Friday, May 15, 2009

Those Traitorous Bastards!!!

This article claims that the APA has backed off on the idea of the existence of a "gay gene". While I still can see a biological influence for homosexual attractions, my position has been that such influence doesn't demand acceptance by either society or the individual so influenced.

But I wonder now what supporters of homosexual marriage and other "rights" will now do with this aspect removed from the arsenal of reasons for support. That is, if they really AREN'T born that way, then what does that do to the agenda and those that support it? Everything is predicated on the notion that there is no choice in the matter, that they are born homosexual, that God made them that way and there is no changing it. The APA disputes that now. Does that make the APA just another homophobic enemy? Look what they did to blacks after Prop 8.

I invite those who have supported homosexuality in previous posts to return and render their thoughts on this news. Does it change your perspective at all? Does it lessen your support for, not the people themselves, but what they insist society owes them? And of course, why or why not?

I wonder if I should hold my breath or not while I wait.

202 comments:

1 – 200 of 202   Newer›   Newest»
Feodor said...

I wasn't born straight. I didn't want girls for sex until I was... I'm not sure now... 14? Somewhere around whenever I first masturbated.

Before that they were a strange, semi-benevolent country.

Vinny said...

The earlier statement says biology plays a significant role.

The current statement says nature and nurture both play complex roles.

Where is the inconsistency?

4simpsons said...

As always, even if it was genetic then it wouldn't have made it any more moral. People are quick to confuse "is" with "ought." We are born with all sorts of desires. From birth we find it very easy to lie, steal, covet, etc.

Marshall, do you think the mainstream media will give this as much attention as they did with all the bogus "scientific" proof that gays were born that way?

Jim said...

I've never heard an argument that people being "born" gay was predicated on a "gay gene".

So this "position" changes nothing as far as I'm concerned.

Erudite Redneck said...

My own position, which I've held only a few years, is I'm for liberty, and I'm for equal treatment for orientation, whatever the origins, under the law, and tolerance to the very point of personal acceptance in society at large.

In the faith sphere, I utterly disabelieve that the Bible means what certain people think it means; in fact, given proper context, it doesn't even say what certain people think it says.

So, this change, such as it is, doesn't mean anything to me as far as my positions.

blamin said...

”…the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. "Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they've lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization,".
.
Indeed!

I remember when the “gay gene” theory first left the closet. Many doctors questioned the “findings” only to be bully/bitched into silence. A common occurrence these last few decades – question a PC theory at your own risk, no matter how legitimate your questions.

Vinny said, “Where is the inconsistency?”

There’s no proof of a “gay” gene.

Jim said, “I've never heard an argument that people being "born" gay was predicated on a "gay gene".”

I’m not surprised, he never heard the argument: “they were born that way”.

ER said, ah, yeah liberty, equal treatment… orientation, tolerance, acceptance (did I forget any emotive buzz words?) and most importantly - ”doesn't mean anything to me as far as my positions.”.
.

This pretty much sums up his position on all subjects put forth on this blog, no matter the content or background.

Marshall Art said...

"I wasn't born straight."Oh. My. Gosh. What a set up line!

Based on how philosophically bent you are now, I'm not surprised.

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

The inconsistency is in the the level of confidence. Regardless of the exact words of the statements, the earlier one represented a more firm belief that such a "gene", or proof, would be forthcoming. That confidence is clearly diminished now.

Marshall Art said...

Neil,

It's been a couple of days now. I'm guessing if we here of it at all in the mainstream media, it won't be front page. Perhaps a paragraph or two on page twelve.

Marshall Art said...

ER,

"In the faith sphere, I utterly disabelieve that the Bible means what certain people think it means; in fact, given proper context, it doesn't even say what certain people think it says."I appreciate your taking the time.

It's clear your faith in the Bible's authority is, to say the least, different. But it seems you put more faith in the words of modern liberal thought than in anything of Scripture at all. I find this curious without new, archeological discoveries to back them up. It's just opinion based on worldliness. You also were brought to your beliefs, in part, by being impressed with a lie, that only one denomination accepts homosexuals into their midst. Few churches reject any who come on God's terms. You chose one that accepts on culture's terms.

Aside from that, I will be interested to see how your perspectives change (or harden) as you study in seminary, even if the one you've chosen is considered liberal. (JS Spong ain't the president, is he?)

Anonymous said...

Amen to what Neil said! If we were not born with a sin nature, Jesus would not have had to die on the cross. Such a shame that when humans have the ability to learn and develop their minds, they choose the thoughts and ideas of man over those of a Holy God. mom2

Erudite Redneck said...

Wait a sec, this: "An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual 'gene'" is not backed up by the quotes from the brochure, which is probably why it's not front-page news.

Hey, blamin', "liberty" an emotive buzz word? It's still early, but that the most jaw-dropping thing I've heard today.

MA, re: "it seems you put more faith in the words of modern liberal thought than in anything of Scripture at all" I absolutely do put more faith in thought about Scripture than I do in Scripture taken without thought. Absolutely.

Marshall Art said...

"I absolutely do put more faith in thought about Scripture than I do in Scripture taken without thought. Absolutely."


Rather presumptuous, if not outright dishonest, to insist that those who adhere to traditional notions of Christianity do so without thought. In addition, it's rather arrogant to assume that modern liberal theologians are in any way automatically more sophisticated in their thought. But then, so many cling to what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. And of course, you are free to believe whatever you like, as sad as that may be.

Again, looking forward with great interest to see the impact of your seminary training on your current perspective.

Erudite Redneck said...

Dude, you know I don't "suggest" anything I was to say. You think.

Many others do not -- and it's mainly those who are on me all the time. Which raises a point: I've never understood why you hang yer hat with fundamentalists. You are no fundamentalist. You're a traditionalist. Big diff.

Erudite Redneck said...

Had to come back and clarify some things about why I hold the position I hold on homosexuality in general and within the church specifically.

Re, "It's clear your faith in the Bible's authority is, to say the least, different. But it seems you put more faith in the words of modern liberal thought than in anything of Scripture at all. I find this curious without new, archeological discoveries to back them up. It's just opinion based on worldliness."


It is opinion, and it's based on history. The church as a whole has been on the wrong side of every single comparable question.

Indians? Less than human, with no souls, until the 1500s.

Slavery? the Bible absolutely "supports" slavery. Do you realise that the last holdouts for slavery in the U.S., held not only that it was righteous for them to hold slaves, for the dslaves' own good, but that it was positively was a sin for the white Christian race to abdicate its responsibility for slaves by freeing them, or failing to support slavery? It's true. And it was biblical. Yes, Christians led the cause of abolition, but it was a minority Christian position for generations before the idea of emancipation became mainstream, and that, of course, only after a bloody war.

Cosmology? The church was on the wrong side of that, too. See Copernicus, et al.

Women's rights, from suffrage to equal pay for equal work? Wrong side, the side of paternalism and patriarchy rather than the side of equality and grace.

Nitpicking over social mores as if they were mortal sins -- such as alcohol, dancing, movies and modernity in general? On the wrong side to this day in some quarters.

Homosexuality? You see the pattern. The church as a whole is agin' it, and, to be fair, bein' agin' it, arguably, is biblical -- just as biblical as an earth-centered cosmology, pro-slavery sentiments, and paternalistic-patriarchical laws and attitudes regarding women and their role in society and rights under the law. But a minority of Christians are leading another reformation, this one for recognition of homosexuals as full recipients of God's grace and full members of the church of Jesus Christ; and, against all odds, I find myself among the minority.

Re, "You also were brought to your beliefs, in part, by being impressed with a lie, that only one denomination accepts homosexuals into their midst. Few churches reject any who come on God's terms. You chose one that accepts on culture's terms."

No, the UCC "bouncer" ad said nothing of the sort to me, nothing about denominations at all, I mean. Having once been a bouncer, it spoke to me, but what I waas convicted of was my own self-righteous attitude toward homosexuals, and the inherited social biases against them that I had always brought to matters of faith and the church. God's terms? God's terms, as expressed in and by Jesus Christ, is radical inclusion, hospitality, and grace. Living life on one's own, ignoring Jesus's call to a faith expressed and defined by loving God and loving others as one loves oneself -- *that's* the sin for which we are to repent. For a homosexual to come to God through Christ, and to the church, "just as I am," is itself repentence, especially in the face of so many people who would require them to "prove" their repentence by some other specific means. It is neither your responsibility, nor mine, to assess anyone's faith and repentence, only to love them as we have them love us.

Mark said...

The first Commandment, Exodus 20:3: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

When homosexuals ignore Leviticus 18:22, they are breaking the first Commandment.

By lying with mankind as they do with womankind, homosexuals are, in effect, putting their own carnal desires before God.

They are also breaking the second, fifth, seventh, and tenth commandments.

It has been said, if one breaks one commandment, he is breaking them all, so I am guilty also. The difference is, I have asked for, and received forgiveness.

Homosexuals who continue lying with mankind as they do with womankind even though they acknowledge God's Commandments, have not repented, and as such, have condemnd themselves through their rebellion against God.

ER's Dalmation Biblical theology notwithstanding.

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

If I'm not mistaken, and I very well could be, I thought I saw somewhere recently that ER thinks the Leviticus verse means that heteros aren't to lie with a woman as they would with a man. It sounds so goofy that I can't stand by my memory on this, especially since why would a hetero want to. I'm sure he'll clarify if he has a mind to.

Erudite Redneck said...

I accept the appelation "Dalmation theology," because I do, actually, look for ways to see God's grace; and yours is Damnation theology; you, among many other proud yet fearful others, look for ways to damn people to hell.

We both pick and choose. I'll picl and choose dalmations and grace over your damnation and poor judgment.

Erudite Redneck said...

Fat people who continue in gluttony even though they acknowledge God's Commandments, have not repented, and as such, have condemnd themselves through their rebellion against God.

Fat Christians are false believers, therefore are not believers. It doesn't matter if they have genetic dispositions toward gluttony. Doesn't matter if they anguish over their sin, or if they don't. If, after, say, a couple of years, a fat Christian is still fat, then, why, he's damned to hell for all eternity. Right, Mark?

Erudite Redneck said...

Right Neil? Right MA?

Marshall Art said...

ER,

At the same time, it seems you confuse church and Bible. A big mistake that many make in rejecting religion altogether. You do it to justify diverting from Biblical teaching.

If the Church considered indians less than human, why did they seek to convert them? Since there was no real knowledge of them until 1492, they certainly didn't spend much time thinking of them so poorly. I'd guess they simply thought of anyone living in the woods so behind the times as merely savages. Most exploration sought to spread the Gospel as well as to get rich.

I don't think you can support the notion that the Bible "supports" slavery. What few verses related to the subject, that is in the NT, only speak of how a slave should relate to his master and how the master should relate to his slave. That was simply an acknowlegment of the existence of the institution, not a support of it. The lesson is to treat others well regardless of station. Those who use such verses to insist a support for slavery are as off the mark as those who believe homosexual behavior is no longer sinful.

Cosmology? Are you mistaking metaphor for real science? Keep in mind that both the Bible and the "Big Bang Theory" speak of something from nothing. Not much disparity there. And of course everyone speaks of sunrise and sunset in this here 21st century.

There are plenty of examples of women in high regard in the Bible. That there is some notion of pecking order doesn't denote inequality, but is a matter of roles to which each of us should adhere. Note that wherever NT instruction regarding marriage is mentioned, there is a role for each in the traditional (the only kind of marriage the Bible sanctions) arrangement, but not that one has more worth than the other.

Nitpicking over social mores? It's easy to see how a lack of proper Biblical understanding, as well as adherance to those teachings, can lead to each of those items you've listed being abused.

The fact is, a minority of Christians aren't leading a reformation as much as a de-formation, corrupting Scripture and picking and choosing what is they want to hang onto in order to be able to claim the name. Truly, I don't understand why they even bother. To have the arrogance to "correct" the Bible and its teachings, making wrong right, and right wrong, leaving only the name "Jesus Christ" with no real substance attached, or as Feodor laughingly pretends is a more modern, sophisticated understanding puts that minority in great jeopardy. No sir. You do yourself a great disservice paying heed to liberal theologians who interpret by their own whims and nothing else. They don't seek truth or revelation, they seek permission and loopholes, a way to lighten the cross, to ease the burdens of righteous living to the point of effortlessness because there's nothing to do but be. It's very self-deceiving pretending one can simply exist and be holy while making no move to be so, no repentance because nothing's wrong if one doesn't believe one's sinfulness is sinful any longer. Jesus says the path is narrow. The lib Christian says there isn't a path at all, that we're already there. It's a fraudulent Christianity, ER, and I believe you should renounce it.

Erudite Redneck said...

And I believe you, MA, are dancing with the devil himself. And the more you hang out with the Neils and other Bible worshipers, the closer you are to the false teachers that Neil do barkingly rails against -- likely every other person caught in denial about the closet he is found by others to be in, he frantically points his pitiful, weak finger and wails, "J'Accuse!"

Erudite Redneck said...

Ha HA! You are so right, MA, yet you're blinded by your own self and comfort! LOL

Re, "It's very self-deceiving pretending one can simply exist and be holy while making no move to be so, no repentance because nothing's wrong if one doesn't believe one's sinfulness is sinful any longer. Jesus says the path is narrow."

ABSOLUTELY. War is evil. Self=righteous is evil. Pride and judgmentalism are evil. KILLING is always murder, not just when it's a fetus. Selfishness is always evil, whether it's when deciding not to give to one who begs from you or deciding how to vote. You have no idea what it means to be a lib if you think it means "anything goes." Jesus. It means the exact opposite! Are you really thast clueless about what it's all about?

Erudite Redneck said...

LOLOL. Tou really don't know much, do you?

"If the Church considered indians less than human, why did they seek to convert them?"

They DIDN'T dumba-s, until the church declared they had souls.

Re, "Since there was no real knowledge of them until 1492, they certainly didn't spend much time thinking of them so poorly."

You really don't know much about this, so I'll let you slide.

Marshall Art said...

ER,

Regarding the church and indians, I'm not so much concerned with exact dates as I am with the fact it didn't take long for them to begin trying to convert them. THAT was my point, if I didn't make it so clear. But in any case, you are dealing with what humans did, as opposed to what the Bible says. In other words, from your list, throw out all those things that were lousy interpretations, such as the Klan's belief that the Bible gives them support, and what you're left with is Bible verses that I don't think say what you think it says, such as the slavery thing. To be even more clear, I find your interpretations, or rather those you choose to buy into, to be those that are lacking.

All in all, it seems you've gone from one seemingly poor interpretations, that is, your early Christian life, to an entirely new set of poor interpretations, to which you so now cling so dearly.

And in defense, you lash out at us, be it me, Neil, Mark, Eric, Bubba, whomever, and accuse us of damning people to hell or of being judgemental. I'd wager that you could never find a quote from any of us where any of us "damned" anyone to hell. And we certainly don't need to judge when debating whether or not a behavior is sinful. We merely read Scripture and if is a prohibited behavior, that pretty much seals the deal. If one wishes to continue in their rebellion, damnation is a strong possibility and that's all any of us have ever said on the subject. Not because any of us think we have the authority to condemn anyone, but only that we warn that such consequences are possibly in store.

War is not evil. That's a construct of liberal theology as is the idea that all killing is murder. It's the childish notion that ANY violence is bad, but ALL love is good. It's a simpleton's theology based on the idea of a hippie god.

As far as pride, self-righteousness and judgementalism, you're not so bad yourself, muh man. But there is such a thing as righteous judgement, and that comes into play when bad behavior is blatantly displayed.

And yes, I do indeed see liberal theology as the "anything goes" theology as I see liberal politics such as we see in the Dem party to be the enabling party. This is simply calling it as I see it and having spent quite a while in the UCC, I think I've seen enough to know.

It does seem like I'm pissing you off. That is not my intention in the least. But I can say that it's damned near impossible for you to piss me off regarding MY position on the faith, because of my reliance on what Scripture teaches, even if I'm not the best example of how to follow it. And despite YOUR accusations, it's not idolatry in the least to lean on Scripture for knowledge and understanding.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Gay gene? I have no idea what you're talking about. I agree with "Neil" insofar as the whole question of genetic predisposition would not be relevant to moral evaluation. There does seem to be a genetic predisposition to certain addictive personality traits such as alcoholism; that doesn't mean one is "born" an alcoholic. It just means that, statistically, if you have this particular DNA sequence, given certain environmental factors and unhappy accidents, one is more likely to become an addictive personality than one without this particular DNA sequence. There is no cause-and-effect, just correlation.

Yet, I have never heard a genetic argument about sexual orientation. I have never heard it argued in public that our public policy toward sexual minorities be predicated on genetic information. Since most of the people who would support such an argument (should it have existed) would deny any place for genetic predisposition in matters of, say, criminal behavior or reproductive matters (for example, for mentally challenged individuals), it seems to me unlikely they would turn around and scream "Gay Gene!" as a way of turning the policy debate.

Whether or not there's a gay gene, I have yet to meet a gay man or lesbian who has told me, "You know, I really like the opposite sex, but I'm doing this because it's morally wrong, I enjoy being legally discriminated against, told I'm going to hell by holier-than-thou Christians, and denied parental and other rights. Call me crazy!" The entire idea that this is some kind of weird anti-social stance that has nothing to do with the fact that a man might just love other men (or a woman other women) makes no sense on its face.

As for the "morality" of it, since Marshall Art specifically told me once that he believes all sex is fundamentally selfish, then it seems to me that we are at a quandary here, morally speaking. Since he, as the author of this post, thinks that gay folks just do it or the jollies, yet at the same time admits that all sex is nothing more than a selfish indulgence in physical pleasure for its own sake, there is a serious moral dilemma for Marshall to even attempt to draw some kind of artificial boundary between straight and gay love.

To be honest, the Bible says all sorts of things are wrong that we take for granted, and is quite silent on all sorts of things that are moral conundrums. For the primitive Israeli confederation, the laws against same-sex copulation make sense; as a professor of mine at Wesley pointed out, when one of the main issues facing a community is population pressure (they need to grow to increase their relative strength against more aggressive neighboring communities) then it makes sense to ban any sexual act that depletes the potential for increasing population. As Monty Python sang, in such a situation, every sperm is sacred.

Yet, this has to do only with sexual acts. Sex, in and of itself, is only a part of the dynamic of human intimacy (I won't deny its importance, only its centrality). What of a celibate gay man? Gore Vidal had the same partner for decades; they were very much a "couple". They also were quite open that they were not physically intimate; their love did not seem to require it. How do you deal with this question?

The focus on sex is a distraction, whether one consults the Bible or common sense. The focus on religion, to my mind, is also a distraction. The issue is a legal one, pure and simple. Do we, the United States of America, openly discriminate against an entire group of fellow-citizens in a whole host of areas - from marriage to parental rights to employment - because members of this group are different from the larger community as a whole?

Do we?

Erudite Redneck said...

MA, I got hot under the collar. Sorry. It happens, ya know. :-)


Re, "We merely read Scripture and if is a prohibited behavior, that pretty much seals the deal."

Scripture prohibits you from failing to love your enemies, every single one of them, it looks like from a plain reading of the text. How sealed is that deal? :-)

Erudite Redneck said...

Anybody got a seein' eye dog I can borrow? Seeing GKS write "I agree with Neil," even in that limited circumstance, struck me blind. ;-)

Feodor said...

You know, I wasn't born a nigger lover either. It came to me later on. My genetics, however, militated against how I tended to be, that's why it took so long.

Same with fags. I didn't love them till later, too.

Boy those genes, how plastic, huh?!

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

"And you know they say baldness is in your genes. But I don't believe 'em. I got plenty of hair in my jeans."

Feodor said...

Sorry, it's just funny to me to hear science being "debated" in this venue.

Until you have an answer for "the double slit experiment," Marshall, or really just understand its implications, pardon me if I ignore the outcomes of your conceptions of science.

Marshall Art said...

Feodor,

If you can explain why any average person would give a flyin' rat's ass about a double slit experiment, and how it is in any way relative to this discussion, then perhaps someone will be impressed with what you think is intelligence. It's a long shot, but one never knows. In the meantime, whether a fraud like yourself ignores my conceptions of science is of absolutely no consequence to me, unless of course you decide to stop blowing smoke and ignore me completely. My blog without your drivel would be an improvement. You're really a stupid person as evidenced by your inability to make a valid point. Of course you're always welcome to try, it's just that you haven't yet. Instead, you only bore.

Marshall Art said...

"Seeing GKS write "I agree with Neil," even in that limited circumstance, struck me blind. ;-)"

I noted that straight off and marked my calendar accordingly.

Feodor said...

Stumped, then, huh?

Feodor said...

You're just pissed because of the corner I left you in in the previous post.

Marshall Art said...

ER,

No apologies required. I just don't want you to think I'm trying to piss you off. Passion for one's beliefs does not require apologies. Not here, anyway.

Regarding loving enemies, that deal is sealed for me. But you mistake my pointing out blatant transgressions for hatred, which is unwarranted. When the young 'uns need correction, they get pissed at me. I don't hate them when I correct them. Just the opposite. In kind, adults tend to get pissed when their mistakes are pointed out. Apparently some prefer continuing in their mistakes, making them over and over.

But here's the thing: I don't go around literally pointing out the mistakes of others as a routine or hobby or some crusade to show how holy I am. I allow that it might seem that way by reading a blog that talks about sinful behavior on occasion. But that's just because we're talking about a given behavior and I'm putting forth my opinion. Yes, I believe fat people need to take better care of themselves and that it is sinful to overindulge on the chow, as it is to abdicate self-control in a host of other areas. But in general, most of those other areas don't involve a concerted effort to change Sripture, culture and civil law in order to force acceptance of their behaviors. When that happens, I'll likely be as vocal in opposition as it will also harm our culture to allow it. (BTW, I DO think fat people should pay for two seats on a plane if they indeed take up two seats.)

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in.

The concept of a "gay gene" is basically just shorthand for the notion that there will someday be a discovery of that which "justifies" the "orientation". Indeed, the argument that one is "born gay" is absolutely an argument for a "gay gene" or some biological explanation that would equate to race or gender. It is that upon which their whole argument is based. Just as one can't help being black, the argument is that one can't help being homosexual, so why should they try.

But this is what has been proven false by virtue of all those who have left the lifestyle, that one does not have to succomb to urges, that one can overcome them and live happily as a normal human being. Harder for some than others, but never impossible, especially with God's help.

Now this part

"...I have yet to meet a gay man or lesbian who has told me,..."

and what follows is just silly, though there have been admissions by at least a few lesbians of a conscious decision to give up men and "go lesbian". However, I think too much is put on "how" one becomes homosexual that on how one deals with it. Most men don't ponder how they came to prefer blondes, but paradigm shifts happen there, though rarely by force. But at least they are still attracted to the sex they are supposed to be attracted to. But overall, no one's even making that argument that they are "purposely" becoming homosexual, only that they are purposely refusing to change and purposely distorting Scripture and natural law and hope to distort our culture as well.

"...there is a serious moral dilemma for Marshall to even attempt to draw some kind of artificial boundary between straight and gay love."

This is not so in the least. Sex does have its place in God's design, but even within the framework of a traditional marriage it can be problematic if given more importance than it deserves. As you noted, I insist that it's basically a self-indulgent activity and as with any other form of self-centered behavior can get in the way of one's focus, which should be on God. But I've certainly drawn no artificial boundary, but only have reiterated those boundaries set by God Himself. Those who engage in homsexual behavior, as with those who engage in incestuous behavior, or polyamorous behavior or bestial behavior, are on the wrong side of the God-made boundary.

Now it seems rather sophisticated to say that the Hebrews prohibited homosexual behavior in order to grow as a nation more quickly, but that's total speculation not supported by anything in Scripture. I've no doubt that if there was a reason such as that that provoked the law, Scripture would have said so rather than to call the behavior an abomination or detestable. What's more, it conflicts with all the other lame speculations used to "OK" homosexual behavior.

What of the celebate gay man? What of the celebate straight man? If a man chooses to remain single, he's supposed to remain celebate, a virgin. In such a case his proclivities are dealt with by his celebacy. If he wallows in sexual fantasy, he's as guilty as any other man of doing the same regardless of the object of the fantasy. Certainly no arbitrary line there.

Do we as Americans discriminate...etc? Yes. Not only that, but we discriminate against several disparate groups who wish to call their arrangements marriage. The traditional arrangement is unique and worthy of special considerations for which the other contenders cannot qualify. But it's not becasue they're different, in the way a member of another race is different, but that they simply aren't entitled to demand a redefinition of a long standing institution that the general population knows is unique and an ideal to which all should aspire. It's a good thing to maintain and now, with this latest statement from the APA making the biological argument weaker, there is less reason for the state to comply with their demands.

Their best bet, and the best move for the country's benefit, is to return to their demands that they be left alone, without insisting that everyone accept their behavior as normal, but without anyone thinking they can abuse them, and to address things like hospital visits on their own merits. I would wager that they'd get all the support they would need for that and I'd be among them. Some of the laws ARE in need of change, but not those related to marriage. (I will say that I do not support "civil unions", be they for homosex couples or straight couples. It's marriage by another name and as I said, many of those bennies they seek can be addressed separately.)

Marshall Art said...

"Stumped, then, huh?"

About what? Double slit experiments? I'm sorry, I know you're stupid, but am often distracted by your attempts to appear intelligent, so I'll make it more plain: I don't freakin' care and not knowing about it means nothing.

Mark said...

There has been a (so far ineffective) push by a minority of obese people to force Government to make special accommodations for them because they would rather change the laws than change themselves, which is basically the same thing homosexuals want to do.

Too bad for them they don't have as powerful a lobby.

Re: GK-S' comment, "There does seem to be a genetic predisposition to certain addictive personality traits such as alcoholism; that doesn't mean one is "born" an alcoholic. It just means that, statistically, if you have this particular DNA sequence, given certain environmental factors and unhappy accidents, one is more likely to become an addictive personality than one without this particular DNA sequence,"

I think it's important for Gays to believe there is a gene that predisposes one to be gay, because it gives them an excuse to continue in the lifestyle instead of having to do what is necessary to stop engaging in homosexual behavior. If there is no such gene, it weakens their argument that they have no choice.

Additionally, I have previously responded to the argument, "why would I enjoy being legally discriminated against, told I'm going to hell by holier-than-thou Christians, and denied parental and other rights?"

There is a psychological disorder called Munchhausens syndrome. The patient actually causes himself to suffer to get attention. It is my opinion that gays suffer from Munchhausen's syndrome. It would seem to fit, even by layman's standards. Most Gays definitely get attention by virtue of the way they walk, talk, and dress.

Also, if it is true that Gore Vidal enjoyed a long celibate relationship with his gay partner, then he was not gay. One cannot be gay without engaging in homosexual sex. The act is what defines the person. If someone who calls himself gay never indulges in homosexual sex, he is not gay, really. He's just a man who knows how match colors.

Jim said...

"One cannot be gay without engaging in homosexual sex. "

Bulls**t! I guess conversely, you're not straight without engaging in straight sex. It that how it works?

Erudite Redneck said...

Wow, that is a doozy! Even for Mark! Hoot!

Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "Regarding loving enemies, that deal is sealed for me. But you mistake my pointing out blatant transgressions for hatred, which is unwarranted."

Sorry, MA, I didn't mean to associate your need to "correct" homosexuals with "hatred." I was challenging you directly on your claim that, "We merely read Scripture and if is a prohibited behavior, that pretty much seals the deal."

Apparently not. Because the least you can do for your enemies to not kill them, and to not physically abuse them to try to get information.

Feodor said...

"Just as one can't help being black..."

If one can write this and put in public view, failing whatsoever to hear the patronizing disparagement under some guise of making an argument...

then such a one is worth shit in a any reasonable discussion and has lost not just credibility, but character.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

Jim, "I guess conversely, you're not straight without engaging in straight sex. It that how it works?"

Nope. Everyone is born heterosexual. If one says he is homosexual, but never commits homosexual acts, he is still a heterosexual.

Really Jim, this stuff isn't that hard to grasp.

Feodor said...

How do I know I was born heterosexual?

Feodor said...

Cutting to the chase, you simpletons really don't know that there is no conclusive proof of a single biological source for sexual orientation, do you?

Not genes, nor prenatal hormones, nor brain structure?

So, you also are just finding out that you cannot yet prove any origin for heterosexuality -- much less refute a genetic origin for homosexuality.

This, Marshall, is just one of the thousands of reasons you are a complete and utter idiot without character.

Marshall Art said...

Did someone break wind, or was that Feodor trying to make a point?

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

I don't believe one needs to act on one's urge to confirm one's "orientation". If a guy prefers men, he prefers men and thus he's a homosexual even if he doesn't act on the urge. It's likely easier to correct the situation if one doesn't take the next step, but that's a hunch.

Marshall Art said...

ER,

First of all, my "need", if that's what you prefer to call it, is that everyone abide by God's Will. It's up to Him to decide what to do with those who won't, but I don't have to buy into every cockamaimie, feel-good aberation of Christianity when discussing what that Will is as presented in Scripture. It's really pretty plain, as is the difference between murdering my enemies and killing them when they refuse to abort their attacks upon me or my loved ones, and the difference between abusing a scumbag for fun and roughing him up for info that stands between life and death of unsuspecting civilians. If you want to believe that God is cool with you allowing those unsuspecting to die rather than roughing up an evil doer who's info can prevent it, I guess that's between you and Him, but I don't think you could ever back it up Scripturally. I'd wager your liberal theologians would have a difficult time as well.

Marshall Art said...

Oh what the hell. Regarding Feo's last gastric eruption, I don't think it takes a scholarly scientific dissertation to explain heterosexual "orientation". It's pretty self-evident that when there are two sexes that it's freakin' normal that they should be attracted to each other and that attractions that go astray from that blatantly obvious dynamic is an aberration, or what science calls, a "Feodor".

Feodor said...

"I don't think it takes a scholarly scientific dissertation to explain heterosexual 'orientation'"

Regardless, it means you can't.

This is where Marshall gets stuck on stupid. We'll pass, for the moment on the obvious: that a lesbian woman -- or girl of 12 -- is not in touch with her genes when she feels things. To her, "it's pretty self-evident that... it's freakin' normal that they should be attracted to each other." Your words, sans "scholarly scientific dissertation, that describes gay experience. No matter.

If you can't explain how a particle can be either or both matter and/or wave -- and especially how when we observe it, it makes a choice for one or the other and when we don't watch it behaves as both... then you cannot explain how the cosmos really works.

And we cannot.

If you can't explain whether one neuron of some limited sparse-coding network is dedicated to recognize "grandma" then you can't explain how the brain really works.

And we cannot.

If you can't explain the basis of heterosexuality, it just becomes another way in which you cannot swallow with confidence all the old assumptions, accepted on the basis of analogy, myth, common sense.

After all, common sense thinks you catch the cold virus if you don't cover your feet.

You have more things to worry about than killing off your gay brother's instincts, Marshall.

You should worry why the "religious" centers of the neural network are right next to and connected with the "sexual" centers of the brain. One doesn't need a scholarly scientific dissertation to ask if the two mutually influence each other from an instinctual desire for ultimate oneness.

You should worry because, if instinctually we all want sexual-like union with God, you'll have an impossible time trying to fit that into the heterosexual box.

Feodor said...

And please try to address your latent, slow-to-die "instinctual" disparagement of black people, shithead

Marshall Art said...

""I don't think it takes a scholarly scientific dissertation to explain heterosexual 'orientation'"

Regardless, it means you can't."



So what? Of what possible purpose does it serve to be able to explain the self-evident? It is enough for men of character to simply know what is obvious. That 98% of the population is hetero is all one needs to know to understand what should be. It takes an "educated" man to think anything else matters. Make it rocket science if it arouses your sense of yourself, but it's hardly required for people lacking your disturbing level of insecurity. Two sexes, each made for the other for the purposes of procreation, meant by God to become one flesh. Even a simpleton like yourself should be abel to get it.

"After all, common sense thinks you catch the cold virus if you don't cover your feet."

Really. Who's common sense? Are you seriously trying to connect an old wive's tale to what's going on here? The attempt, like all your attempts at cleverness, fails miserably. Your notion of what one needs to know in order to form an opinion is mere self-stroking in order to justify your own cowardice in adhering to God's plainly revealed Will for us.

I know enough about the human brain to know that our conscious will can force the brain to adapt to meet our desired ends. It happens all the time when people are recovering from catastprophic injury. It happens all the time when people strive to develop new skills, both physical and mental. It happens all the time when homosexuals leave the lifestyle and finally lead normal heterosexual lives.

"You have more things to worry about than killing off your gay brother's instincts, Marshall."


As if the likes of you could ever enlighten me or anyone else. Besides, it's up to each of us to kill off our own sinful instincts with God's help. More than doable regardless of one's level of neurological knowledge.

"You should worry because, if instinctually we all want sexual-like union with God,..."


"Sexual-like union with God???" From out of what deep recess of your rectum did you pull this one? Who looks for such a thing? Where in Scripture is it mandated that we do? You give new meaning to the phrase "full of shit". Doesn't it hurt your back to walk around all day bent over with your head up your ass? And then to have the nerve to call me shithead! You're a real piece of work.

And by the way, troll, there's no disparagement of black people from thiscamp, try as you might to pretend there is. There is, however, a record-setting lack of regard for you.

Mark said...

"sexual-like union with God"

Art, we've discussed this before, and it's your blog. You can do what you want with it, but if Feodor commented on my blog with such an offensive and blasphemous statement, he would be banned. Permanently.

Feodor, you owe God and all true Christians an apology.

Feodor said...

God, I don't have to read beyond line 2.

Because science too often shows that what we think is self-evident, is not. The power of false "self evidence" even leads science astray.

But precision and detail are wasted on brutes.
_______

I'm sorry, true Christians... that Mark is dirtying your name.

Feodor said...

How do you quantify your 98%? See, part of you understands that you are making a quantitative argument but without quantitative abilities.

Justify your 98%. Define heterosexuality with such precision that you can justify 98%.

You cannot.

Feodor said...

Read the Song of Songs, Marshall. With a glass of wine.

You wouldn't be able to take it any other way.

Feodor said...

No surprise at all that Mark and Marshall do not know their bible.


2 Corinthians 11:1
Revelation 19:7-9

Feodor said...

"Just as one can't help being black... " Your words.

They speak for themselves.

Mark said...

Feo, "You know, I wasn't born a nigger lover either"

Your words.

You're a racist.

Feodor said...

Why does Mark have the same cowardly suggestion so often?

He's like the snotty little brother, anxious, wheezing, not ready for the neighborhood boys.

Feodor said...

Hey, when in Rome, speak words they understand.

I declare I am a nigger lover.

You wouldn't understand it any other way.

Feodor said...

And if, Marshall, you allow that there are 2% of the population who are gay, ask yourself how, after a few hundreds millenia of human society, people who cannot reproduce still exist in any percentage at all?

A childless lifestyle couldn't be stamped out after all these hundreds of thousands of years? After all the persecution of the last two hundred?

¿Por qué?

¿Por qué no te callas?

Feodor said...

Mark, you still working on Polonius?

Mark said...

Feodor, if you are still trying to impress us by the fact that you read, consider us impressed.

If you want us to acknowledge your intelligence, OK, it's acknowledged.

I know you think you have bested me by referencing a supporting role in a Shakespeare play, obviously smugly thinking I don't know what you're refferring to, but you didn't.

I didn't respond to your reference to Ophelia's father because quite frankly, I feel no need to impress you or anyone else with my knowledge of Shakespeare. Or Hamlet. Or any other author or literary work.

I admit I used to be like you, Feodor. I wanted to prove to everyone I met that I was smart. I suppose it stemmed from a need to be adored, or idolized, or at least, respected.

But it had the opposite effect on people. Instead of being impressed they were annoyed. Instead of thinking I was intelligent they only thought me obnoxious.

Exactly the way I think of you.

Les said...

"I wanted to prove to everyone I met that I was smart."

That must have been difficult for you.

Erudite Redneck said...

This thread is better than the movies.

We got MA, who doesn't know, or care, that he's a supremacist -- of various kinds.

We got Mark, who is STILL so obviously resentful over his lack of education it plays like a farce -- with a subplot of rank stubbornness as he valiantly yet hopelessly tries to defend positions the premises of which he clearly doesn't understand.

And we got Feodor, playin' 'em both like a piano for our amusement. I wish I had some popcorn!

Marshall Art said...

Gosh, which stupid comment by Feodor should I address first? Oh gee, I'll try them all.

"God, I don't have to read beyond line 2."


I don't suppose you often do.

Science might betray what was once thought self-evident, but it also often confirms it. This particular position needs no such support, however, due to how blatantly obvious it is to rational, unpretentious thinkers. Small children understand it as well. Precision and detail here would be wasted on anyone but the thick-headed and psuedo-intellectual hoping for permission from science to ignore the laws of both God and nature.

"How do you quantify your 98%?"


Don't need exact percentages to make my case. Even if I use the homsex lobby's fraudulent 10% number, we're still talking out of the norm.

"Read the Song of Songs, Marshall. With a glass of wine.

You wouldn't be able to take it any other way."



Maybe YOU can't take it any other way, with your head so firmly implanted up your hindquarters. For myself and most people, we take as metaphor and allegory.

"No surprise at all that Mark and Marshall do not know their bible.


2 Corinthians 11:1
Revelation 19:7-9"


For myself and most people, we take as metaphor and allegory.

""Just as one can't help being black... " Your words."


And that identifies me as a racist how exactly? Considering I could easily have said, "Just as one can't help being white, or Chinese, or Pakistani." But the fact is that the homosex lobby compares their "struggle" to that of the black race. What a chucklehead.

"Why does Mark have the same cowardly suggestion so often?"


Because he sees no point in casting pearls before swine. I, on the other hand, and to also respond to Mark's question for me, have enough of a nasty streak that I take pleasure in being generous with the length of rope I give to fools like yourself. Watching you hang yourself is fun, and you do it so often and so willingly.

"I declare I am a nigger lover.

You wouldn't understand it any other way."


What I understand is that you are a crass and low-class bore. Would you like more rope?

"And if, Marshall, you allow that there are 2% of the population who are gay, ask yourself how..."


Kinda suggests that there's more than "genes" at play, doesn't it? Because if it was genetic and they were "born that way", then indeed it would have died out long ago as none could pass the gene on. So unlike race, be it black, white or whichever leaves you feeling more comfortable, it then must be changable or at least controllable.

Wow! This was easy! And you think you're superior. What a chucklehead!

Erudite Redneck said...

BTW, MA, you've proven my point for me with your rambling.

Re, "We merely read Scripture and if is a prohibited behavior, that pretty much seals the deal."

No, you don't, and no, it doesn't. That's my point. The fact that you pretend to when it comes to homosexuality shows only that you give a rats about "correcting" some sinners, while ignoring your own propensity to sin when it comes to kicking your enemies' asses. The only deal sealed, in other words, is whatever YOU will, not what He wills.

And here allow me again to encourage you in your desires to lead your church out of the UCC -- I mean, assuming that most of the members hold views similar to your own. It'd be for the best of all concerned. Really.

Feodor said...

"This particular position needs no such support, however, due to how blatantly obvious it is to rational, unpretentious thinkers. Small children understand it as well."

Small children understand it as well. Small children understand it as well. Let's see, what could be running around in Marshall's brain to think small children understand it as well is some kind of documentation that being gay is wrong?

What if, Marshall, we show you a thousand children playing and learning and who go home to parents of the same sex? Those small children don't seem to know it. I suppose they are confused and their little warped minds will tell on them in later years.

Do you think small children understand coital sex? Is this you how think small children understand it as well? They know this plug can't go in that plug. Is this the scenario that lies in back of whatever it is that you think small children reflect on to thereby get the right theology on heterosexuality?

What if, Marshall, we show you a thousand children whose sweet faith in God is destroyed when they learn of slavery? Are these small children witnesses for truth? If we use them anecdotally, as you have done, then they must be right.

The application of "what small children understand" as you propose will run into a very large number of absurdities concerning fairies and Santa Claus and how babies are made.

And yet, what is lovely in them is how they perceive love so purely. But the love I see in Molly, Joaquin, Zach, Emma, Isabel, and David, these small children you don't we to believe, is that it?

Just the ones you choose, huh?

As I said from the top, I wasn't born straight. Not in the blatantly obvious, non-scientific, small children wisdom way you prefer. I preferred to hang out with my dad. Which makes me -- or at least makes the child I was, a gay, incest obsessed bon vivant.

Maybe I'm just straight in a metaphorical or allegorical way.

Feodor said...

And as for your odd claim for the permanence of race, I'll let you in on another sexual secret of mine:

I'm disproving you at the very present time by the genetic issue of my marital sex life.

OMG, my secret's out!!!!! I'm corrupting the races!!!!

Foul miscegenation!

"Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then
'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?"

Out damn spot! OUT!!!


(Sorry, Marshall, it's not working. My mixed breed mulatto son is soon to be here to stay. I don't know what to say. Science has failed us. Is he black or is he white or is he some ungodly uncreated, impossible changing of the races????)


You don't have a nigger in the woodshed of your family tree do you? Do you have one drop?

Feodor said...

So since you are wrong again, and race is changeable...

... you could wake up gay.... or black.

Or your son could be born so. Or your granddaughter.

Mark said...

Oh God, now he's quoting Lady MacBeth.... Still smug and still clueless.

Feodor said...

But since Marshall hates flowery language -- Marshall, of course, hates flowery anything -- I'll stop the bleeding with this:

I've seen children with eyes of a color neither parent has!!!!!!!!! Scaaaary!!!!!!

(Recessive alleles, Marshall. So whether there is a gene or genes that determine any sexuality at all, gay or straight, the larger point is that the parent does not have to be gay to be the biological source of a gay child.

So, ¿Por qué no te callas?)

Erudite Redneck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

Yes, I quote Lady Macbeth, for I am a murderer of race purity!

I will burn in hell for this.

And so will all these hellish mixed-race couples in my Sodom of a city.

Brooklyn is a burning ring of fire.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall, I appreciate your considered response.

First, I still dispute the whole notion that there has been an "argument from genetics". I haven't seen it, heard it, read it, or even considered it. Had I, I would have dismissed it.

You dismissed as "silly" my presentation that begins "I have never heard . . .". Yet, that is the shorthand version of the argument that gays are just a bunch of self-indulgent sinners bent on destroying America and continuing in their sinful ways.

I have no idea, nor do I care all that much, about the science of sexual attraction. I do know that, since I was a young child, I have been drawn to members of the opposite gender. I know that friends of mine have been attracted to members of the opposite gender. I even have a friend or two flexible enough to be attracted to both. Morality? I'm not even sure it's an issue. The Bible? Well, if you think a 3000 year old legal code from a long-dead kingdom half way round the world is pertinent, why pick Israel's? Why not Assyria's, or Egypt's? I'm not being provocative, I'm asking a question, or a series of questions.

Again, the issue is a legal one - are we, as a nation, going to discriminate against an entire class of citizens based solely on their romantic predilections? You support discrimination, yet your arguments strike me as based on nothing more than "gays are icky".

Marshall Art said...

ER,

"No, you don't, and no, it doesn't. That's my point."

Yes, I do, and yes, it does, as far as sexual behavior is concerned. There is nothing anywhere in either testament that overturns God's stated purpose for sexual behavior as plainly presented in Leviticus. Nothing, and to date, no one at any of the blogs I visit has come up with anything that does. The self-serving interpretations of liberal buffoons, who call themselves theologians or scholars, don't overturn Scripture and their speculations about why it says what it says also finds no support within Scripture. That's why you dismiss so much of the Book, because you can't use it to make your case.

You once again make the mistake of insisting that I only concern myself with homosexuality, which of course is nonsense. Bring to light any other sins with the money behind it to affect public policy and I will be as vocal against it as well. Case in point, abortion, also a sinful practice of which I strongly oppose. As to others, name something and I'll be more than happy to render my opinion and be able to support it as well.

"We got MA, who doesn't know, or care, that he's a supremacist -- of various kinds."

Care to try to support this contention? Feodor's having no luck trying. I dare you to take your best shot.

"And we got Feodor, playin' 'em both like a piano for our amusement."


This is funny. Do you mean he's just acting when he posts stupidity? If so, then he IS playin' me and I fell for it. He does a great job acting like an asshole that it seems so seamless. My hat's off to him and to you, ER, for seeing through his charade.

I see you deleted your last comment. That's a good thing, ER. You would only have embarrassed yourself by leaving it intact. I wouldn't want that.

Marshall Art said...

Les said...
"I wanted to prove to everyone I met that I was smart."

That must have been difficult for you.


OOH! Gotta admit it, Mark. You walked into that burn.

4simpsons said...

Looks like I missed a lot of (non-)fun. Scanning the comments I saw the usual theologically liberal "reasoning:

A. Parts of the church misinterpreted the Bible at some points in time.

B. Therefore, the church is wrong today about homosexual behavior.

B does not follow A.

Gee, if only God gave us some kind of standard to go by we might be able to determine his views on the topic. Oh wait, He did. His whole word is remarkably clear. Read carefully:

- 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.

- 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

- 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).

- 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Then the liberal theologians try to cast aspersions on Bible believers by saying we are just picking on one set of sins. That's right of the playbook, but it doesn't conform to reality.

Remember, we're the ones teaching that we are all sinners in need of a Savior. We're not the universalists who teach the opposite of what Jesus did. We're just as opposed to those who say that stealing, perjury, murder (including abortion), etc. are sins.

Oh, and we're saying that without Jesus you will spend an eternity in Hell as punishment for your sins, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

We object to the Dalmatian Theologians who pick and choose which passages they like but can't defend any of them because they've removed the foundation of scriptural truth.

We object to them driving the pro-abortion and pro-gay theology and then turning around and acting as if we are the ones on the offensive. Just more lies from Satan.

I wish these people would quit pretending. It is obvious that Christianity is not their forte'.

4simpsons said...

The petty "Bible worshipers" comment self-destructs as usual. If using the Bible as our final authority makes us Bible worshipers, then those who make up moral rules outside the Bible are, by their own reasoning, worshiping themselves.

Hmmmmm . . .

Erudite Redneck said...

MA, I deleted that comment because I meant to direct it at Mark, and Feodor slipped one in on me. That's all.

You keep ignoring the point of my comparison: As long as you so blithely rub your hands at the prospect of roughing up your enemies, or the country's agents doing so in your stead, you are NOT simply reading the Bib;e and doing what it says regarding your enemies. I don't give a damn what greater good you think might come of it; it has no bearing on Jesus's simple admonition. You can rationalize your hatred for terrorists, and justify and whateverelsify, all you want. But the simple fact remains: When it comes right down to the enemies of this country, at least as you express yourself in this space, you put yourself first, then your country, and then your Lord. So, forgive me if I don't give any credence whatsoever to anything else you think about the Bible. Pbbthh. Talk about a poser.

Sniff-sniff. What *is* that? Aha! It's Neil. You're dead to me, you high-talkin' faker. Snake. Oil.

4simpsons said...

ER sure obsesses a lot over a "dead" guy. That reminds me of a great scene in the TV show Monk where he goes through the 5 stages of grief in about 30 seconds -- "You're dead to me, Kroeger!" (though they stole that from The Simpsons, who probably stole it from ???).

He thinks I'm a faker?! Hey, I'm the first to admit I'm a sinner, but a faker? I suppose he thinks I'm really pro-abortion, anti-Bible, pro-gay theology, etc. Indeed.

Marshall Art said...

Feo the troll,

Yes, small children understand it as long as they haven't been corrupted by selfish adults. I'd wager small children who unfortunately find themselves the accessory of some homosex couple likely as not notice the disparity between their family and the families of others and question it, whereas most small children understand the dynamic of a mommy and a daddy. This isn't rocket science here, troll. As to what age a given child takes notice is irrelevant and likely to be different from one child to the next and they do so without the need to undestand the function of genitalia. God willing your child to come won't be a mutant by virtue of you being its father and then you'll understand what I'm saying. I'm already praying for his future, the poor kid.

"I preferred to hang out with my dad. Which makes me..."

A normal kid, or at least you were up to that point. Most boys like to hang with Dad because they want to be a man like Dad. Leave it to you to try and twist it into some perversion. And those boys who like hangin' with Mom? They like her comforting ways. Few of them want to be the woman she is.

"Maybe I'm just straight in a metaphorical or allegorical way."


No. You're about as bent as they come in a philosophical and psychological way.

"I'll let you in on another sexual secret of mine:"


Don't do me any favors.

"You don't have a nigger in the woodshed of your family tree do you?"


I'll bet your wife is so proud.

"So since you are wrong again, and race is changeable..."


Tell me again, ER, how this troll is playin' me like a piano. Look, troll, impregnating a woman of a different race isn't changing anyone's race. Which of your books has given you that laughable idea? Are you still the race you were born? Is your wife? Your child, and again, I feel so sorry for the kid already, will not be able to change HIS race either.

What an idiot!

"the larger point is that the parent does not have to be gay to be the biological source of a gay child."

As if anyone has been arguing for that. There Marty. Another example of "non sequitir".

"Brooklyn is a burning ring of fire."


I don't know about that, but you, ya troll, are a flamin' idiot.

Ooh! I feel just like a piano!

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

You may dispute it, but it's really the basis of their argument when they continue to claim that they were born that way. Whether it's genes or some other biological function means nothing to me. I haven't been the one saying that. And that they make this claim is how they support resisting efforts to change. The argument is that like race or gender, there is no choice involved, so why should they change. I can't believe this angle is news to you.

Yet, enough have changed to trash that position as untrue.

" Yet, that is the shorthand version of the argument that gays are just a bunch of self-indulgent sinners bent on destroying America and continuing in their sinful ways."


Are you suggesting that they are NOT putting their proclivities before the good of the nation? I mean, even if it does no harm, and that's extremely debatable, where is the consideration for how it WILL impact the nation? It doesn't exist for most of them. They simply take the position that it'll be a good thing. Many disagree for a variety of reasons, most of them legal.

"The Bible? Well, if you think a 3000 year old legal code from a long-dead kingdom half way round the world is pertinent, why pick Israel's?"


Because, as you may have heard, it is the origin of my faith, the Christian faith. My Lord did abide by its teachings. Why would I follow any other?

"are we, as a nation, going to discriminate against an entire class of citizens based solely on their romantic predilections?"

I repeat, we are discriminating against several classes of citizens based on their romantic predilections. More to the point, we are supporting a single arrangement that we, as a nation, or around 60-70% of us, feel is the ideal arrangement that is the foundation of every community.

"your arguments strike me as based on nothing more than "gays are icky"."

Though they are, I don't concern myself with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. But the fact is, there are plenty of examples of hetero people that also provoke a gag response to think of them engaged in sexual activities. So the "ick factor" plays no role in my position.

Marshall Art said...

ER,

"As long as you so blithely rub your hands at the prospect of roughing up your enemies,..."

Now you really are embarrassing yourself. Where do you get the idea that I look forward to the opportunity, either personally or vicariously? I'm sure that on more than one occassion I've insisted that engaging in violent behavior against any enemy is done in reluctance, that the preference would be that there is indeed some "comfy chair" alternative that might work in every situation or that some sweet talking will not only avert attacks but bring forth a new understanding and lovey-dovey attitude toward us by those who have expressed an intent to wipe us off the face of the earth. That you want to insist that I enjoy the prospect of war or what passes for torture in your dainty mind or self-defense killing or fighting, or even yelling at the kids means you are lying. Do you understand this? You can't have it both ways, dude. You expect me to ignore "thou shalt not" when it serves your purpose, but then insist that I not make a judgement call where lives hang in the balance, which, as has been stated ad nauseum, is the only criteria acceptable for any harsh tactics at all. You face your judgement letting thousands die. I'll face mine letting a scumbag experience temporary discomfort in order to save them. I like my chances a whole lot better.

Marshall Art said...

Now I'm gettin' surly. I apologize. But if you can't understand these simple and obvious distinctions, then you have your head up your Feodor.

Feodor said...

Marshall the Fart:

Your stated position is that even small children understand God's stated purpose for sexual behavior as plainly presented in Leviticus.

I think you're stupid for saying so and I think now you're going to walk that connection of yours back to somewhere you think is safe.


Your other stated position regarding homosexuality is that "there's more than 'genes' at play.... Because if it was genetic and they were "born that way", then indeed it would have died out long ago as none could pass the gene on. So unlike race, be it black, white or whichever leaves you feeling more comfortable, it then must be changable..."

Your logic here is stupid, though you are now trying to walk it back into only one individual. As the context makes clear, you were talking about generations.

So you fart, it smells, and then you spray Glad until it Glistens and claim that the fake woodsy smell is the true one.

You know this.

You have no shame, no game, and left with your own knots.

Your Bible is doing you wonders. Fighting in church, drawing straw lines in the forest sand.

I feel sorry for you, really.

But, Marshall, promise me this: if I or my mixed-race marital cohorts die, please promise you will take care of all these nappy headed, sandy or toffee colored half-breeds and set them straight as you set all of us straight:

They can't really exist.

Race is pure, unchangeable, it's the way God likes it and keeps it, working through hormonal washes for the brain and genetic determinism.

And then divide them up between crackers and niggers. You can do it. It's God's work.

The Bible is clear on this point. Ham, Shem and Japheth, right?

Feodor said...

But, wait, whatever will you do with the millions of Latin Americans, the mestizos?

Are they Spanish or are they Indians?

Well, it's up to you. You are the man for the job, alright.

You're a divider not a sexual pervert.

Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "I suppose he thinks I'm really pro-abortion, anti-Bible, pro-gay theology, etc. Indeed."

Nope. Just a liar. And a cultist. And a stumblingblock to faith, as opposed to points countin' and rules checkin' -- and if I took the Bible literally, I might say a prayer for you. But I know you've got that covered. LOL.

Thanks, again, Neil. I will thank your blog, and you, yourself, publically, if I manage to actually go to seminary, complete it, and -- this would take a series of acts of God that would make YOUR head explode, especially, even more than mine -- take a pulpit. I will swear neither by my head, nor anything else, but YOU are almost single-handedly (OK, only about 70 percent) being used by God to draw me into the preachin' life.

"Thanks, Neil!"(tm)

Erudite Redneck said...

Closin' in on 100 comments, MA!

4simpsons said...

ERror, I do give you credit for acknowledging that we do not have the same religion. Some false teachers don't concede as such.

Believe it or not, God might be using you. He permits false teachers as a judgment to those who don't really desire the truth. So go ahead and waste $100,000 or so in your plan to more formally teach the opposite of what Jesus did.

You have nothing but your self-worship, because you have eliminated the Bible as a foundation for truth. I could share lots of teachings about false teachers and their dangers, but those are probably the first verses you jettisoned.

I know return you to Marshall's most excellently titled post.

P.S. If you want to ignore me I'm quite cool with that, but it works better if you don't keep referring to me.

Erudite Redneck said...

I've no desire to ignore you~! Snake-oil peddlers r fun.

Erudite Redneck said...

I mean, come on, brother. I just said you were dead to me. Bein' a pagan heathern, that don't mean I cain't hear you'ns!

Erudite Redneck said...

Oopsie~! Neil shows his true "orientation" spiritualwise! Hoo hoo!

Re, "You have nothing but your self-worship, because you have eliminated the Bible as a foundation for truth."

Lessee here. That there is a dichotomy. Either I worships mah own self, or I worships the Bible as a -- note, he finetunes! where he usually says "the" -- truth!

Me. Or the Bible.

Where the hell is God, Neil?

4simpsons said...

ERror,

Sorry, my mistake. I inferred incorrectly from your last fact-free tantrum:

"Sniff-sniff. What *is* that? Aha! It's Neil. You're dead to me, you high-talkin' faker. Snake. Oil."

But if you are going to address me, perhaps you could deal with the arguments I make or even explain how my view that homosexual behavior is a sin is in any way related to the sales of snake oil? Point me to any verses that refute my position. Show me the examples of gay marriage in the Bible, or gay parenting, or any that say that homosexual behavior is not a sin, etc.

I'm always amused when liberal theologians will do anything to avoid talking about what scripture says in context.

4simpsons said...

ERror,

Sorry to spoil your "gotcha," but I already addressed that:

The petty "Bible worshipers" comment self-destructs as usual. If using the Bible as our final authority makes us Bible worshipers, then those who make up moral rules outside the Bible are, by their own reasoning, worshiping themselves.

You were the one who claims that to put forth the whole Bible as the word of God is to "worship" it. I worship God, who reveals himself in his word. Pretty simple stuff.

But if you want to claim that my using the Bible as the final authority of truth is akin to worshipping it, then it is fair to conclude that you worship your final authority of truth: Whatever ERror thinks. Therefore, by your own logic, you are worshipping yourself.

Erudite Redneck said...

Uno, Neil. Thanks for elevating me to the level of theologian -- but no, wait, if that means you think yourself a theologian, then I decline.

Two. "Perhaps you could deal with the arguments I make or even explain how my view that homosexual behavior is a sin is in any way related to the sales of snake oil?"

Two-a. WTF part of we're all sinners, which is very biblical, do you dispute or dismiss? IT'S ALL SIN, ALL OF LIFE. The Snake Oil is your self, which you promote more than any other thing. YOU, dude, are the snake, and the grease that comes from your self-righteous mouth is the oil.

Erudite Redneck said...

LOL! I got 100! Woo hoo! Is there any biblical significance to that??

4simpsons said...

"WTF part of we're all sinners, which is very biblical, do you dispute or dismiss?"

Perhaps you should actually read my comments: "Remember, we're the ones teaching that we are all sinners in need of a Savior."

You're the un-biblical, anti-Jesus universalist, not me.

So I say we're all sinners, and I say that homosexual behavior is a sin. Therefore, we shouldn't tell people that it isn't a sin. That would, ironically, be a sin as well. I also don't offer drinks to alcoholics and tell them that alcoholism is OK.

4simpsons said...

A theologian is simply a person versed in theology. I don't use that term in the sense of one who has degrees and is a professional theologian, but as anyone who is claiming to think carefully about God.

Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "A theologian is simply a person versed in theology. I don't use that term in the sense of one who has degrees and is a professional theologian, but as anyone who is claiming to think carefully about God."

Oh. OK. Of course, you make up your own definitions. Fake!

Feodor said...

1. Christian scriptures (since the writers did not know a Christian Bible for another two hundred years) constitute one source of good news that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God. They do not refer to themselves as in any way prior to or adding to the revelation of Jesus Christ. So it is still for the Christ is alive and enthroned in heaven and carries out the will of God, not that leather bound thing on Neil's lap.

2. Neil rightly says we are all in need of salvation but wrongly offers a book for it instead of the living Christ. Neil treats the Bible like Mormons treat the golden plates of Moroni.

3. Neil rightly says that we are all sinners, but there is nothing about our created identity that is sinful. In times past, black skin was seen as the mark of Cain or the curse of Ham. Neil is a cousin of this kind of xenophobia and prejudice. Sin is an inheritance of an ability to pollute concupiscence, as Augustine indicates, or, in other words, corrupting the souls desire for good. Thus, fallen concupiscence is selfish desires, not identity.

4. Neil creates out of whole cloth the deceiving image that families in antiquity looked like, acted like, and fucked like the 1950s Leave it to Beaver family complete with station wagon, life insurance, and retirement savings.

5. Neil is not theologian. Not because of some degree. The greatest of theologians did not have any degrees. It's because he does not think carefully enough about Christian life.

What's more is that Neil goes vastly wrong when he thinks one can think -- carefully or not, it does not matter -- about God. God is not a thinkable thing. God cannot be thought.

God promises to be present in a relationship of need and communion through Jesus Christ.

So Neil is not a theologian or a teacher because he does not seek to be in communion, or relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

He has something instead of a need to seek God.

He has his leather bound book where he finds his god and, apparently, the entirety of his own thoughts.

4simpsons said...

Ha! It appears that Feodor and ERror are in agreement. No surprise there.

Re. being "fake" for claiming using the term theologian means someone versed in theology:

the⋅o⋅lo⋅gian  /ˌθiəˈloʊdʒən, -dʒiən/ [thee-uh-loh-juhn, -jee-uhn] –noun a person versed in theology

Apparently the folks at Dictionary.com are fakes as well.

Feodor said...

Sorry, Neil also gets his thoughts from the brightest of lamps like Dictionary.com.

Not exactly a sharpie.

4simpsons said...

So Feodor is opposed to looking at a dictionary for the definition of a word? Stop and meditate on that folks. What a self-parody! Marshall, you are a saint to put up with him.

Sigh. One of the problems of banning vile, irrational, false teaching commenters at your own blog is that you sometimes come across them at other blogs. How awkward. And they are so darn bitter about it that they amplify the tantrums that got them banned at my place.

My apologies, Marshall. They are all yours.

Again, good post. The homosexual agenda advocates and their useful idiots in the church don't care if their foundations were all lies. Once they get the legislation they want it won't matter. They'll just downplay it like they did this issue and it will all be too late.

Meanwhile, they'll be teaching homosexual indoctrination to 5 yr. olds and patting themselves on the back for their "Christian" behavior -- http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2009/05/18/what-say-to-homosexual-indoctrination-of-5-year-olds/

(just go to stoptheaclu.com if that link doesn't post properly - it is a May 18 entry)

Feodor said...

What did I tell you weeks ago, Marshall?

When it gets tough he cuts and runs.

Exactly what I told you.

Erudite Redneck said...

Cuts. and. runs.

Pu. Ssy.

Oo. Psie.

Erudite Redneck said...

That's all, folks. Neil's presence rurned it. Adios.

4simpsons said...

"Pu. Ssy."

That's a keeper. We can share that when ERror starts his first congregation. Classy!

Feodor said...

Wow. And then coming back 38 minutes later to get in the last word.

Real gutsy, Neil. You're a mensch, buddy.

Mark said...

Feodor said...

"Cutting to the chase, you simpletons really don't know that there is no conclusive proof of a single biological source for sexual orientation, do you?

Not genes, nor prenatal hormones, nor brain structure?
"

Feodor in his unsuccessful attempt to prove his intellectual superiority over us mere mortals, makes our point for us:

Homosexuality is not biological.

Race and gender, however, are.

Yep, that's what we've been saying.

Thanks for agreeing with Art's point, Feo!

Feodor said...

Mark, in your finesse, you cut yourself.

Heterosexuality has no single conclusive biological source either.

Get it?

Sexual orientation -- of any kind -- has no proven single source.

Is this what you want to say? If so, you agree with me.

Feodor said...

Though I really appreciate you going way back and re-reading me. That was nice.

Feodor said...

This is also why Marshall wants to go with the word of small children... but not all of them. Only the ones he chooses.

They get to define sexual orientation.

That Marshall, he sure is a theorist.

Mark said...

ER said...

"In the faith sphere, I utterly disabelieve that the Bible means what certain people think it means; in fact, given proper context, it doesn't even say what certain people think it says."

On who's authority, ER? Who imparted to you this incredible revelation? How do you know whoever it is that revealed this truth to you is credible?

I'm guessing you would say Jesus is the final arbiter of truth, right?

Ok, I'll agree with that. Where do you find Jesus' words?

Is there a book somewhere written by Jesus Hisself (other than the Bible) that no one but ER knows about? Is that where you get your extraordinary wisdom?

'Cause unless there is, I guess we'll all just have to continue believing the Words of Jesus are found in that same Bible you say you don't believe.

Oh, wait a minute. You didn't say you don't believe the Bible. I apologize. I misread you. You only said you disbelieve that the Bible means what certain people think it means. Or what certain people think it says.

OK, lets discuss that premise, shall we?

Certain people like who, ER?

I'll answer that question for you as I believe that's a stumper for you.

Those "certain people", apparently according to ER, are people with whom ER doesn't agree.

I guess I'm one of those "certain people".

For instance, I believe the Bible says, "You shall not lay with mankind as you would with womankind. It is an abomination".

Now,I believe the Bible says exactly that. In fact, I think you'll have a difficult time finding a version of the Bible that has been translated directly from the original language that doesn't say that.

I don't add, "except for homosexuals", because the Bible doesn't say, "except for homosexuals". In other words, I believe the Bible says and means exactly what it actually says and means, with no extenuating circumstances.

ER believes the Bible is wrong on this point. He thinks the Bible didn't mean this passage to be read by homosexuals, but only by heterosexuals.

What is the basis for this belief?

ER's own extremely loose translation formed in his apparent belief that only ER can correctly interpret the Bible, the only authority we have to rely on to rightly interpret the nature and Commands of God Almighty, the Creator of the Universe, the One who made the rules we are to live by.

So, if I understand ER correctly, to hell with what the Bible says. If it doesn't agree with ER, it can't be relied upon for guidance.

Might as well rely on the Koran, or Mao's little red book, or Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titan", for that matter.

Feodor said...

Hey, Mark, that part in the Bible about " "You shall not lay with mankind as you would with womankind..." does this go for every reader of the Bible?

What I'm really concerned about is can women ignore this part hen they read the Bible?

God, I hope so. If they can't ignore this part of the Bible then the only sex going on is for lesbians.

But you are saying that no one can ignore the text, right?

After all, Jesus he ain't talking and so all we have is the text.

Right?

You seem adamant that one can't interfere with one's own allowances.

The Bible says what it says and what it doesn't say, you can't make it say it.

Right? Right.

Damn. No sex for any man, gay or straight.

Mark said...

As usual, Feodor distorts the point.

"You shall not lay with mankind as you lay with womankind."

Men are to read that as "You shall not have sex with other men".

Since heterosexual women, AKA "normal women", don't naturally lay with womankind, the way women are to read it is, "you shall not have sex with other women".

I see no dichotomy there, except in your own perverted mind.

Feo, this really isn't that hard a concept to grasp, even for someone of your obvious superior intellect.

Feodor said...

Well, now, this here is not in the Bible at all:

"Since heterosexual women, AKA 'normal women', don't naturally lay with womankind, the way women are to read it is, 'you shall not have sex with other women'."

You've added things.

But you said, "For instance, I believe the Bible says, "You shall not lay with mankind as you would with womankind. It is an abomination". Now,I believe the Bible says exactly that."

And then you say, "In other words, I believe the Bible says and means exactly what it actually says and means, with no extenuating circumstances."

But NOW you are adding extenuating circumstances: to wit, your own suppositions about what women are to do.

But the Bible does not say anything like what you want to say.

I'm just saying, Mark, don't touch your wife tonight. Leviticus says she can't do that with you.

It says what it says.

Feodor said...

You're interpreting.

Something we all have to do to read it.

It's unavoidable, though one can tell oneself that he or she is not really doing it. But they are lying to themselves.

Feodor said...

Tell you what I'll do, Mark, I'll let you off the hook. In fact, I'll do more than that, I'll let all Gentiles off the hook.

The passage begins, "Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them...'"

So we non-Jews are all okay!! Gay, straight, it's all good. Jews are the only ones who can't be gay. And that's only for the Jewish male.

After all, we Christians "believe the Bible says and means exactly what it actually says and means, with no extenuating circumstances."

Period.

Thanks, Mark. You've given me great relief.

Feodor said...

Good night, Moon.

Mark said...

I am adding nothing. Read it again.

As you lay with womankind.

Normal women do not lay with womankind, thus, women can lay with mankind.

As I said, it is really not difficult to grasp. But then maybe I overestimate your superior intellect.

Marshall Art said...

If I had the understanding of a Feodor, I would have to say that Feodor worships the moon. I mean, after all, he said, "Good night, Moon." So he must worship it or at least think it hears him.

But I don't play such silly games and attempt to debate honorably my position. Oh sure, I'll take some shots now and then, but I won't pretend I'm seriously putting forth a stupid point just to confound my opponent.

This is what Neil rejects. Is he cuttin' & runnin'? Perhaps by the strictest sense of the term, yes. But what is he runnin' from? Tough counter-points? Certainly not from Feodor. He doesn't have any. What he does have is idiocy to throw around like it's free and everyone wants it.

Feodor doesn't like Neil's choice of dictionary, as if he could ever show that those who compiled and edited that dictionary are more stupid that he is himself. I happen to generally use the online Merriam-Webster, which presented a similar definition of the word "theologian". It said words to the effect of "A specialist in theology." And that was all. Didn't say anything about sheepskin and one must be honest to admit that sheepskin isn't required to be a specialist or expert on any topic, except for getting a job. I had to look up the word "theology" in order to find a definition that implied formal training, and that was the 3rd or 4th definition. So although in fairness I can say that both Neil and ER are correct in their definitions, I can also say that both ER and Feodope are incorrect in bashing Neil's definition.

Regarding small children.

Only a Feodor would suggest that I used the example fo small children to seal the deal, as if one could establish a library on the subject based on what a small child perceives. Notice he avoids what preceded the comment, when I spoke of "how blatantly obvious it is to rational, unpretentious thinkers". No. He goes for the icing, that small children can understand it.

But for anyone who's been around small children, it's no surprise how easily and instinctively they can cut through the crap. (Of course if that small child is like Feodor, there's special ed.) When people complained of an anti-abortion group holding up large poster-sized photos of aborted infants, a small child is said to have begun crying and asking, "What happened to that baby?" The small child knew the fetus was a child. It takes a selfish adult to bend over backwards to argue otherwise.

In the same way, a small child understands "mommy and daddy" unless they are brought up by a homosex couple. But those unfortunates will be confused when they notice the world around them and will wonder until their selfish "parents" lie to them.

Now, to reiterate, because Feodor is so incredibly stupid, or acting as if he is, race is unchangable. By this, of course, it is meant that whatever race one happens to be, be it purely one or a mixture of many, that is what they stay until they die. It cannot be changed. Read this part again slowly and sound out the words, Feo, you sorry sack. You cannot change your race, you cannot change your wife's race, and you didn't change your future child's (may God have mercy on him) race. You are and will stay the race you were born.

Not true with homosexuals. This has been proven thousands of times. As to this:

"...you simpletons really don't know that there is no conclusive proof of a single biological source for sexual orientation, do you?"


If you weren't the simpleton you are, Feo, you'd know there is no conclusive proof of ANY biological source for homosexuality. But the fact that one is a man is THE biological proof that he is heterosexual and attracted to and made for women. I've always maintained that there is some biological factor in homosexuality, but not something that can be used as an excuse to remain so. But what there might be is a correctable aberration.

Moving on to other idiocies. From his 8:49PM crapfest:

1. If you had a point, typos got in the way, but likely you repeat yourself in point 2, so...

2. Neil has NEVER offered the Bible in place of Christ for salvation. So Feo's either a liar, or an idiot who can't undestand plain English.

3. Non sequitir. No relation to anything Neil has ever said, and mere projection for the purpose of denigrating his position and self.

4. More misrepresentations. No honorable person would ever make such a claim about Neil's position. No real person of intelligence would ever mistake Neil's position for this. So you'll just have to back this up if you can. (This should be good.)

5. Neil has a far better handle on Christian life and living that Feodor could ever hope to have on his best day. Neil doesn't suffer from the inflated sense of self that requires libraries of other people's opinions to come to an understanding of the plainly stated truths of the Bible.

"What's more is that Neil goes vastly wrong when he thinks one can think -- carefully or not, it does not matter -- about God. God is not a thinkable thing. God cannot be thought."

Pretentious and meaningless crap. Kind of the very definition of Feodor himself.

"He has his leather bound book where he finds his god and, apparently, the entirety of his own thoughts."

A very hypocritical charge from one who relies on libraries of other books to tell him what to think. I'll trade those libraries of yours for Neil's Book anytime. (Except that I have a few copies of my own.)

"What I'm really concerned about is can women ignore this part hen they read the Bible?"

What abject stupidity. We on the right are always chastised for not taking verses in context (as if that's true and always makes a difference), yet here, Feodope obviously ignores context. Deep thinkers like himself must be aware of the patriarchal society of ancient Israel. Thus, what is commanded of the men obviously has it's feminine counterpart. It wouldn't make sense that only the men were burdened with laws that women were free to ignore. So nice try here, idiot, but you fail miserably again. Yours is a very childish attempt at an argument. Bag it, sonny.

Regarding your 11:11PM crapfest:

When the Apostles were sent to spread the Gospel to all nations, it meant we all who accept Christ are now part of God's Chosen People. The Christian faith, the belief in and acceptance that Christ died for our sins and then rose from the dead to come later, that Jesus is the Messiah for whom the Jews were waiting, is the same faith as that of the Jews during Moses' time when God revealed His Will for our behavior. Basic stuff, fraud.

And by the way, by far I am no saint. But for the benefit of the women who might visit, I try to keep a lid on just how profane I get here. So I'll thank you to have at least that much class and do not drop anymore F-bombs. I know that's not likely in your character, but like homsexuals, I believe you can change with God's help.

Feodor said...

When I take the points you and Mark make, dust off the line of thinking that got you there, and apply them to further consequences... and you find them to be silly and stupid... can you guess what that means, Marshall?

Hoisted on your own petard.

Good night, Uranus.

Marshall Art said...

Not quite, Sparky. It just means that you're silly and stupid.

Feodor said...

Here's the latest example:

Mark wants me to read Leviticus again and notice that it says, "as you lay with womankind."

Then Mark writes, "Normal women do not lay with womankind, thus, women can lay with mankind."

You see what he does, Marshall? He doesn't, but the question is whether you do?

He is suggesting that the writer of Leviticus -- God, in some circles -- need not give the additional address to women because they are "normal" and apparently don't need God to remind them who or what they should be laying with.

So now we take his way of thinking and add on the logical inferential question begging to be asked, and we get this:

So why do the "normal" men need reminding?

Were they all suddenly jumping into the sack with men? Was there a sudden rash of gay joie de vivre among the Sons of Israel?

Were the "normal" men so directionless that God himself had to write it down: Lay with them, not him!

Probably not. Which makes Mark's offering absurd and untenable as biblical interpretation.
______

So how do we understand this passage? I think you know as well as I do that Israel is constituting itself as a theocratic society and here are some laws drawn from a moral code seemingly more healthy than the nearby tribes who are severely judged in the narrative. We have no way of knowing whether the aspersions being cast their way are true, but that is a secondary point for our purposes.

The main point is that among these lists of dos and donts are countless ones we Christians no longer recognize. We pick and choose based on our composition of what's morally permissible and healthy.

We touch pigskin. We eat pig meat. Menstruation is not seen as unclean, as a matter of fact, quite the reverse. It is a cleansing. Far from being prohibited from uncovering the nakedness of one's mother and any other wife of one's father, father is even prohibited from having more than one wife.

Mark does not seem troubled by this; advancing prescriptions and proscriptions from a two and a half thousand or more year old law that is based on polygamy.

But then that is the part you two will interpret out of the passage. By fiat, behind your back so you don't see your own interpretative necessities, you will XXX out that part.

So... an example of how we churn silly and stupid butter from the sour milk of your spoiled thoughts.

I make it pure so you can see it. But alas, you have to have ears he always said.
________

As for Neil, I said he stoops to get his thoughts from Dictionary.com. Thoughts. He can't think without a dictionary because he can only go denotationally deep.

Erudite Redneck said...

Thanks, Neil!(tm)

Marshall Art said...

"He is suggesting that the writer of Leviticus, etc..."

He's not suggesting that at all. His mistake was trying to respond to your goofy extrapolation, as if there's any sense to what YOU say. That's where Mark goes wrong. So there's no need to add on anything like your pathetically idiotic inferential question.

Why do you even attempt this shit? It's so lame and transparent. It's certainly not clever. By your stupid assertion, why not ask, "Were they all suddenly jumping into bed with livestock? their siblings? their parents or children?" I don't think it's very important to try to determine how much, if any, of the sexual sins were being perpetrated amongst God's chosen. It's only important to know what He considered holy living and sinful living. Don't forget the merry-making that took place around the golden calf.
____________

So how do we understand this passage? Well, if you're a liberal who likes doing things his own way, you make shit up about what it means or for whom it was meant or what the ancients MIGHT have believed. But if you're one who seeks to abide God's Will for us here on earth, you understand that it His idea of the difference between holy and sinful living.

"We pick and choose based on our composition of what's morally permissible and healthy."


Only if you're not paying attention. As far as food, Jesus said that it's not what goes into us that is unclean, but what comes out of us from the heart. In Acts, Peter has that dream about eating animals to that point forbidden. Though it relates to Gentiles being allowed to hear the Good News, there was no follow up that said, "I was kidding about the food. Don't eat it after all." No. Dietary laws changed because of Christ. Go to my first blog entry and read a lengthy explanation for why some Levitical laws apply and others no longer do. YOUR take is false.

Take blood, for example. Menstruation wasn't unclean, it was the blood that flowed during menstruation. Anything dead was considered unclean and fluids, like blood, were a part of that. (This is not to say that you can't slaughter livestock raised for food but then not eat it, but if one found a dead animal on the road, don't touch it without a ceremonial cleansing afterwards.)

So there's no inconsistency in why Mark and I, as well as other Christians not misled by worldly desires believe as we do when it comes to Levitical law. It's tied together perfectly and logically.
_____________

As for Neil, he used the dictionary to justify his definition of a word. Don't pretend you do as much or that it's a big dealt that Neil did. And once again, for a guy who drops names of authors, as if we're to be impressed, you've got a lot of nerve judging where and how he gets HIS thoughts. You've got your whole library full of books that tell you what to think. Did you ever have a thought of your own?

Marshall Art said...

That is:

Don't pretend you NEVER do as much...

but you knew that because you're so learned.

Feodor said...

Like I said, clarified "silly and stupid" from your lactating sour milk of thoughts.

Marshall Art said...

Your poor attempt at clever metaphor does little to hide your obvious inability to understand and absorb simple concepts. All that eucation, all those books for nothing. How sad.

Feodor said...

Are you asking for another demonstration using your latest scree of 2% work?

Marshall Art said...

I ask for nothing of you, Feodor, except that you show some class and intelligence. Are you suggesting that you've already bested me? That'll be the day. You could only best me if being inane is the goal. All those books, all that education, all wasted.

Feodor said...

"As far as food, Jesus said that it's not what goes into us that is unclean, but what comes out of us from the heart."

Well, I don't think he's talking just about food, is he? "What comes out," is referring to our speech and the way we treat others, wouldn't you agree.

"In Acts, Peter has that dream about eating animals to that point forbidden. Though it relates to Gentiles being allowed to hear the Good News, there was no follow up that said, "I was kidding about the food. Don't eat it after all." No. Dietary laws changed because of Christ."

It seems to me that the vision is directly about Gentiles, the good news of salvation has jumped the Jewish fence and come even to them. This is the central point and it is, rather "the food," that is related, wouldn't you agree?

"Menstruation wasn't unclean, it was the blood that flowed during menstruation. Anything dead was considered unclean and fluids, like blood, were a part of that."

I don't think the Jewish understanding gave time to make this distinction. The woman not only had to get past her period, she had to take ritual baths to clean herself spiritually. The one who touched unclean meat, not only had to was his hands, he had to take ritual baths for purity's sake.

This indicates the notion that a spiritual uncleanness accompanies the organic uncleanness. Surely you can come to agree with that. There's just too much biblical and other historical witness for that.

Now, this part is not where the silly and stupid begins. I think we agree on the above.

Marshall Art said...

""What comes out," is referring to our speech and the way we treat others, wouldn't you agree."

I believe I made that point.

"It seems to me that the vision is directly about Gentiles, the good news of salvation has jumped the Jewish fence and come even to them."

I believe I made that point. However, I added that there was no further instructions that despite the encouragement to eat the previously forbidden animals, Peter should continue to abstain from eating them. The issue regarded separating one aspect of Levitical law, that is those regarding behaviors, with other aspects, i.e. dietary laws and ritual cleansing.

"I don't think the Jewish understanding gave time to make this distinction."

I have a hard time believing that God, through Moses, would simply hand down laws without any explanation whatever, leaving the Hebrews to fumble about on their own. No. That's totally illogical to assume that. Sin has always been equated with death throughout the Bible and the OT was no exception. Blood played a huge role in atonement for sin, since the wages of sin is death. Thus, dead things were unclean as they were equated with sin. This parallel was in no way lost on them as it played so heavily in their rituals and the meaning was clearly understood.

It's not so understood today, which is why we constantly have to hear the shellfish argument in discussions of Levitical law and sexual behavior.

Feodor said...

Good.

So I think we are agreed that what was previously a biblical injunction against food dedicated to gentile religious practices was overturned. And that it was overturned by Jesus not because he came to overturn cultic food laws but overturned by Jesus because his truth was so much larger as to make anxiety about food laws to be meaningless. "When the Messiah is with you," one has been liberated from the anxieties about purification of food.

The revelation of Jesus Christ is so much bigger than the ham, the ham becomes a non-issue ("it is what comes out of us from the heart").

So what Leviticus proscribes for the Israelites, eating unclean food, Jesus has overturned with a higher principle.


In the second case of purity laws for women, we don't have anything specific from Jesus.

And here, I am confused whether you think it is just the blood itself that is not clean (which is your first response: "Menstruation wasn't unclean, it was the blood that flowed during menstruation") or whether you agree that purity laws are at play and the women is considered unclean and not to be out in public until her period is over and she has taken a purity bath, a mikvah.

So is this still an issue of uncleanness for you? And is it just the blood or do you agree that in the bible the whole person is considered unclean until the purity rituals are observed?

Marshall Art said...

If you wish to know how I treat these OT Levitical laws, then you would be best served by reading the comments section of my very first blog posting. I've directed others there with mixed reactions, but it explains why some laws still apply to us as Christians while others do not. I found it to be a good explanation for what I already held to be true but could not explain as succinctly. In it, you should get the idea why I said it wasn't menstruation, per se, that was unclean, but the blood from it that made the woman unclean.

Feodor said...

Thanks, Marshall, for pointing me to you theological and interpretive sources. I knew there was a font of reflection somewhere. I didn't expect it to be a creationist member of the American Helicopter Society, though.

I've just done a cursory reading and will get back to you in more detail regarding the passing of some laws only, and only as overturned specifically by God confined to the NT, but for now, I'm sure you can give me just a quick and concise answer for the following:

I missed in their essay how the Adam and Eve, "one man one woman" formula got temporarily interrupted by God for the polygamy of ancient Israel as approved in Leviticus.

As I say, I scanned and I will do a full reading soon, but can you point me to my mistake?

Thanks.

Marshall Art said...

How unsurprisingly typical for you to insult the scholarship of my source rather than address the obvious logic of their analysis. I've no doubt you're preparing to embarrass yourself with what you'll think is a legitimate and intelligent counter argument.

How equally typical for you to continue to further stray from the topic at hand with another irrelevant question. Yet, I will strive to answer it once you can show any relevance.

Feodor said...

"insult the scholarship"... that's rather hypocritical of you given how you talk about scholarship at all other times.

Insult? Is Dewey Hodges not a creationist? Is he not a member of The American Helicopter Society? If you hear insults in that, you really have changed your tune.

These are facts, Marshall. And as they precisely document his scholarship and his scholarly world, these facts are relevant.

As is my question, which seems to have made you hesitant to talk all of a sudden.

So, God writes Genesis and seems to affirm that one man, one woman is the divine plan. The plan, however, goes awry in seven generations without any new law or condemnation of the change by God. In our Leviticus passage, polygamy is assumed but unremarked upon.

Your scholars insist that the NT view of Leviticus "illustrates a fundamental biblical principle: what God has commanded we must assume to have continuing force until such time as God Himself says, in effect, 'you no longer have to obey this commandment.' Some hermeneutical schemes insist that God must repeat in the New Testament all the commands to which He still holds us. Those who so insist are trying to impose a man-made rule on a Sovereign God! Let us understand that Paul did not affirm a democratically chosen ethical code of a now extinct culture. He affirmed the continuing force of God's law."

And yet I cannot find the evidence of God's commandments on marriage changing from one man, one woman to polygamy. And then I cannot find God's commandment that reestablishes monogamy.

Again, your scholars adamantly declare that "we must assume [any law] to have continuing force until such time as God Himself" changes it.

So, what's the word from on high?

Marshall Art said...

Feo,

"If you hear insults in that, you really have changed your tune."

Why bring it up as if it hasn't any bearing on the topic at hand? I don't see how either being a creationist or a member of whatever non-religious makes any difference whatsoever, so the insult is in supposing that either should matter or negatively reflect on their explanation. Neither does except in your own desperate mind.

"As is my question, which seems to have made you hesitant to talk all of a sudden."

Not hesitant at all. I specifically asked that you first show relevance, which you have yet to do. What does anything having to do with polygamy have to do with the topic and the comments of Oliff and Hodges? Nothing.

But that's not the remarkable part. What is astounding is your belief that God "changed" the rules regarding marriage from one man/one woman to polygamy. This is pretty sad for one who claims such a high level of intellect and understanding as you do. Whatever makes you think such a change ever took place? God had Abraham send Hagar away. He didn't sanction his laying with her. God punished David for his sin with Bathsheba. In the end, there was only Bathsheba and David even locked away his concubines never to go to them again. Polygamy was something only other nations did. Anytime it was adopted by anyone of the Hebrew nations, you find one of two results: If the character was a true servant of God, such as an Abraham or David, there was always some punishment of or repentance on the part of that person and a traditional marriage prevailed. OR, the character was blatantly NOT a true servant of God, such as a Herod or other such scumbag, and he did not find favor with God.

"And then I cannot find God's commandment that reestablishes monogamy."

Then unlike Christians, you do not consider Christ, Who had indeed reestablished monogamy, to be God. That would explain much. Perhaps your problem is that you're referencing a picture book version of the Bible, or a comic book version, or perhaps an abridged, "Bible for Idiots" version. There's never been any change from God regarding the plan for marriage. It's always been one man/one woman. It always will be.

Feodor said...

Have you left Leviticus in so much haste that you can't address how it assumes polygamy to be natural and normal, without consequences?

And then these, from my picture Bible: Exodus 21:10ff; Deuteronomy 17:17; 21:15ff, 25:5ff,

These seem to be regulations on the practice, not laws against.

You are making your arguments up. Monogamous heroes in the Bible did not escape tragedies either. Adam and Eve, in fact, the 1950s perfect family could not seem to get it right -- even after the great, unavoidable, unmistakable lesson of being thrown out of paradise. This nuclear family ends up being the source of fratricide.

BTW, Marshall, now that you climb out on a limb, the silly and stupid has begun.

What's more, Christianity -- contemplating mixed marital legacy of historic Israel that you can't wash away -- picked up monogomy from the Roman Empire, not exactly a people of God. Historians, as opposed to helicopter enthusiasts, are clear about this. As was Augustine himself (being rather like the Sikorsky of Christian theology and thinking, I find him relevant) when he wrote on The Good Marriage.

And why else -- if not that the existence and tolerance of more than one wife in the NT church is fact -- would Paul stipulate that bishops be required to be the husband of just one wife in 1 Timothy 3? He repeats this in Titus.

And these were probably written after 1 Cor. 7, where he does not say that polygamy IS fornication, but that polygamy can foment fornication. There is not law against it, no word from Jesus that Paul can claim -- or he would have mentioned it -- he clearly says that this is his recommendation.

But then, as I say, later shows exactly that this is not God's law as Bishops alone must be the husband of one wife.

No question that Paul preferred monogamy. But I can prove that it existed, was tolerated, and that the early church did not conceive of any law against it.

You can only churn silliness and stupidity like frantic rotor blades.

And here we are only talking about heterosexual union. Even here you're out of control. If you can't gain any altitude here, I can't take you out for a spin on much else, can I?

One moral here is that aerospace engineers do not make the best teachers of biblical reading, much less study, and... good scholarship.

But I'd trust him with flying me anywhere.

Big, big difference for honorable "scholarship" which you seem so newly interested in.
______

"Christ, Who had indeed reestablished monogamy"

You have a passage in mind?

And can you explain why Paul, or, rather, God who really wrote the Bible chooses to ignore His own Son?

Marshall Art said...

Feo. Do you type this crap with a straight face?

"Have you left Leviticus in so much haste that you can't address how it assumes polygamy to be natural and normal, without consequences?"

It makes no such assumption, which it couldn't because the opposite is true, that is, that polygamy does show itself, in the Bible, to be problematic. Which story doesn't? Does not Solomon turn to idol worship after taking another wife? Which polygamous relationship was described as total bliss?

"These seem to be regulations on the practice, not laws against."

Except for Deut 17:17, which clearly says "don't". And here, only a liberal would say that only the king is supposed to live a holy life. The King was intended to be model for all to follow. If the king was to have only one wife, how does one suppose it's OK for the king's subjects?

Your other examples are regulations on the practice, but not the sanctioning of it. Even more to the point, the point of each has less to do with polygamy than other issues. Ex 21:10 refers to the welfare of the first wife if a second is taken. Deut 21:15 is concerned about the 1st born and the bennies due him. 25:5 refers to continuing the blood line of the dead brother. Further, if the lust for another wife by the second brother was the issue, that verse would not be followed up by directions for the possibility that the second bro doesn't want the first bro's wife. The bloodline was the important thing here.

Elsewhere it can seem as if polygamy was tolerated since there was no specific law in Leviticus directly related. But this isn't quite true. The issue is covered under the adultery laws. If one is already married, a second wife constitutes adultery, which is clearly forbidden. One shouldn't need a helicopter expert OR a self-impressed pseudo-intellectual to figure that out. Oh, wait. You DIDN'T figure that out. My bad.

There has been speculation about how it seemed to be tolerated. One thought is that, like the idea of kings, which God did not intend, other things were allowed so that the people would learn by their own selfish actions. But again, the intent was always, from Eden on, one man/one woman. Your argument is similar to the kid who defends himself by saying to his mother, "I didn't punch my sister, I slapped her."

There are other ideas about why it might have been tolerated, but toleration is not acceptance or sanctioning and definitely not blessing.

"You are making your arguments up. Monogamous heroes in the Bible did not escape tragedies either."

What a beautifully irrelevant point. Nice going.

"What's more, Christianity...picked up monogomy from the Roman Empire, not exactly a people of God."

In light of what I've just presented, this is obviously false. Once again, from the first, one man/one woman was the intention and this was reiterated by Christ Himself (Matt 19:4-6).

"And why else...would Paul stipulate that bishops be required to be the husband of just one wife in 1 Timothy 3?"

Because like the kings of the OT, when that institution was first allowed by God, the bishop is a spiritual leader and must be a model for the flock to follow. Keep in mind that Paul spoke to non-Jews also. Keep in mind also that to insist the spiritual leader strictly follow the right path doesn't mean that everyone else was totally doing what they wanted. It doesn't automatically follow unless one is trying to make a lame arugment regarding polygamy. By YOUR argument, anyone not a bishop or leader can know that they can be intemperate, lacking self-control, less than respectable, inhospitable, unable to teach, a drunkard, quarrelsome, violent, a lover of money and a polygamist. Right.

"But I can prove that it existed, was tolerated, and that the early church did not conceive of any law against it."

You haven't done even a lousy job so far.

Marshall Art said...

"And here we are only talking about heterosexual union. Even here you're out of control. If you can't gain any altitude here, I can't take you out for a spin on much else, can I?"

"Spin". Hmmm. Curious choice of words. How appropriate for your debate abilities. Yeah, you're spinnin' it alright. Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly's not needed to point out the obvious here.

"One moral here is that aerospace engineers do not make the best teachers of biblical reading, much less study, and... good scholarship."

Morals work better when they're true. Here's one for you: some people can be both helicopter experts AND Biblical experts. You're only expert at impressing yourself.

It's not a new thing that I'm interested in honorable scholarship. I've always much preferred it over the dishonorable liberal scholarship that is too often used to defend indefensible positions.

"And can you explain why Paul, or, rather, God who really wrote the Bible chooses to ignore His own Son?"

Perhaps because it wasn't as prevalent as you would like to believe.

Mark said...

Feodor:

No soap? Radio!

Bubba said...

I've been extremely reluctant to continue commenting in this particular thread, but, while eschewing any personal discussion, I'd like to make a point or two about the subject of the Bible, dietary regulations, and monogamy.

First, I frequently see people invoke what I call the "argument from pork" to argue against the relevance of Old Testament passages that condemn homosexual behavior: the argument is that, because we no longer adhere to kosher dietary regulations -- and other regulations concerning external, ritualistic purity, such as the composition of cloth and contact with a menstruating woman -- it's inconsistent to appeal to the OT's laws forbidding homosexual behavior.

Well, if that's position one is going to take, he should go all out and say that the OT prohibition of bestiality doesn't matter, either: after all, there's far more in the New Testament about sodomy than sheep-bothering. (E.g., Romans 1.)

But the position isn't necessary. For one thing, though both cases are often translated as "abomination," different Hebrew words are used to describe eating pork and sodomy, and vastly different punishments are commanded: a few days' uncleanliness for the former, execution or exile for the latter.

But, more than that, the NT provides ample reason to treat dietary regulations and sexual prohibitions differently. While Jesus Christ Himself taught that what a man eats doesn't defile (Mt 15), He emphasized and strengthened God's commands regarding sexuality, as He taught that mere lust is just as immoral as actual adultery (Mt 5).

Paul seemed to take this same approach, as he was quite clear about the reality of sexual immorality (in Rom 1 and elsewhere), while writing that it's no sin to eat meat that may have been offered to an idol (I Cor 8).

And then we have Hebrews. It contains the clearest New Testament explanation for how Christ fulfills the entire Old Testament while no longer requiring every regulation to be followed under the new covenant: some OT practices, like sacrifices, were mere shadows of the true and lasting sacrifice that Christ would provide, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." (Heb 10:4)

It's entirely possible that the ritual purity that kosher regulations were another shadow or precursor, this time of the internal, spiritual purity that would come from the Holy Spirit. Hebrews concludes with a list of do's and don't's that emphasizes sexual morality while simultaneously de-emphasizing dietary regulations.

"Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers." - Heb 13:4

"Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings; for it is well for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by regulations about food, which have not benefited those who observe them." - Heb 13:9

That last verse is followed by an assertion that strongly suggests that such dietary regulations were indeed OT shadows of the new covenant: "We have an altar from which those who officiate in the tent have no right to eat."

Bubba said...

About polygamy, I believe Matthew 19 is crucial.

In that chapter, Jesus Christ appeals to the claim in Genesis 2, that God made us male and female so that a man would leave his parents and become one flesh with his wife.

This assertion is explicitly applied to the question of divorce, but I believe it has other obvious applications.

It affirms the heterosexual nature of God's plan for marriage: man and wife, male and female.

And, it affirms the monogamous nature of God's plan for marriage: one man, one wife, one flesh.

What Paul writes later about the requirements of church leaders -- moral requirements to which we ALL should aspire, but to which leaders MUST adhere -- conforms to the idea that God made us male and female for heterosexual monogamy.

The Old Testament not only has regulations that govern polygamy, it also has regulations that govern divorce.

But, in Matthew 19:8, Jesus explains the reason for the regulations regarding divorce: "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

What Jesus says about divorce isn't explicitly said about polygamy, but I think it's quite reasonable and consistent with Scripture to reach the conclusion that the teaching applies to both: as with divorce, the regulations regarding polygamy were divine concessions to human hard-heartedness, but neither were part of God's perfect plan "from the beginning."

After all, when God made man a partner, He gave him only one woman.

Genesis 2:24 ("Therefore") makes clear that the pairing of Adam and Eve wasn't merely descriptive: it was prescriptive. The first family wasn't just a historical reality, but a pattern to follow for the expression of sexual desire. The ONLY truly blessed and biblical alternative is the denial of such desire: celibacy, which Jesus commended for some in Matthew 19.

Marshall Art said...

Great comments from Bubba. Thanks.

Feodor said...

Marshall, if you cannot read Leviticus 18 and clearly see polygamy present and unopposed, then you are not being honest with yourself and you are an insult to reason.

There is no way forward if you are not going to be honest with the fact that "mother" is different from the additional, "father's wife," and that "sister" is a category both of a girl born from one's mother and a girl born from another mother but from one's father and even a girl born of a woman who is now married to one's father but is not a daughter of one's father, "your father's wife's daughter."

"You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home.... You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, brought up in your father’s family, since she is your sister."

Marshall Art said...

Feodor,

If you cannot read the entire Bible and clearly see how God intended marriage to consist of one man and one woman, then you are not being honest with yourself and you are an insult to reason, as well as to so many other things and beings.

It amazes me that so many liberals, who think they have come to understand God's Will for modern times, need to have things so implicitly spelled out. As has been mentioned, that God didn't rain down thunderbolts and horror upon every transgression in a manner that suits LIBERAL sense of justice, does not mean that He condoned those transgressions. The childishness of this perspective is an insult to children.

Give it up, Feo. Your argument is lame and worst of all, your persistence is an insult to yourself.

Feodor said...

If you don't have a worthy response for Leviticus 18, why should I trust you with the rest, or any other part, of the Bible.

You're giving up by circling. Everyone can see it.

Feodor said...

And this is idiotic:

"Your other examples are regulations on the practice, but not the sanctioning of it."

You're proposing scriptural regulations for Godlessness.

Feodor said...

"Even more to the point, the point of each has less to do with polygamy than other issues."

That's what's called "being taken for granted," unopposed, assumed... already acceptable.

Feodor said...

" The bloodline was the important thing here."

This sounds curiously like my sociological reasonings which you, Olliff, and Hodges claim has nothing to do with God's holy laws for holy behavior. You guys demand that God wrote the Bible and would not provide leiniencies for any social practice that is immoral.

You are in total contradiction.

Feodor said...

"The issue is covered under the adultery laws."

This is your interpretation. (And it's bullshit, by the way.) You are imposing another culture's standards from a time in the future back on the ancient Israelites.

Bad practice, bad intention. You're looking for outs instead of reading what's there.

Feodor said...

"There has been speculation...'

Precisely. That's all you have to comfort your twisted capacity for reading the text in a clear and simple way.

You fundies, always sticking laws in where your mind refuses to open.

Feodor said...

"In light of what I've just presented..." you'd bump you head on the andiron.

Augustine: polygamy "was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.... Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living."

Feodor said...

God, but you're willfully stupid.

Feodor said...

Bubba repeats your airy gloss; if monogamy is the divine path, and polygamy the way of perdition as you claim, why didn't it turn out better for the one man, on woman model?

In the absence of divine decree that it is so, you can't attribute bad events nonchalantly to polygamy and refuse to do so to monogamy.

Vice Versa, you can't fend off bad events as being non attributable to monogamy without doing so for polygamy.

Not and be true to your "scholars," Olliff and Hodges, or, as I like to think of them, blogger and bladder.

Feodor said...

God, you really are willfully stupid. Stubbornly silly.

Marshall Art said...

"You're giving up by circling. Everyone can see it."

Who's "everyone"? You and the lice in your hair?

"father's wife,"

Might this also mean the woman your father married after Ma died? I see nothing that suggests it must mean another wife in a polygamous relationship. The only daughter of such a second marriage suggests only one the is fathered by your father. I see none that speaks of the daughter of the second wife from a previous relationship, or put another way, a non-blood relative. If your comic book Bible has an extra verse that covers such a thing, give me the verse number so I can compare to a real Bible.

"You're proposing scriptural regulations for Godlessness."

I propose nothing but that you are a buffoon and your arugments weak, as only a buffoon's arugments can be. I was, however, suggesting a possibility for what you think is a God sanctioned behavior, which polygamy is not. As Bubba suggested, divorce was tolerated. Slavery was tolerated. I would submit that it's quite likely, people being as imperfect as they are, that there were throughout the pre-Christ history of Israel, those Hebrews who didn't strictly follow Mosaic law without being blatantly punished. So what? It only means permission to libs looking for excuses to carry on in their blatantly UNlawful behaviors.

"That's what's called "being taken for granted," unopposed, assumed... already acceptable."

Nonsense. That's what's called an accurate rendering of the point of those verses. YOU are imposing your desired beliefs upon those verses without any support for doing so.

"You guys demand that God wrote the Bible and would not provide leiniencies for any social practice that is immoral."

I'm not sure I follow your point in this comment. We insist that God inspired the Bible, and provided rituals for atonement for immoral practices and then, later, Christ. I've not contradicted myself at all, and I stand by my interpretation as the better one regarding the purpose and intention of this particular command. It has nothing to do with God sanctioning, allowing or accepting polygamy.

""The issue is covered under the adultery laws."

This is your interpretation. (And it's bullshit, by the way.)"


If there's any bullshit, it's what your supporting. If one marries, one commits adultery by having sexual relations with anyone but the one he married. To add a second spouse means adultery because of the infidelity to the first spouse. This isn't just interpretation, it's plain logic based upon what it means to be married. You'd like it to mean I'm overlaying modern notions on an ancient people, but that's not true at all. As has been said, God made ONE helper for Adam, not several. It has always been the intent of one man/one woman. Small children could understand this. YOU'RE the one who's looking for what isn't there.

Marshall Art said...

""There has been speculation...'

Precisely. That's all you have to comfort your twisted capacity for reading the text in a clear and simple way."


Except that I'm not the one bothering to speculate. I was merely offering the speculations of others since you seem to need explanations for that which doesn't exist. YOU, however, are taking great liberties with the text in order to justify your corrupted and laughable positions.

"Augustine: polygamy "was lawful among the ancient fathers..."

Which of the ancient fathers is your god? My God doesn't approve of polygamy. It was not "lawful" to Him, nor is it now. But your Augustine quote is an example of the speculation to which I earlier referred. Thanks for helping my argument.

"God, but you're willfully stupid."

Is there somewhere in your modern, educated sphere where taking the Lord's name in vain is now permissable? It would seem that by this statement that it is you who is willfully stupid. But then you seal the deal by again trying to make the case that somehow I had put forth some notion about monogamous couples not suffering. What a complete idiot you are. My point was that those who practiced polygamy were not in keeping with God's intent, came to repent of it, or were made to by God, Himself. To be more clear for such a willful dolt as yourself, my point referred to punishments or actions related to their polygamy. Since traditional marriage is the intent of God, why would there be punishment as a result of it? That's like saying that God would punish someone for turning the other cheek, or expecting that such a person never encounters hardship.

All in all, Feodor, you are a sorry advertisement for education if for all your reading and name-dropping and world travels that you could still attempt to debate and fare so poorly. Please tell what great institutions you attended (aside from mental or penal) so I can make sure my kid never goes there. I don't want her to graduate and still be so stupid.

Feodor said...

Hodges and Olliff, your scholars, specifically state that:

1. God makes clear laws.
2. God never fudges on them.
3. God makes new laws in the NT.
4. The old ones he leaves in place, he does not need to repeat.

Given this, you cannot fight your way out of the paper bag of Leviticus 18 without resorting to "suggestions" and "interpretation" by which you join me in noting the necessity of that for anybody reading an ancient text, sacred or not.

You agree that you are simply allowed to argue that yours are better. Exactly.

Lev 18:6 sets the law which is elucidated in all the following verses: you shall not have sex with anyone "near of kin."

So:
-not with mother. v 7.

-not with any other wife of your father, v. 8

-not with your half-sister, either your father's daughter (kin) or your mother's daughter who may have born elsewhere because she was not your father's daughter (near kin) (even though Abraham married his half-sister, Gen 20:12)

- and not with "your father's daughter begotten by your mother." i.e. your FULL SISTER v. 11
(Your version makes the writer look stupid)

- not with a woman (NOT, note, ONE's WIFE) and her daughter v 17

- and not with your wife's sister as a rival (now not just a woman, but explicity WIFE; clearly suggesting that taking another woman -- just mentioned above from outside of kin is just fine because she is NOT a rival. v 18


Again, if you can read that and twist it into a list of monogamous behavior, or find present in it God's judgment on polygamy, then there may be no hope for your daughter. If intelligence is mere genetics, you will "stay stupid" as you fear.

Thankfully, genetics is not the whole story; it's how one uses one's brain. She may still be set for intellectual success despite background.

If you want to stack the deck in her favor, though, do everything you can to send her to an Ivy League school. You still have seven to choose from and avoid mine. After all, the current and last four US Presidents attended Ivy League schools. Two of the last four Vice Presidents. Eight of the nine current Supreme Court Justices and the new nominee attended them. The current Secretary of State, First Lady, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Education, the Director of OMB, and the Administrator of the EPA. All Ivy League.

However, if she's interested in aerospace engineering, if I were you I'd point to Georgia Tech. Dr. Hodges is great. I'd just tell her to steer clear of his crazy drift into the Bible. Like most very smart academics, he can only do one thing well. The rest is kooky.
_______

Oh, and one last thing. Don't you think it's odd that God would choose to name his people, His Chosen People, His Covenanted People...

after a polygamist?

How could HE misplace those laws of his so easily!

_______

Boola Boola, Fool.

Bubba said...

Personally, I think it's not at all obvious that passages like Leviticus 18 presume and require a polygamous society.

To put it mildly, life expectancy roughly 3500 years ago isn't what it is now, and in any ancient agrarian society, marriage and childbirth were almost essential activities rather than mere lifestyle choices. It may have been quite common for an ancient Israelite to remarry after his spouse's premature passing.

But even supposing that these passages account for the existence of polygamy, nowhere does the Bible command or even commend polygamy.

In Genesis 2, which Christ affirms in Matthew 19, we are told that God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife -- a claim that affirms lifelong heterosexual monogamy as God's will for mankind. Nowhere is it written that God intended a man to become one flesh with multiple wives.

And, again, in Matthew 19, Christ explains that the laws regulating divorce -- regulating the practice, not commending it -- were divine concessions in lieu of human hard-heartedness. I think it is quite easy to conclude that, if there are laws regulating polygamy (a big "if), they're concessions rather than God's plan "from the beginning."


Yes, Abraham was a polygamist, but nowhere is his polygamy commended: in fact, it appears that this second marriage was a result of a weak faith in God, particularly on the part of Sarah.

At any rate, the Bible shows that God frequently used very flawed men to accomplish His will.

In Genesis 12, for instance, Abraham lied to the Egyptians about his being married to Sarah, an act that appears to have been a mistake.

Jacob deceived his father Isaac to receive Isaac's blessing, and yet God's covenant with Abraham and Isaac was also made with Jacob.

Moses was a murderer, and yet God picked him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.

David was an adulterous murderer, and yet God promised that one of his descendents would be an everlasting king.

Peter denied Christ, and Paul persecuted Christ's followers, even participating in the martyrdom of Stephen.

God was with these men -- His patriarchs, prophets, kings, and apostles -- NOT because they were perfect: they weren't. He was with them because HE is perfect, and because they had faith in Him.

As Paul explained in Romans, God reckoned Abraham's faith as righteousness: Abraham wasn't righteous by his works, he did not live a perfect life, but his faith was reckoned as righteousness.

It betrays a basic misunderstanding of Scripture to argue that God blessed or condones every recorded action of His patriarchs, just because He made such a historic covenant with them.

Feodor said...

Marshall,

I totally agree with our reasoning in the following:

"God was with these men -- His patriarchs, prophets, kings, and apostles -- NOT because they were perfect: they weren't. He was with them because HE is perfect, and because they had faith in Him.

As Paul explained in Romans, God reckoned Abraham's faith as righteousness: Abraham wasn't righteous by his works, he did not live a perfect life, but his faith was reckoned as righteousness.

It betrays a basic misunderstanding of Scripture to argue that God blessed or condones every recorded action of His patriarchs, just because He made such a historic covenant with them."

It is precisely the kind of reasoning I had to use when I became a priest in the Anglican Church. I am a sinner, no doubt about that. But God will use me as an instrument and my faith is in God, not me.

And it is precisely the kind of reasoning I had to use to correct my inherited bad faith regarding my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and join in collegial love with my gay and lesbian fellow clergy, both within Anglicanism and in other denominations and faiths.

They serve in the same matrix of faith and fallenness, and I witnessed God doing great things in their ministry -- unbelievably difficult things through their dedication.

I had my Peter moment where the Holy Spirit, the seal of God's acts in the world, helped me to join the church's witness that the Gospel lives in people who are of a different sexual orientation than mine just as surely as the Gospel lives in Gentiles, or -- in lessons learned much more recently -- as surely as the Gospel lives fully equally in women, African-Americans and all races without qualification.

This is the scandal of the power of Christ.

And your reasoning here is exactly what helped make my peace with it.

God can only use us sinners because that is all there is.

And the distinctions I learned to draw even as I was learning language, were nothing but group bullshit: Jewish rejection of the nations, Pharisaical rejection of grace, American slavery revisited.

Thank you for airing the sources of reforming our moral lapses.

Bubba said...

I would oppose any Christian who believes that God cannot work through people who experience sexual desire for members of the same sex. It does not follow that God condones acting on those desires.

There are men who experience strong desires for other men's wives.

David was one of them. He acted on that desire and even successfully conspired to murder his mistress' husband to cover up his adultery.

God still used David, and David was called a man after God's own heart. God promised an eternal king from David's line and even fulfilled that promise through Solomon, whose mother was the adulterous Bathsheba.

But adultery is still wrong.

Along the very same lines, homosexual behavior is also wrong, and the Bible is quite clear on this point.

The gospel should be preached to homosexuals and adulterers alike. Indeed, God can and does use people who have homosexual or adulterous desires -- and even those who fail to resist those desires.

But it's still clear that indulging those desires is outside of God's plan for sexuality.

Feodor said...

"But it's still clear that indulging those desires is outside of God's plan for sexuality."

So it was said of miscegenation, backed up by state laws.

Those days are gone, but not, alas, the same theological arguments.

Bubba said...

Feodor, I take it that you believe adultery is morally permissible?

If you don't, you should probably read a little more closely to see what I was referencing when discussing "those desires."

Feodor said...

Adultery -- as long as we understand it to be a deeply intimate (not necessarily sexual) relationship between two people when at least one is committed to another -- is wrong and confessable just like any other sin. The degree of damages from adultery vary according to context: if the seal of marriage is in play, if children exist, if house and finances are shared, etc.

We don't need the Bible to tell us this because God so created the human conscience that we grow in our understandings and the damages of adultery are negative reinforcements. But the Bible evidences some of the points of our own contemporary understanding of the issues involved.

What this has to do with sexual orientation you'd have to make it up again for me to see it.
____

As for Genesis and Matthew 19, neither makes a case for monogamy. The concern in Genesis is that man not be alone. Oddly, Jesus in Matthew 19 says that being alone is indeed meant for some people either 1) because someone is too prone to lust, or 2) a castrated slave -- which Jesus does not condemn, or 3) for religious reasons.

But the point of Matthew 19 has nothing to do and does not remark on monogamy. It has to do with divorce as social custom was then practicing it, which apparently resulted in the abandonment of women, willy nilly.
_____

Do you want to outlaw divorce, Bubba?

Are you okay condoning castrating slaves?

Are you against singlehood, thereby upholding Genesis? Or are you a proponent of singlehood for the uncontrolled, the slave, and the monk?

I'll await your biblical choices on these matters.

Feodor said...

Marshall,

Sorry, I just realized you did not write the reflection on God's use of all of us sinners for ministry.

I rushed to joy where there was none.

Feodor said...

And Bubba, this line of yours,

"I think it is quite easy to conclude that, if there are laws regulating polygamy (a big "if), they're concessions rather than God's plan "from the beginning..."

... conflicts with the principles of MAs scholars, Hodges and Olliff as set down in their article which forms the foundation of MAs thinking on these lines.

Feodor said...

Nothing more to say, Marshall, huh.

Time for a rant so at least you don't think you're out.

Marshall Art said...

"Nothing more to say, Marshall, huh."

What incredible conceit to believe I just sit around waiting to hear from and respond to comments by the laughable and twisted Feodor! And what could possibly make you think that I am "out"? You have yet to make a case that isn't total fantasy.

But so much is understood with your admission to being a priest with the Anglican church. Obviously, you're of the Vicki Jean Robinson branch of the denomination based on your knee-slapper of a Biblical interpretation. You dare cast aspersions on Hodges for his dual scholarship without yet proving you're capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, much less explain Scripture without doing anything else. Let's look at some more of your goofiness:

We can start and stop with this one---that you even bring up polygamy, or more to the point, that Oliff and Hodges DIDN'T in their explanation for why some Levitical laws still apply while others don't. Why, in the wide, wide world of sports would they? In anticipation of drooling drivel from the mouth of some troll named Feodor?

Then of course is your misbegotten understanding of the God's use of sinners to further His Will. As Bubba pointed out, and as I have tried to, it is obvious that God uses imperfect men/women because that's all there is on this earth. But never did He approve of, condone, encourage or sanction their sinful behaviors. NEVER. Yet, you think that that's going on among your "gay and lesbian brothers and sisters". Unfortunately, instead of helping them away from their sinful behavior, assuming they aren't celebate (why should we assume that?), you and yours knowingly ordain them, welcome them as they are without any encouragement to come to the Lord as HE intends, rather than how their selfish desires demand. You KNOW there is no Biblical support for this attitude. You KNOW that clergy is to be judged more strictly than the flock. You KNOW that there are requirements of them, since you've pointed them out yourself. Yet, you join in with their sinful ways and give them your blessing.

Here's a newsflash for you: Satan also works through mankind. He is more than happy to be the most benevolent and loving being we could know if it means guiding us away from His Will. This is definitely going on amongst those like yourself and the V Gene Robinsons of the world, the UCC and Episcopal churches of the world, and all others who pretend that the "love" between two homosexuals is the Love spoken of in the Bible that is applied to God Himself. The heresy here is extreme. True love for another would not allow for sinful behaviors. One who truly loves another would not lead the other to sin by succombing to mutual desires for behaviors God has forbidden. One who truly loves another would not stand for the multitude of lies used to further the homosexual agenda.

This post was supposed to be about the APA's recent recanting of previously held beliefs and how that impacts the position of those who support the homosexual agenda. Feodor has done his best (and considering how he failed, that's so pathetically sad) to muddy the issue (how typical) with false statements, non sequitirs, misdirections and other useless tactics. I have no doubt he could go on indefinitely with such maneuvers and I have less doubt I could continue to expose them for the crap it is (it's not hard). But I'm really quite bored now, and in that, he's done something unheard of up to now. I used to say that I never tire of countering tiresome arguments. I'm tired now. Maybe it's because it's 3:15 in the bloody AM. Maybe I just never anticipated someone as tiresome as Feodor. All those books, all that education, all wasted.

Feodor said...

Man, I seem to have you on a leash. I call for rant and rant I get.

But no answer as to why God calls The Chosen People after a polygamist. I mean, there’s using sinners for ministry, but, wow, naming a whole people who populate history for at least five thousand years now after Jacob, a trickster, liar, with four wives, is beyond using people “despite” their sins.

And I might as well ask you the question that now rests in Bubba’s mind (since you’ve steered away from content): do you uphold Genesis, where it is not good for man to be alone? Or do you uphold Matthew 19 where Jesus contradicts the creator and says it is good when 1. One cannot control lust, 2. When one’s master castrates one, and 3. For religious commitment reasons?

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

And finally, from just two of all my books, two which we have been talking about here, at some length:

Leviticus 11: The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud. There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. ... You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest.”

Of course it goes on an on, but obviously your treatment of this part of Leviticus is appropriately handled in your reference to Peter’s experience in the Book of Acts. And it seems that, in this, you’ve been given good guidance by your scholar’s Oliff and Hodges who clearly and unmistakably take the following position:

1. “Has God ever been medically ignorant?” They say, of course not.
2. “In addition it should be emphasized, in no uncertain terms, that neither Peter nor the early Christian Church rejected one word of God's law. God told them via revelation to Christ's Apostles that certain parts of the law prefigured Christ's sacrifice and had therefore been abrogated by the cross (Acts 10:9 - 16, 28; Hebrews 7:11 - 10:14, etc.). This illustrates a fundamental biblical principle: what God has commanded we must assume to have continuing force until such time as God Himself says, in effect, "you no longer have to obey this commandment." Some hermeneutical schemes insist that God must repeat in the New Testament all the commands to which He still holds us. Those who so insist are trying to impose a man-made rule on a Sovereign God! Let us understand that Paul did not affirm a democratically chosen ethical code of a now extinct culture. He affirmed the continuing force of God's law.”

But what then can you make of other passages from God in Leviticus that, according to Olliff and Hodges (“has God ever been medically ignorant” and “what God has commanded we must assume to have continuing force until…”) should still be in effect?:

Feodor said...

Leviticus 12: “A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.”


Or Leviticus 13: “When someone has a boil on his skin and it heals, and in the place where the boil was, a white swelling or reddish-white spot appears, he must present himself to the priest. The priest is to examine it, and if it appears to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has turned white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is an infectious skin disease that has broken out where the boil was. But if, when the priest examines it, there is no white hair in it and it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to put him in isolation for seven days. If it is spreading in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is infectious. But if the spot is unchanged and has not spread, it is only a scar from the boil, and the priest shall pronounce him clean.”

Or Leviticus 14: “These are the regulations for the diseased person at the time of his ceremonial cleansing, when he is brought to the priest: The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the person has been healed of his infectious skin disease, the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed. Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the infectious disease and pronounce him clean. Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields.”

Or Leviticus 15: “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any man has a bodily discharge, the discharge is unclean. Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring about uncleanness: Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches his bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever sits on anything that the man with a discharge sat on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. If the man with the discharge spits on someone who is clean, that person must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.”

And then, let’s jump ahead to Leviticus 19: “If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD. With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the LORD for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.”

[Which oddly continues immediately with this:} “When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden; it must not be eaten. In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the LORD. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the LORD your God.”

Feodor said...

So, Marshall, you and your scholars claim that all the above are medically sound and we “must assume to have continuing force until such time as God Himself says, in effect, "you no longer have to obey this commandment." I hope you adhere to these laws in your own life. Let me know of the church community that does, please, because I have never heard of them. Mr. Hodges says he’s a Presbyterian now, but I don’t believe him because no Presbyterian of any stripe does these things. I hope he is not a liar. And I thought you were UCC, but that can’t be true, because the UCC does not believe what you do AT ALL.

Or, if your claim is that God has clearly commanded new laws, please direct us to the appropriate texts of these new laws on the cleanliness of birth and the needless differential days between whether the child is male or female (but why that is still medically sound… or does that change, too?); please direct us to the new law on boils complete with new medically sound reason; the new law overturning the need to bring two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop when one is cured and where the birds have to be killed over fresh water in a clay pot; the new law where a man who had a nocturnal emission can now spit on anyone he likes without it being unclean or medically unsound; and the new law on sleeping with a slave girl and planting fruit trees in a new land.

Surely Peter’s vision in the Book of Acts cannot cover the overturning of all these laws and yet maintain some kind of medically sound consistency if all these things are changed?

And in all the ways you construct your answers in your head (I don’t expect you to answer me, since your scholars and you now have been thoroughly embarrassed), don’t forget that you also have to construct your answers in a way that make sense of God writing all this down in clear, unmistakable law giving. God wrote the Bible, after all.

I say this only for your own psychic health. I have no idea what would happen to you if your hermetic trust in a literal approach to the text cracks. Maybe your soul could emerge, cleansed of rigid, lifeless rules, reborn in spiritual honor. But I worry for your psyche.

Boola Boola, fool.

Feodor said...

I don't see you answering questions.

Genesis or Matthew? Is singlehood in God's plan or not?

Where is the law changing what you consider monogamy in Genesis to the accepted and managed practice of polygamy in Leviticus and where is the law changing back to monogamy, and what are God's clear, unconfused reasons with each change?

Are the laws stipulated in the chapters in Leviticus still in effect as Hodges and Olliff would assert by virtue of their rules?

Or do you depart from your blogger and blader scholars?

Answer these, biblical Christian.

If you have an argument that holds water, let's see it. Iron out these apparent inconsistencies and extra-biblical interpretations.

And then we will take up sexual orientation.

Boola Boola, fool.

Feodor said...

And just for fun, maybe you could step in and solve Bubba's problem: where in Genesis is monogamy put into law?

Marshall Art said...

False priest,

Funny how you continue to believe you have any say in the direction of these blogs. It's also funny how you expect me to be sitting and waiting to respond to your incessant drivel, as if my life revolves around anything YOU might have to say.

So now I've got a little time and so I'll respond to your laughable nonsense.

First. Three out of four of the Bibles in my house say "it's not good for THE man to be alone", while the fourth says, "for MAN to be alone". This indicates the some translations show that God is referring to Adam and Adam only in the verse on which you comically think you've made your point. So even for the latter, you assume that God is speaking of "all men who will ever be born" rather than the only man that is then created. But if we assume, as you have, that He means, "all men who will ever be born", you've got nothing that indicates that it's a mandate that every man MUST have a partner. That's because it ISN'T a mandate of any kind, especially since He's referring to Adam. Adam can't realize his full humanity without a wife with whom he can procreate.

We've responded to your ridiculous polygamy arguments and still you insist that there's some acceptance or mandate from God rather than a tolerance of the practice. We've shown how His intent has been ignored in the OT and how He has tolerated those occasions, yet you still, without substance and proof, insist that He has "changed his mind" on the subject of marriage being between one man and one woman. It's clear you simply WANT Scripture to say something it doesn't.

Furthermore, to insist Bubba is ducking some incredible deal-breaking point of yours regarding monogamy is the most laughable of all. Gen 2:24 shows where God states His intentions regarding marriage, but it's not until Exodus when He backs it with a Commandment against adultery. What was that, some sort of trick question?

As to purity laws, I don't know what more can be said that would make better sense to a mental midget such as yourself. You need these laws to be in effect or none of Leviticus to be in effect in order to justify your desire to please the world that is so obviously stronger in you than your desire to please God, know matter how it might hurt to do so. If you can't understand the the reasons for the purity laws were washed away by the blood of Christ, as the laws of atonement were, then there's not much more hope for you. As I said, it's obvious you have a greater desire to please homosexuals than you do God. What a coward. What a fraud. What an incredible waste of time trying to explain the simple to such a simpleton who thinks an ivy league school and a vast library has given him intelligence. What a geek you must be to say, "Boola boola". And you dare call anyone else a fool.

Feodor said...

False Christian,

I'd bet you my week's pay that not on of your handsome Bibles are in Hebrew? While you check out the ratio of four of three hundred and eighty translations, one only has to check the Hebrew to knot that what is being referred to is Adam as the representative Man.

Otherwise, blown bulb, God would have said it was not good for ADAM to be alone.

"yet you still, without substance and proof, insist that He has "changed his mind" on the subject of marriage being between one man and one woman..."

And if you want to admit that the following is absolutely what God is doing, I wont stop you:

"We've shown how His intent has been ignored in the OT and how He has tolerated those occasions..."

I'll just suggest that since God is also tolerating gay and lesbian faithful, then who the hell are you to say God can't?

By your own stumblebum and very interpretive lights, you've given reason to yourself to calm your hate and be more tolerant.

I don't; the rules laid down by your scholars do, if but you could understand your own grade school experts. You cant' even do that.

After all these months, you still can't get that the idiotic conclusions I draw, I'm drawing from your system of reasoning? Or that of your whirlybird scholars?

You're just pure, man. Too, too pure to get mad at, really.

"If you can't understand the the reasons for the purity laws were washed away by the blood of Christ..."

I'm not the one who is having this problem; again, and yet again, please read your own blogger/blader scholars.

It's there problem. I'm just trying to get the penny to drop in that wee leetle noodle got for a mind:

Messrs Olliff and Hodges: "what God has commanded we must assume to have continuing force until such time as God Himself says, in effect, "you no longer have to obey this commandment." Some hermeneutical schemes insist that God must repeat in the New Testament all the commands to which He still holds us. Those who so insist are trying to impose a man-made rule on a Sovereign God! Let us understand that Paul did not affirm a democratically chosen ethical code of a now extinct culture. He affirmed the continuing force of God's law..."

(Man, I'm getting tired of this remedial repetition; read your own guys!, Christian hater.)

Marshall Art said...

Boy, someone's got his manboob in wringer. Look at all those typos!

If you look at any of those 380 translations, do any of them say anything like, "I will make a helper for them? Does not "Adam" mean "man"? So in the translation you're hoping makes your case, could not "man" be capitalized, meaning, "It is not right for Adam to be alone"?

And yet again, even if it means all men ever to be born, you still haven't shown anything like a command in those verses. So there is no command to marry, but as we see in Exodus, there is a command that supports the one man/one woman intent in the commandment against adultery. Later, we see that divorce and remarrying is akin to adultery in most cases. One man, one woman, one flesh and let not man put asunder what God hath joined.

Try as you might, Anglican chucklehead, but there is no mandate that all men should marry, no mandate or acceptance of polygamy (tolerance is NOT acceptance), and no tolerance, mandate, acceptance or blessing for homosexual marriages or unions of any kind. All that education, all those books, all a complete and utter waste. A complete and utter waste. That's pretty much you in a nutshell, Feo. Perhaps that's the definition of "feodor".

Feodor said...

So, you're down to pointing out typos, huh? The definition of not knowing when the game's over.

Do you know what your name means when not used as a name?

It is not good for a marshall to be alone.

It is not good for Marshall to be alone.

Pretty different.


Nothing in Exodus mandates one man, one woman. It's just not there. Yet you see it. What's that say?

"Don't have sex with someone not your wife" is not the same as "have only one wife."

Elementary logic.

_______

But let's just say you win, Marshall. You get the lolly pop. Say, "wooo hooo," and go on to other posts.

I no longer have the time to grade your papers. With or without spell check.

Bye, simp.

Marshall Art said...

"So, you're down to pointing out typos, huh? The definition of not knowing when the game's over."

The sad thing is that the twit's not kidding. The game's been over for him long ago. The typos are an indication of his finally getting it, as his frustration prevents calm typing. Poor sap.

"It is not good for a marshall to be alone."

Neither my Bibles nor your own offering said "a" man. The unnecessary debate was over simply "not good for man" vs "not good for THE man". So with that in mind, it would be exactly the same for someone speaking of Marshall Dillon to say, "not good for the marshall" or "not good for Marshall". Each would speak of the exact same person. Thanks for backing my point. Twit.

"Nothing in Exodus mandates one man, one woman."

Didn't say that, did I? No. I didn't. I said (in not so many words) that the commandment in Exodus supports the intent of one man, one woman against the possibility of polygamy. No one here has stated that marriage is mandated at all, though, like the twit you are, you are trying to force me to say such in order to make the rest of your buffoonish argument float. So what's that say? It says you are desperate and a loser.

"I no longer have the time to grade your papers."

Yeah. Right. You haven't the intelligence, authority or proper Biblical training (as you've demonstrated) to grade anything. What you DO have is an incredible need for continuing education.

So you can pretend that you're not getting through. You can pretend that there's just no talking to me. But the truth is you've pee'd all over yourself. The truth is that you are a fool with nowhere to go on this topic. You're just another heretic looking for validation of your heresies. Anglican fraud.

Anonymous said...

You made a good point there when you said, just another heretic looking for validation. That is what they are all wanting, because they KNOW they are wrong but don't want to have to acknowledge their error. Our carnal nature is that way, but God's ways are perfect. mom2

Les said...

I support polygamy.

Marshall Art said...

I knew you would.

Mark said...

I think one wife is too many.

tugboatcapn said...

Well, Feodor does not support polygamy.

In his own words:

"The Bible is an inspired text of our expanding experience of God’s love. We are just like biblical Israel and the early church, again, in Paul’s words: “ever growing in our knowledge and love of God.” The Bible does not close off that growth, it aids it, when read with love in one’s heart and in one’s mouth and on one’s tongue. This is its authority: its ability to increase our understanding of love.)

Welcome our gay brothers and sister, gentlemen and mom2: God has wondrously increased the size of our own small hearts."


But apparently God has not yet wondrously increased the size of his small heart to the point that he can support marriage between polygamous christians, no matter how fruitful their ministry may be.

God has stopped the wondrous expansion of Feodor's own small heart somewhere between Homosexuality, and polygamy and bestiality. (That is, including Homosexuality and the use of racial slurs, but not quite extending to polygamy or sheep-bothering.)

(Even if the christian in question is in a loving, committed relationship with his sheep - or herd of sheep, should the christian in question be a believer in both practices.)

But bear with him.

He is obviously a work in progress.

I know. I asked him point-blank.

Feodor said...

"But apparently God has not yet wondrously increased the size of his small heart to the point that he can support marriage between polygamous christians, no matter how fruitful their ministry may be."

Tug, in your enjoyment of your writing, you slip in a test by which your point fails and evidence supporting mine is lifted: no Christian church I am aware of has born witness to any fruitful ministry by polygamists. Unless you count the mounting numbers of their arrests.

You have only sought to attack my position by making up a "truth" that is not true and placing it on my scale of the work of the Spirit.

You've lied to sound better, but you had to bury that lie in a fast running assumption so no reader would notice.

Alas, you've failed in that, too!

Marshall Art said...

Ah! So ministry HAS to mean ordination by some church of a recognized polygamist, just as the heretical churches ordain admitted homosexuals. Hmmm. Keep that in mind, Tug. All things must be by Feo's definition.

Seems to me, though, that anyone who preaches the Word is ministering. Wouldn't you say so?

Feodor said...

Marshall, I have no idea what you are suggesting here. There are too many variable assumptions for me to track down your main thought.

Perhaps, after some sleep, you can help me piece it together.

tugboatcapn said...

Wait just a minute, there, Feodor...

Are you suggesting that there are no good things done by the few remaining polygamous sects of the Mormon church?

Have they ministered to no one at all, ever, in any way?

(I'll bet if you asked them, they would tell you that they have.)

And Mormons, if you ask them, will tell you that they are christians.

They certianly claim to believe in Christ Jesus, so under the guidelines set by Marty and the "John 3:16 doctrine", they qualify.

But their doctrines and beliefs are not Biblical, same as your's are not.

And just judging by your comments over at American Descent, apparently God has not yet wondrously increased the size of your small heart to the point that you can support the idea of Mormon christians, no matter how fruitful their ministry may be either.

You've lied to sound better, and to avoid having to answer my point and expose the stupidity of your argument.

Ain't gonna work, Feodor.

You can't pick a sin from a list of sins and declare that it is no longer sinful without throwing out the whole list.

Feodor said...

Perhaps you and I mean something different when it comes to "fruitful ministry." Atheists do a tremendous amount of world changing good. But I wouldn't call it fruitful ministry in the Christian sense.

If you do, then it seems to me the category has lost any real definition.
______________

You know, the best thing to happen to Catholics in this country was when black folks moved north in huge numbers.

All of sudden there were worse people to hate than papists.

I love how you defend a thing that in any other frame of reference would be under the harshest of your judgments.

Marshall Art said...

Can't help playing the race card, can you, Feodor? Is your wife aware of your insecurities?

Feodor said...

Now your just showing your insecurities. This isn't the race card, it's a simple analogy.

Catholics got a break in the great migration.

Mormons get a break in the great gay marriage game.

But, of course, you don't want to deal with the issues at hand, you prefer to keep side-stepping and mud throwing.

Just like you always do.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 202   Newer› Newest»