. It's part of spreading the Good News.

Marshall Art said...

Les,

Ah, the dismissive ploy ploy ploy. I'm giddy.

"...I'd like an explanation from you as to why married straight couples with neither the ability nor the desire to have children should even want to get married in the first place."

I dunno. Find such a couple and ask them. In any case, a particular couple's motivation to tie the knot has nothing to do with why the state sanctions only traditional hetero marriages.

Les said...

Ah, the "dismissive ploy ploy ploy" ploy. How - oh, never mind.

Dan Trabue said...

I'd like an explanation from you as to why married straight couples with neither the ability nor the desire to have children should even want to get married in the first place. What good does it do them? Why not just shack up together?

Wow.

Because we value marriage as a good and holy thing in God's eyes?

Because we wish to have reasonable rights with regards to family decisions?

Because having children is not the end all/be all of marriage?

Because it's none of anyone else's dam business why I want to get married?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I discard nothing in the Bible. My point was that the Bible, in the end, is nothing more or less than a book. To the person who recommended verses in the Bible, I can find all sorts of verses that "prove" anything I want to prove, from a geocentric universe to neo-Darwinian evolution; it's all a matter of interpretation.

My point in all I said was simple. This is nothing to get outraged about. It isn't an attack on free speech. It is a stupid lawsuit brought by someone who apparently has more money than brains. If the judge indeed finds the lawsuit to be frivolous - and, again, I stress that is a legal issue to be decided on the merits, or lack thereof - then the person who filed the suit will indeed be charged with court costs.

I fail to understand why people get all huffy about stuff like this. Even were I person who revered the Bible as some kind of holy relic to be touched only when one's hands were clean and thoughts pure I would still be unexcited by this.

This isn't about my view of the Bible. This is about saving one's outrage for something that's important. Even if you and I, Marshall, agree to disagree about many things, I think both of us would agree that there are things worth getting one's blood pressure up for, like an attack on innocent children, or the violation of one's home, or some kind of social injustice. This is nothing more than someone looking for attention, and rewarding them by giving them attention only feeds them.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

"...the Bible, in the end, is nothing more or less than a book."

Hmmm. "A" Bible, perhaps. Not "the" Bible. That is, what it says and teaches. If all that is written within it could be accurately injected, word for word, into our conscious minds, thus eliminating the need for paper and ink, then yes, what you have is "just a book".

But the dude is not concerned with the book. He's suing over the message contained therein. In other words, and as Neil suggests by his comment, the dude's true argument is with Him.

And I agree that one can make the Bible mean anything one chooses to make it mean, but it can obviously be very wrong. I don't believe the Klan has a good case for their interpretations anymore than I believe there's validity to the interpretations of homosexuals and their supporters. I happen to think that poor interpretations, as well as deliberate distortions of Scripture IS worthy of a bit of outrage and certainly worthy of addressing.

But the point of presenting this story is to illustrate just how bad it's getting as regards the push to silence opposition to the homosexual agenda, to show the lengths to which some will go to further it. An example of absolute gall.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Silencing people opposed to the homosexual agenda? That entire phrase is meaningless. No one is being silenced; just surf around the net and check out all the anti-gay things out there. As for a "homosexual agenda", other than ensuring they can't be fired for loving differently, or having their relationships accorded equal status in the eyes of the state (and gay marriage isn't exactly the top item for all same-sex couples), I fail to see what, exactly a "homosexual agenda" would consist of.

As for the difference between "a" Bible and "the" Bible - what exactly do you mean? Is there just one Bible out there, somewhere, that contains the absolute Truth, of which all those copies sitting on bookshelves and in hotel rooms are pale imitations? This is one of those sentences I just don't quite understand.

If that is the case, then what's the big deal with someone taking issue with something written in "a" Bible, or what someone does to "a" Bible.

Help me out here.

Les said...

"Wow."

Uh, Dan? It was a rhetorical question. My point in asking it was to illustrate precisely what you touched on - marriage ain't just about kids.

Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "What I don't understand is if you feel doing so can't be another form of devotion for at least some of those who do choose to defend it."


I suppose it can be.

Re, "You've certainly defended your position on Christianity. How is that different or any less goofy?"

Well, I do defend my position(s) on Christianity -- mainly within the family of Christ. But I see little need to defend Christianity from those who seem to attack it or hold it in disdain. In fact, I see most such defending of Christianity as, well, anti-Christian. It's like defending, say, the Lions Club, or the Elks, or the Optimists -- *that's* what such rushing to "defend" the faith seems to be to me. Attempts to save face. Protect the club. Which can devolve so fast into fighting and war and crusades that we, as a family, to outsiders, should just shit up. Yes, yes, the publisher should file and answer to the lawsuit. Whatever. Wat. Ev. Er. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans, though, actually, unless it *is* an attempt to save face. Or protect a club. But Christianity ain't a club. And it's not my responsibility. or yours, to defend it. Because it needs no defense. And to pretend to defend it is to reduce it *to* a club or worse, a face-saving gesture.

Re, "More often than not, I simply think defenders are merely countering the "new" versions that are seen as per-versions and distortions. It's part of spreading the Good News."

I don't know what to say to that, truthfully. Our faith is not something that is settled, and that, therefore, can be seen as a "version" that requires defense.

Jesus, and our collective faith in Him is the only thing we've ever, ever been able to agree on. And that's enough. The rest is just a damned embarassment, in my opinion.

Erudite Redneck said...

LOL. "shit up" = "shut up." Dnag tpyos@!

Marshall Art said...

ER,

I see defending the faith as a form of, or opportunity to, preach, evangelize, share the Good News. When the faith is attacked, in whatever form that attack takes, it is in effect evangelizing as well, only in the wrong direction. People hear it. A good speaker can persuade most people of anything. So to answer critics is to redirect the attention of the persuadable to the Light. To hear some hack rag on about the faith is like a call from God to respond on His behalf, thereby possibly being His instrument to bring others close enough for Him to finish the job. Face it. If someone grows up without any Christian influence whatsoever, and he meets you, do you not feel any compulsion to at least make him aware? Would you not say to God, "Here I am" and attempt to share His Message? Or do you think all that should be totally left to Him exclusively? To some, there is no discernable difference between religions or spiritual beliefs. Unless you also believe they are all the same, then it wouldn't be as important I suppose. But even if you do feel that way, it is still an opportunity to encourage.

So I don't see responding to these kinds of people as an embarrassment at all except for possibly how it is done.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

"No one is being silenced; just surf around the net and check out all the anti-gay things out there."

I think you are confusing what is with what is hoped for. Just because we are still able to preach the truth about the sin of homosexual behavior doesn't mean that we are guaranteed we will always be able to do so. I'd like to believe it will never get so bad as other countries, where the stupid and freedom robbing "hate speech" laws have restricted when and where such preaching can take place and if it can at all. As for their agenda, just google "After the Ball". I think you'll find all the details of the agenda and see how it is actually being played out. One aspect of the agenda is to demonize those who speak out against their desires and paint them as haters. The Church is a main and an important target. Another is to frame themselves as victims and this is obviously seen in the apple/oranges comparisons of themselves to the struggles of blacks and women. They've obviously made great headway and misguided straight people have been suckered into their nonsense to make things worse.

"As for the difference between "a" Bible and "the" Bible - what exactly do you mean?"

I thought I was clear. Sorry. What I meant to do was draw the distinction for the materials that compose the Bible, which are the same as any other book, and the message found within. The guy in the story is attacking the message and he's doing it by suing the company that publishes the printing of the message. So yeah, throwing a few Bibles on the fire because you ran out of logs and it's sub-zero isn't an expression of hate toward God's Word, but doing so because you don't like what the Word says is. (For the sake of this post and these comments, I'm not concerned with which version of the Bible like NIV vs KJ or Gideon's.) In other words, it's another example of someone trying to silence and/or demonize Christianity because they don't like the implications for themselves.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall, two points about your last comment. First, "the sin of homosexual behavior"? So, it's OK to have romantic inclinations towards those of the same gender, but it is sinful to act on them?

Actually, I know that so many folks believe that our GL brothers and sisters act out of deliberate, conscious choice rather than the internal sense of how and whom one should love. A position I find so silly I can't even make fun of it.

Yes, the Bible is "anti" gay - in Leviticus it calls for the death penalty for a man who has sexual relations with another man. It also calls for us not to eat shellfish. Or pork. Since I love shellfish and pork, I'm not about to go stoning someone who loves someone of the same gender. See, I don't apply the laws of another nation, one that existed thousands of years ago, to the here and now. How silly of me. . .

As to your point about the materials versus the message . . . I'm not even sure what to say about that. The message is in the materials of the Bible. The message is composed of words, all of which were written in languages now dead (Biblical Hebrew and Greek bear little relation to contemporary versions of those languages) and need to be translated in to contemporary idioms for the sake of clarity. Translation involves a certain amount of interpretation by the translator, which is why the Bible is usually translated by committee - reduces the chance of bias by an individual. In any event, do you receive messages other than through words? You attempt to make a distinction that cannot exist.

Cameron said...

I gather the point here is that someone is suing the publisher of a religious text because the text calls certain behaviors a sin.

It's obviously a stupid lawsuit, and maybe Geoffrey has a point that there are other things to get worked up about. But lawsuits and judges are funny things. What I call a stupid suit just might win. And not having spoken up about it beforehand would be extremely regrettable, to say the least.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

As you surely must know, considering your close association with a minister, we are all tempted. This means that some light bulb turns on in our heads. An idea, a notion, a compulsion. From there we have two options, resist or comply. If we choose not to resist, compliance might only be in the constant wallowing in the fantasy created by the initial thought. Compliance in any form would be sinful. I think Jesus made this fairly clear when he said, in not so many words, that lusting was equal to adultery, hate equal to murder. Does that clear things up on this point for you?

Next, the distinction I drew for you regarding the Bible vs the paper on which it was printed, was in response to your comment:

"I could pee on it, wipe with it, spit on it, rip out pages, scrawl all kind of filthy language across the onion-skin pages of various versions - and I honestly doubt that God would care."

First off, I would wager that He would care that you would decide to act in such a manner. But I know what you were trying to get at. My point was that you could indeed use it for toilet paper if you were desperate for some and only had a Bible handy, though I'd likely tear off a strip of my shirt instead.

However, if you chose to use it in such a manner in response to the message of the Bible, then yeah, I'm certain He'd have a problem with it.

In this way, the point, once again, is that the dude in the story is suing due to the message, that is, God's message regarding human sexuality, thereby engaging in a direct attack on God Himself.

Now about your second paragraph of your last comment. The only thing true there is the last sentence. I don't think you're capable of taking a good shot, either. But the truth is, people DON'T believe that homosexuals act out of a conscious decision except that they consciously choose NOT to resist the urge. It's the same as a hetero guy NOT resisting the urge to do the nasty with his neighbor's wife.

Your third paragraph is tiresome. The points have been addressed exhaustively. First, that whole notion of the application of Levitical law to today was the subject of my first post. I cut and pasted an excerpt from two guys that covered every base. Obviously, you never read it either. Secondly, they weren't laws of another nation. They ARE laws of YOUR God (and mine). See my first post as to why some are still in effect.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

OK, why would God care if should choose to use a page out of the Bible as bathroom tissue? I would never do such a thing, because I am neither childish nor intentionally provocative. The question remains - why would God care? Has God designated that particular groups of wood pulp off-limits? Do the words on the page render it somehow more than just pages in a book?

People who get upset over things like this surprise me.

It.

Is.

A.

Book.

No more. No less. We grant it authority not because of its content, but because of the meaning its content has for our lives. And, yes, there are parts of the Bible I take with a grain of salt, and others I take quite seriously. Everyone does that, but at least I am honest enough to admit it.

There are some people who discover in the Bible some . . . thing . . . that gives to their life a context that offers a participation in a community of lie-minded individuals stretching back over thousands of years, searching out the best way to be together, and to make the world a bit more tolerable in which to live. There are those who, having studied the Bible, refuse to assign any significance to any of its content whatsoever. The former are not magically transformed, nor are the latter somehow irretrievably unregenerate. The latter is a perfectly acceptable human reaction to the contents of the Bible and has absolutely no bearing on the meaning of the Bible for those who accept its authority. Nor does the reaction of the latter group impact their status vis-a-vis God in any way, unless you believe God is that petty. I do not. God's love knows no boundaries, no restrictions, no codicils, no exceptions. Nothing any of us can do can separate us from that love. Period.

Besides that, all this biblical veneration smacks much too much of idolatry for me; it is a graven image, something we esteem far more than it deserves. It's a book, more often than not shoddily made, printed on onion-skin paper, and poorly bound so that more copies of it can be sold as the old ones fall apart.

To repeat:
It.
Is.
A.
Book.

Written by many people over many centuries, edited by many other, anonymous, people, whose agendas and biases we have no way of gaging, even though we have multiple manuscript copies of various books available for comparison. None of this takes away from the weight of authority we choose to assign to it. It just allows us to be honest about the limits to which we should assign significance to any particular portion thereof. Even those parts we prefer.

I fail to see how anything I have said is somehow denigrating to the Bible or its contents.

Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "If someone grows up without any Christian influence whatsoever, and he meets you, do you not feel any compulsion to at least make him aware?"

Of course. But that's not even close to what we were talking about.

And I see "defense" of the faith as something so far from the call we all have to be witnesses for Christ, I'm not sure I can explain it. Basically, defending is not sharing hope; it's defending, and it's defending something that needs no defense, and besides, it can't possibly be defending "the faith"; it best, it can only possibly be defending one's own view. I dare say it actually does more harm than good; it takes Christ out of the center of any possible discussion. That can't be good.

Marshall Art said...

ER,

I'm not sure you're getting my point. It's obvious Geoffrey isn't, but I'll deal with that afterwards.

When I speak of defending the faith, particularly against people like the dude suing the publisher, I'm speaking of offering a counter-point to his charges, a encouragement to withold any decisions regarding the issue until a rebuttal can be made. Thus, any who might be lured by this disgruntled and misguided sot would have a better perspective to consider. It's a matter of saying, "Don't take this dude's word for it, or mine, but read the Book for yourself. Listen to the other side." If people hear nasty stuff about ER, they'll only have that info on which to determine whether or not ER friendship could be beneficial.

So it is really a matter of what form that defense of the faith might take and with that in mind, I can agree that there are those who might be, shall we say, over-zealous.

I might add, that for the sake of our 1st Amendment rights, that people like this dude doing the suing are indeed looking to stifle religion. I was just reading about some lesbian in Canada, an activist lawyer if I'm not mistaken, who has said plainly that the issue of same-sex marriage will eventually be about gay-rights vs religious freedom. It is her opinion that religious freedom will have to step aside. Thus, there's a more tangible case for defending the faith that also requires it be done.

Regarding "one's own view", the fact is that this is what is always done anytime a Christian opens his mouth with the intent of evangelism. Evangelizing and defending the faith are really quite the same thing. Particularly with regard to "one's own view". Would it be likely that you'd preach MY view, or yours?

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

This is getting tiresome. Why wouldn't God care if you wiped your ass with a page of the Bible if you did so in rebellion? It's not the material used for the wiping, it's the rebellion. Does this make things more clear for you?

A couple of other points of your last are of concern:

"We grant it authority..."

This is like saying the Constitution gives us our rights. Not true. It affirms what we already have. The same is true of the Bible. It already has its authority. We merely acknowledge or deny it. You apparently deny it. Amongst Biblical scholars, only the liberal ones, who aren't very scholarly, dispute the authority and accuracy of translation. (Of course a Spong version would be worthless.)

I don't think it is improper to grant some level of veneration to the Bible. Charges of idolatry are generally over the top. I've never known anyone who puts the book over the Author or even equates the two.

"Nothing any of us can do can separate us from that love."

Absolutely false. Should we deny God, should we worship anything else above Him, be it a graven image or a sexual desire or cold hard cash, we will have separated ourselves from His love. I'm not much on chapter and verse, but I've no doubt that someone like Neil, Eric, Bubba, Ms. Green could easily back this up Scripturally. Then it would just be a matter of whether or not those verses are, for you, among those with which a grain of salt might be taken.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

You are all hyped up about an act of rebellion. I was quite clear - I repeated myself on this point - that nothing we do can separate us from the love of God. Even rebellion. Whether it's the little rebellion's against God's love we do through ignorance or apathy, or humongous, monstrous rebellion in the form of heinous evil - God's loving care is still the for everyone. Wiping feces on the pages of a book would hardly qualify, in my book as even a misdemeanor. Perhaps a ticketable offense at most.

In any event, it all comes back to the whole "gall" thing and my wonder at the level of outrage over something as this.

And, yes, the Constitution does grant us rights. You need to understand that political and moral philosophy actually moved on after the 18th century. Find John Rawls A Theory of Justice, or Isaiah Berlin, or Richard Rorty's collection of articles, Philosophy and Social Hope.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

Your theology is skewed. There IS something that can separate us from God's love. That would be ourselves. When we are in rebellion against God by willfully living in sin, we have cut ourselves off. Paul has said as much as noted in this sermon I found on the subject. God's love is always available for us, but we must accept it by living on His terms, not ours. Certainly those condemned to hell are separated from His love. They got there by their own choices.

And you must understand that intent is what determines whether our actions fall under the definition of rebellion. If you wipe yourself to express your rebellion, you've already cut yourself off by taking up that rebellious attitude and the action of wiping signifies that attitude.

You seem to think that God "don't sweat the small stuff". But who are you to determine what He sweats and what He doesn't? Just think of how common it is for His Name to be used in vain. It seems to us a small thing. It's on the main list. What does that suggest regarding what He regards as rebellious? For me, I'll lean toward overkill in the reverence department. You're free to take your chances. Don't assume HE's bought into liberal theology.

And absolutely NO, the Constitution does NOT "grant" us our rights. It affirms that we already are endowed with them. I don't know who those authors are that you've offered, but if they truly believe that our rights come from the Constitution, or the dudes who wrote it, they're idiots. I don't argue that some political and moral philosophers have moved on since the 18th century, but not everyone has followed them over the cliff.