This is an interesting article I found through a link at Neil's blog. The link was to another blog that reprinted the end of the article. I found the entire thing quite enlightening.
This article presents info typical of both Hollywood and the homosexual movement.
First, as if it's any surprise, it shows how Hollywood airbrushed the warts and blemishes that is the real life of Harvey Milk. Not having seen the Sean Penn depiction myself, nor having any desire whatsoever to do so, I really didn't need anyone to tell me that the film presented Milk as some sort of saintly creature. I didn't need anyone to tell me that his true self would be left out. Hollywood, in some self-destructive, death wish-like mental defect, likes to push liberal crap that draws no one and makes them very little money. This movie obviously stuck to the game plan and so well that the Hollywood loons were properly smitten. But it only showed "their truth", not truth.
Secondly, the article points to the common tactic of the homosexual activist to lie to further their agenda. Milk knew this, apparently, and as is S.O.P., lied as needed. What a shocker.
Thirdly, like the Matthew Shepard case, the murder of the Milk was NOT because of his homosexuality. Yet the movie, and the memory of this low-life, is based on that lie. I had never heard that White supported the right of a homosexual teacher to teach. No. We're to believe he murdered Milk because Harvey was a homosexual.
Such lies, distortions and omissions are typical of the movement. How could anyone support a movement that so easily lies?
516 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 516 Newer› Newest»Bubba said:
Presumption can still be a sin in violation of the principles of honesty: if you don't know X, you shouldn't pretend that you do in presuming X. But it's not a sin in all cases, as I believe a judge is quite right to presume a defendent's innocence until the prosecution proves his guilt...
Even if it's mere presumption, in this case, the claim -- even apart from all questions of the lewd language used to make the claim -- might still be an offense against the principles of honesty and charity.
Fair enough. Very apt moral reasoning, I'd suggest. I may quibble, but not much. Your conclusion there at the end ("Might still be an offense against the principles of honesty and charity") I'd suggest clearly is the case. Still, you make some valid and fine points.
Bubba also said:
That harm is absolutely crucial to the idea of slander.
There are merely presumptuous claims and even knowingly false claims that aren't slanderous because they don't intend or even accidentally cause harm to one's reputation...
If Jones believes that homosexual intercourse is immoral, it's possible he claimed that Smith's sister engaged in that beahvior in order to harm her reputation.
Maybe, maybe not. After all, Smith told Jones his sister's a lesbian, so I'm not sure what further harm the claim causes.
Our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have to fight ugly stereotypes all the time. In part because of these stereotypes, they have faced brutal oppression throughout the years, to this very day. Sometimes the oppression is deadly or involves physical harm, other times, it "merely" means they might lose their jobs or homes or children or otherwise be denied basic human rights. The oppression and cruelty that our homosexual friends face is a clear and present danger.
To be sure, sometimes SOME in the gay community do things to reinforce these negative stereotypes, so I'm not suggesting that is not the case. Nonetheless, ugly stereotypes are ugly stereotypes.
There is a stereotype among some of married white men - that they are sexist, brutal, misogynistic, womanizing creeps. It's not a widespread stereotype, but it's out there. And SOME in the "married white male" community DO reinforce those stereotypes. Nonetheless, ugly stereotypes are ugly stereotypes.
In either case, I would suggest "slander" is indeed the correct term to use if someone paints either a gay person or a married white male with that ugly stereotype brush - especially (and here's the point in our conversation) when they know NOTHING about the person except that he/she is a Christian who happens to be gay/married white male.
If I hear that Mr Whitebread is a Christian married white male and my response is to suggest that he's probably fooling around with his secretary and proceed to describe those acts, that IS slander. I think there's some room for debate on my illustration, but it sure smells like slander (slander as it is used in the Bible) to me.
But thanks for the reasonable thoughts about the topic, Bubba. Seriously.
[continued]
On offenses against the Body of Christ. I wrote, "I'm also not sure that the lewd comments were a failure of love for the Body of Christ, since I do not believe that homosexuality is sanctioned by Christ."
Dan, in response you write the following:
"There is a person who is an alcoholic. Clearly unhealthy, unwholesome behavior. A Christian looks at the alcoholic and is displeased because such a life is not conducive to Right living. BUT, if that Christian then goes and makes up shit about the alcoholic ('He probably beats his wife') based on nothing - and broadcasts it on a blog, THAT is not loving behavior. One can oppose what one believes to be sinful behavior without engaging in making up shit, which is also wrong."
Here is the comparison between homosexual intercourse and wife-beating, and again I don't think it's entirely apt, because you claim that the former is morally permissible in at least some circumstances.
But for both cases I would agree with the statement, "THAT is not loving behavior."
The question is, loving behavior against whom? I'm not entirely convinced that it's ALWAYS the case that any offense against someone who happens to be a Christian brother or sister is against the entire Body of Christ.
The more I think about it, the more inclined I am to believe that it is always such an offense, but there are hard cases: if a Christian cop loses his temper and beats a suspect, is it really the case that he committed one additional sin (against the Body of Christ) if the suspect happens to be a Christian, too, even if the cop didn't know about it? I'm reluctant to say yes, at least on that one case.
But I'll say again, that if Jones sinned against the universal church with his lewd language toward Smith's Christian sister, it's possible that you too have sinned against the church when you go overboard and accuse Mark of "verbal rape." Beyond that, you may be sinning against the church, if you presumptuously make defamatory claimst against a politician who is also a Christian: if you presume he lied about the reasons for war, or if you try to smear her as a stealth seccessionist. This cuts both ways.
On apologizing to the sister. You write two things that seem contradictory, at least at first. On the one hand you write this:
"If I were to make a lewd comment about your mother, I would soon be embarrassed at my behavior and apologize to you, your mother and mothers everywhere."
On the other hand, you concede, "I don't think it necessary to call your mother up and personally apologize to her about something she doesn't even know about."
What you're saying is that you should apologize "to" my mother, but not to her, in a literal sense.
I took the earlier claim that Jones should apologize to Smith's sister in the literal, more common, more obvious sense, that he should do so personally.
It seems we both agree that personal apologies aren't always necessary. If one public figure slanders another, the apology should be public and also personal, but if I were to slander some far-removed politician in front of you, I should apologize directly to you, but it seems we both agree some personal note to the politician is entirely unnecessary.
I'm not sure that I would say that your apology to me includes an apology to my mother. It certainly would and should include an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that my mother was wronged, e.g., "I apologize to you for insulting your mother," where the second half of the sentence includes the acknowledgement. But I'm not sure that's really an apology.
In this one case, the difference between may be semantics: you seem to believe one can apologize to a person or group by proxy, and I tend not to use the term in that way.
[continued]
Bubba said:
I'm not sure that I would say that your apology to me includes an apology to my mother. It certainly would and should include an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that my mother was wronged, e.g., "I apologize to you for insulting your mother," where the second half of the sentence includes the acknowledgement. But I'm not sure that's really an apology.
Again, fair enough.
[continued]
Dan, to make myself clear on this subject, I'd like to respond to this:
"[I will note the caveat that I find it disturbing in the extreme that you don't think an apology to the slandered is due. IF I SIN AGAINST YOU, I should apologize to you. Now, I think reasonable people could disagree about the specifics - in my opinion, since she didn't know, Jones might could just apologize to Ms Smith and women in general at the blog without personally contacting her, but the apology should clearly be first and foremost to her. Nonetheless, I'll give you some wiggle room... But seriously, y'all seem to have some problems recognizing bad behavior when it actually happens.]"
If the person offended isn't personally addressed, I don't immediately think of an acknowledgement as an actual apology.
In this case, I DO recognize the bad behavior, that Jones committed an offense against Smith's sister. He should apologize to Smith at the very least, and acknowledge the offense against his sister. But until he acknowledges that offense against her to her personally, I wouldn't count it as an apology "to" her.
Again, it's semantics, and no reason to conclude that I have some deeply disturbing flaw in my moral compass.
On apologizing to women and lesbians everywhere. On the other hand, it's not mere semantics that distinguish us on the question of whether Jones should apologize (if only by proxy) to women and lesbians everywhere.
Not all disparaging remarks toward a member of a particular group is an insult to the entire group.
Suppose two Asian teenage girls were in a verbal fight, and one called the other's mother an idiot. Because everyone involved is Asian and female, it's almost certainly not the case that the insult is an offense against all Asians or all women.
Suppose your mother lives in Texas. If I say your mother is promiscuous or an idiot -- and let me be ABSOLUTELY clear that I'm not -- I'm not necessarily insulting all mothers or women OR Texans.
If I said she's an idiot because she's a mother, I'm insulting all mothers, but not all women or Texans. If I said she's an idiot because she's a woman, I'm insulting all women, but not all Texans. And if I said she's an idiot because she's from Texas, I'm insulting all Texans, but certainly not women from New York or mothers from California.
See? There are times where an attack on one member of a group entails an attack on the entire group, particularly (or perhaps exclusively) when the attack is based on that member's membership. But there are times where no such group offense is entailed.
There are offenses toward entire groups, but I am reluctant, in particular, to concede that some insults are worse than others simply on the grounds of which group is being insulted.
Earlier you wrote, "Jones has specifically joined in the oppression of folk who have been historically oppressed," but I'm not sure that even the Christian principle to protect the least among us means that it's a greater offense to attack blacks and women than it is to attack white men.
This is probably another example where we differentiate between "even" and "especially."
I believe that God loves everyone, that He is "even" concerned for the marginalized, and so we should make sure to include them. I know this might not be exactly how you would put it, but it seems to me that you believe that God is "especially" concerned for the marginalized, and so we should make sure to prefer them.
There's a huge difference between the two, and I suspect the difference is reflected here.
[continued]
[continued]
Dan, in some very important respects, I am not a member of a historically oppressed class: I'm a white, heterosexual, male. In some other, MUCH less important respects, I am marginalized by the culture: I'm a Trekkie in a society where it's much more acceptible to like medical dramas, and I'm a Southerner when New Englanders have tended to look down on Southerners for literally generations.
If someone calls me a nerd for like Star Trek or a redneck for being from the South, I don't take special offense because those groups aren't in the mainstream. And I don't take kindly to a suggestion that I have heard elsewhere, that I'm oppressive just because I'm white, and I don't cut the racist insult any slack because of an appeal to the historical record.
I oppose hate-crime legislation that makes some crimes more severe simply because of the victim's membership in the Coalition of the Oppressed, and I'm very reluctant to say that disparaging men is somehow less offensive (or even more acceptible?) than disparaging women.
I told y'all that would be lengthy; I hate that Blogger has such strict limits on comment length.
Dan, I'm very interested in getting back to the subject of what I think are unbiblical beliefs that you hold regarding, for instance, the necessity of a historical and bodily Resurrection.
But that will probably wait for at least a couple hours.
Until then, Dan, I saw the comments you've added since I began this morning. I didn't want to interrupt my own train of thought, so I waited to address those comments now.
I do appreciate the comments, and I'm glad to see that most of our disagreements regarding your hypothetical situation are reasonable -- that is, within the bounds where reasonable people could disagree.
There is one point that needs to be addressed in detail.
On the question of whether Jones slandered Smith's sister, I mentioned that slander entails harm and took the position that I didn't see any obvious harm, either intended or caused.
You responded by bringing up the issue of negative stereotypes...
"Our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have to fight ugly stereotypes all the time."
...and you gave a counter-example of clear slander.
"If I hear that Mr Whitebread is a Christian married white male and my response is to suggest that he's probably fooling around with his secretary and proceed to describe those acts, that IS slander."
I agree that the above counter-example is slanderous, but the problem is, I don't see what negative stereotype was perpetuated by Jones' comment.
You never made clear what stereotype was being perpetuated, so I'm going to have to guess, below.
Even apart from stereotypes, I don't even see what harm to her reputation was implied.
Let's look again at your description of the hypothetical situation.
"Mr Smith is talking with Mr Jones. Smith mentions his beloved sister who is a Christian and who happens to be a lesbian.
"Jones responds by saying, 'A lesbian, huh? You know what she does at night, right? She [vulgar description of a sex act] and [another vulgar description of a sex act]!'"
The claim is that Smith's sister is sexually active, but sexual activity -- FULL STOP, with nothing else clearly implied -- is not itself defamation of an adult's reputaiton, much less indulging a stereotype against an entire group.
We both agree that sexual activity is sometimes moral and sometimes not, though we disagree significantly about at least one particular behavior.
(On that one point, I believe homosexual intercourse is immoral, so I have good reason to find any claim of such behavior slanderous. Because you believe such intercourse CAN BE moral, then YOU have no good reason to find a vague and unqualified claim of such behavior to be slander in every case.)
Because sexual activity is sometimes moral, the claim that a person is sexual active is not inherently slanderous.
The counter-example you gave isn't just sexual activity, it's outright infidelity, that Mr. Whitebread is "probably fooling around with his secretary."
If Jones presumed that Smith's sister was being unfaithful to her life partner, THAT would have been clearly slanderous -- and it would be indulging a stereotype, too, assuming that homosexuals are stereotyped as being unfaithful.
If Jones presumed that Smith's sister was promiscuous -- that what she "does at night", she does with a different woman every week -- that too would have been slanderous and possibly indulging a stereotype, again assuming that a stereotype of promiscuity exists.
(I believe it does, at least for gay men.)
I believe that Jones was wrong to presume that Smith's sister is sexually active.
But it's possible that -- given the scenario as you outlined it -- you're being presumptuous in jumping from a claim about sexual activity to a more detailed claim about behavior that is, for you, unambiguously immoral.
I'll be back to other topics this afternoon.
I'm fine with moving on. This was just a test of sorts, because I was having doubts (and still have doubts about many here, seeing as how they have not chosen to answer my questions and the responses they have given suggest extremely poor moral/logical reasoning).
But to answer your question to me about this topic... You say:
The claim is that Smith's sister is sexually active, but sexual activity -- FULL STOP, with nothing else clearly implied -- is not itself defamation of an adult's reputaiton, much less indulging a stereotype against an entire group...
I believe that Jones was wrong to presume that Smith's sister is sexually active.
To ME, the suggestion was "she's lesbian so she must be sexually active and probably promiscuous."
I agree with you that it was wrong for Jones to make that presumption and to do so in such a lewd manner. Given existing stereotypes and existing attacks on gays, to presume to describe a sexual encounter in graphic detail is what amounts to slander - the harm being the furthering of the negative stereotype and, done in such a graphic way, a suggestion of lewdness on the part of lesbians in general and Ms Smith in particular. That smacks of slander to me.
What do you call it when Mr Johnson says he is a Christian and a heterosexual and Mr Albert proceeds to say, "well, then you must [describe graphic sex acts]"? Merely calling it awful, lewd, unloving behavior unbecoming of a Christian does not seem to me to fully cover the offense, since there is an implication there about Johnson's behavior.
Perhaps the better description of the offense is something like, "The negative and lewd portrayal of women (in general) and lesbians (more specifically) and Ms Smith (in particular), furthering the treatment of women as mere sex objects," and maybe there's a word for that (objectifying of women?) better than slander, but slander seems to be in the ball park to me. As long as we're agreeing that it is an awful and clearly wrong way to portray Ms Smith, we are at least in the same ball park.
Thus far, the whole objection seemed to be merely to the poor use of crude language and there was so much more wrong in my illustration than merely bad language.
I would like to point out that this whole thing started out with Dan defending a movie he never saw that was about a man he knew nothing about.
His only reason for defending it was it was liberal and gay, therefore it must be correct.
BTW it turns out that all of Dans/Fedors biblical points are proved in:
Philippians 23:1
Colossians 6:4
Psalm 152:3
and John 22:1
who knew?
Bubba, if you'd like to know what I said to Dan, shoot me an e-mail and I'll tell you, but it happened so long ago,I'm afraid I can't remember the context in which it was used.
Drood miscommented:
I would like to point out that this whole thing started out with Dan defending a movie he never saw that was about a man he knew nothing about.
His only reason for defending it was it was liberal and gay, therefore it must be correct.
No, actually, the whole thing started when Dan raised a question. I clearly did not defend the movie, I clearly stated, rather:
Milk may well be as described in this article - again, I know nothing about him. Hollywood often glosses over people faults when depicting biographies. But then again, I know nothing about this writer. Why should I trust him any more than I trust Hollywood?
FROM THAT, you all have been jumping over yourselves to demonstrate my point for me. Look at ALL the false points made about me. Now, I can be gracious on most of them and just say they were ignorant mistakes and honest misunderstandings.
But you are quite well illustrating my point: That MANY writers and commentators on the Right (AND Left, too) make false statements.
Now, I'm not suggesting that the Right makes more misrepresentations/mistakes in their writing and thinking than the Left does - I don't think any of us have the ability to weigh and measure that question. However, just using THIS SINGLE comment thread, how many times have the people who self-identify as being Right-ish had their comments wrongly repeated?
I don't believe that anyone on "your side" has suggested that I have misrepresented your position (feel free to correct me, I'm not wading through that right now). On the other hand, Drood just clearly and demonstrably wrongly stated what I have said and done. Before that, there have been multiple instances of you all suggesting "Dan did THIS... Dan said THAT..." when I demonstrably have NOT.
For a quick list of misrepresentations:
1. Here is what Dan essentially said:
"God says homosexuality is an abomination, but God doesn't say homosexuality is an abomination. Actually, He blesses it, but He never said that, He just does."
2. Bubba said...
"I wrote that you hold in contempt "quite a lot of what the Bible actually teaches."
THAT claim seems hard to deny."
3. Mark said:
"Try to understand, Apostate Dan, that there is more to God than only love. He is also, necessarily, a just God.
The homosexuals and their apologists, such as Apostate Dan"
4. Bubba said:
"The question of the Atonement is a crucial piece of evidence that you are subverting the faith for the sake of politics."
5. Craig said:
"Dan appears to be arguing that they go to heaven because they have no sin."
6. Mark said:
"This would not be a problem for Dan, as he simply would decide if it sounds right to him, it must be right, regardless of what God says."
7. Mark said:
"Dan, being Dan, isn't really worth the trouble since he will never acknowledge he is wrong. About anything."
For just a quick sampling, I could find at least seven (eight, counting your false statement, Drood) clear misrepresentations of my position or what I believe. From at least four different writers. I know Marshall has made some false points, too, but I'm just doing a quick search right now.
And so, as to the GIST of the disagreement between Marshall and me, you all have demonstrated just on this one comment, much more of a problem accurately representing what The Other believes. Now, again, I think we can see that some of them are merely misunderstandings, but the point remains - our little sampling here does not bode well for the argument that Marshall makes suggesting the Right is less likely to make false statements.
Dan, a few notes before we get back to the necessity of a historical and physical Resurrection.
You write, about Jones' hypothetical statement:
"To ME, the suggestion was 'she's lesbian so she must be sexually active and probably promiscuous.'"
But the comment doesn't actually imply promiscuity.
I agree that Jones was wrong to presume that Smith's sister's homosexuality implies that she's sexually active, but you seem just as presumptuous when you go from his statement about sexual activity to promiscuity.
Earlier you wrote, "as a general rule, I would suggest when someone you're disagreeing with says A, that you all really, really should not assume that 'By A, he must also mean B, and possibly C!!'"
You have repeatedly insisted upon not drawing undue conclusions: "Do not presume to make point B off my stated position A."
Well, I would suggest that, if that's really what you demand, you should lead by example. You should do unto others what you would have them do unto you.
You ask:
"What do you call it when Mr Johnson says he is a Christian and a heterosexual and Mr Albert proceeds to say, 'well, then you must [describe graphic sex acts]'? Merely calling it awful, lewd, unloving behavior unbecoming of a Christian does not seem to me to fully cover the offense, since there is an implication there about Johnson's behavior."
The question of Albert's intent is a tough one to answer, especially when you demand -- at least when it comes to your comments -- that one cannot draw any conclusions that isn't explicit in what is actually said.
Laying aside that demand and going back to Smith and Jones, it's entirely possible that Jones said what he did, not to insult Smith's sister, but to get Smith to confront some other aspect of the issue.
Here, Albert might be some sort of gnostic who believes that the entire physical universe is evil and/or an illusion, and he might indeed be trying to disparage the physical act of romantic love by describing it in lewd terms.
But I don't think that intent can be implied with any real confidence.
And, I'll tell ya, if somebody used crude language in a clear attempt to denigrate what I know is completely moral behavior -- such as conjugal relations between man and wife, or such activities as chewing food or having a bowel movement -- I'd dismiss him as a boor, provocateur, or pervert, but I wouldn't throw a fit demanding that he apologize to me and the rest of the world.
And, you say about Jones' comment that it might be closer to objectifying women than it is slander. I will reiterate than not every lewd comment about one particular woman or homosexual or Texan, is an attack against all women or homosexuals or Texans.
But about objectifying women, I'll remind you that you're the one who thinks the Bible's prohibition of homosexual behavior is in the same category as its kosher dietary regulations. In a very real sense, you're treating sexual partners like pieces of meat. :)
Edwin is right that this whole thing began with what appears to be an unjustified and presumptuous attack on your part, against Mr. Flynn for the article he wrote criticizing Harvey Milk.
Marshall contacted Flynn, who provided details about his sources, the very thing you were asking about, and you still haven't said the first word about that.
And, in addition to accusing us here of lying, the ONLY other evidence you produced to justify your charge that conservatives are dishonest was a few articles for Media Matters. As much as you say you look out for excessive partisanship, you appealed to an explicitly partisan organization; we've pointed this out, and you haven't said one word about this, either.
Dan, about that list of supposed misrepresentations of your views, I know you dispute a lot of it, but I think some of the conclusions are quite reasonable.
Some of them are open questions; about my claims in particular, we are STILL engaged in a (needlessly) lengthy conversation to see if, in fact, you can demonstrate that your beliefs regarding things like the Atonement cohere to what the Bible clearly teaches.
And, in #5, Craig wrote, "Dan appears to be arguing that they go to heaven because they have no sin."
He used the magic word "appears," and you thanked him for the humilty, but you cut him no slack.
And the fact is, two can play at this game.
You wrote about me, "What he does not do is offer up anything other than his own feelings about my positions."
This was a lie, as even before you wrote this I offered an extensive summary of your positions as best as I understand them, which I then substantiated at length.
You still haven't apologized for this smear, but we can't say you never apologize for nothing, because you take great pains to denounce your old conservatism.
About whether you apologize as much as you should for transgressions after your conversion to progressivism, well, I think reasonable people can disagree.
In addition to misrepresentations on your part, you also engage in pretty vicious criticism, accusing us of possessing "disgusting" apathy and worse.
"You all are moral illiterates."
If evidence of Mark's misrepresenting you is his calling you an apostate -- point #3 -- then you should be quite careful that you don't go overboard in your own invective.
You haven't been that careful.
If you really want to show that we're misrepresenting your views, you should pick claims that are quite clearly false. You have frequently called our claims "demonstrably" false, but what you say you CAN demonstrate to be false, you haven't demonstrated.
And if you really want to show that our behavior is remarkably uncivil, unfair, dishonest, WHATEVER, you should make sure that your own behavior meets the standard which our behavior (you say) does not.
While you denounce our supposed misrepresentations, you are not innocent of lying, even in this thread, and you are not innocent of throwing around your own perjoratives.
Dan, I'm still waiting your answer to my question.
Am I to assume that you are using the time between your comments to research the Bible in your efforts to find book, chapter, and verse that says God blesses homosexuality?
I can save you the trouble, Dan. It aint there!
You have frequently called our claims "demonstrably" false, but what you say you CAN demonstrate to be false, you haven't demonstrated.
Well, I thought I just did demonstrate. Let me do so one more time on the last two false statements that I've seen.
You just said:
"Edwin is right that this whole thing began with what appears to be an unjustified and presumptuous attack on your part, against Mr. Flynn for the article he wrote criticizing Harvey Milk."
As you note, Edwin said the same thing.
The problem is, THAT IS A MISREPRESENTATION. I did NOT "attack" Mr Flynn. I merely asked the question, "Why should I trust this source over the Milk source?" My exact words were (and I repeat):
Milk may well be as described in this article - again, I know nothing about him. Hollywood often glosses over people faults when depicting biographies. But then again, I know nothing about this writer. Why should I trust him any more than I trust Hollywood?
After all, just as surely as Hollywood glosses over stuff to tell a story, too often right wing writers make up crap and otherwise twist stuff to tell a story, too.
Look at those words. There is no attack. I said, "MILK MAY WELL BE AS DESCRIBED" by Flynn. Is that an attack? I asked the question: "WHY SHOULD I TRUST HIM ANY MORE THAN I TRUST HOLLYWOOD?" That is neither an attack on Flynn or an endorsement of Hollywood, not by any stretch of the imagination. It is, to use a technical term, a "question."
Please, demonstrate to me how that is an attack on Flynn, if you are going to stand by the assertion.
I DO note that "too often, right wing writers make up crap," but that is not an attack on Flynn, just an observation. Is it the case that you think this general reference to right wing writers is an attack on Flynn? I just don't think you and Drood are dealing with my words as I've written them, because what you assert that I did is not there.
On the other hand, you said:
While you denounce our supposed misrepresentations, you are not innocent of lying, even in this thread
You make a claim that I have lied in this thread. Where is the lie? Cite it please, or retract your false statement and apologize, that would be appropriate.
Try to understand it from my point of view: I write things and then you all make claims about what I've said that just aren't supported by the words I used. Can you understand how I begin to question your moral reasoning?
Dan, you lied when you said God blesses Homosexuality.
If you didn't lie, you may refute my accusation easily by pointing us to the book, chapter, and verse where God says He blesses homosexuality.
And, by the way, I told you I would apologize (to whomever you want me to) if you can provide Biblical citation.
Keeping that in mind, I would think you would be eager to provide citation.
It speaks volumes about you that you don't.
Wow, Art! I'm impressed! We have now gone into the 2nd page of comments here! Congratulations!
Dan, in the context of your comment that "too often right wing writers make up crap and otherwise twist stuff to tell a story," your curiosity at Flynn's sources does seem to imply an attack on his integrity.
If that comment wasn't to imply that Flynn's claims shouldn't be taken at face value because he's a conservative (if he is a conservative), then are you saying the criticism of conservatives had nothing to do with anything?
If Hillary Clinton wrote some op-ed claiming some statistics and I asked for her sources and then made some off-hand comment that women generally aren't very honest, I have no doubt that you would criticize me for attacking Clinton -- and doing so in a display of sexism and mysoginy to boot.
Now, you began the comment by writing, "I know nothing about Milk, but I'd have to wonder what the source is for this author's data, since the only thing I see cited is one biographer who refers to his information coming from 'friends' of Milk."
I think it's fair to call your comment an attack.
Either way, I still think it's entirely fair to call into question your curiosity: how frequently do you "wonder" about the sources of articles that are highly critical of conservatives?
As much as you claim "red flags" go up when you detect excessive partisanship, you had no qualms citing Media Matters repeatedly and exclusively to justify your claim that conservative writers lie -- despite Media Matters' quite explicit partisanship.
This is the THIRD time I will mention that Marshall asked Flynn for his sources, which is what you requested, and you still haven't said one word in response.
This is also the third time I'm pointing out Media Matters' explicit partisanship, and you haven't responded to that either, to explain why their claims against people like Limbaugh are credible.
I think it's entirely fair to question your curiosity, and I think it's fair to point out, as I did in my first comment here, your hypocrisy in making sweeping claims about conservatives that you did not immediately substantiate.
About those claims, the bulk of your supposed evidence involves attacking us personally, such as calling me dishonest only to retroactively allow for an honest mistake, and you've done so about statements we've made where there actually is room to disagree on the veracity.
The only time you've tried to compare apples and apples -- conservative pundits versus leftists -- you did nothing but cite the explicitly partisan Media Matters.
But all that substance came later. Your very first comment was hypocritical, asking about Flynn's sources for his criticism of Milk while initially providing NO sources for your criticism of conservatives.
You have a really nasty habit of not holding yourself to the standards you invoke. You seem to invoke those standards only when doing so is quite convenient.
Bubba said:
This is the THIRD time I will mention that Marshall asked Flynn for his sources, which is what you requested, and you still haven't said one word in response.
Bubba, there is quite literally a WHOLE BOOK's worth of words in these 200+ comments. You demand that I answer one set of answers and then demand that I address another concern and you ask further questions and you make statements that need to be clarified since they are clearly wrong and/or not-fact-based and/or not-reality-based, AND there are ten other people making similar demands/comments/questions/false statements. Try to wrap your mind around this note: I don't have time to address each and every point here.
In general, I truly do like to thank people when they respond to my requests and I DO, in this case, appreciate Marshall asking the author for his sources (which, as I recall, were all innuendo, not based on any actual records? Maybe I'm wrong, since there has been SO MUCH written).
I am only one fella with a busy life, just getting back from vacation, with a family to raise and a wife to spend time with and a job to work and you can just accept the fact that I can't get around to everything or not, but that is the way it is and you'll have to get used to it.
You will note that one way I've streamlined this process is by just ignoring the least credible/logical most looney of the commenters and comments here. I point that out so that Marshall won't claim I've caused someone to attack me or my loved ones when I have ignored their repeated questions. I ignore their questions not because they're hard to answer, but because they are inane, stupid-ass questions and/or because they come from perverted, unrepentent slugs of men.
Just as a note.
Now, I will note that I am awaiting your "evidence" of my lie or, in lieu of that, a retraction and apology.
In the meantime, I will note that Bubba said:
I think it's fair to call your comment an attack.
To which I respond that I think it's fair to call such a characterization batshit nutty and any reasonable person would agree with me. You are welcome to your opinion, though, and I shall hold on to mine, thank you very much.
Dan, you write, further:
"You make a claim that I have lied in this thread. Where is the lie? Cite it please, or retract your false statement and apologize, that would be appropriate."
I quoted the lie, here is where you made the dishonest statement, and here is the statement with a little more context.
"Marshall, look no further than Bubba as your paradigm [sic] of dishonest conservatives.
"Bubba accuses me of being, and I quote, 'ambivalent about the truth' and 'consistently dishonest' and 'flagrant and seemingly pathological liar.'
"What he does not do is offer up anything other than his own feelings about my positions. What he does NOT do is point to any place where I have lied (even though he calls me a liar and dishonest)."
I did offer something much more than my own "feelings" about your positions.
In the comment to which you allude, here, I made three claims to substantiate my position that you're dishonest.
1) In a recent conversation regarding the use of lethal force, you claimed to care about strawmen, but you did so immediately after you yourself invoked such absurd strawmen as using lethal force to stop schoolyard bullying and suicide attempts. You said nothing after this hypocrisy was pointed out.
2) In our discussion of Jeremiah Wright last year, you claimed to defend him out of an opposition to slander, but you minimized his vicious slander against the US government and you engaged in your OWN slander by accusing us, his critics, of "digital lynching."
3) You claim to love the Bible, but you reject Paul's teachings as mysoginy and bigotry, and you reject parts of the Old Testament as atrocity that resulted from human speculation -- even going so far as to reject as historically inaccurate the Bible's account of THE PASSOVER, a central event in Judaism through which we understand the Crucifixion, a central event in Christianity.
"Feelings"? Nothing more than feelings?
That's a lie. I provided quite a bit of substance to my claim that you're a lying hypocrite.
You may disagree with the substance and lament how poor Dan is always misunderstood, but what I provided is substance.
"What [Bubba] does not do is offer up anything other than his own feelings about my positions."
Both in the general case AND in reference to the comment you were criticizing, this claim is complete bullshit.
Dan, I haven't been asking you tons of irrelevant questions. The questions I've emphasized most revolve around ONE claim of yours:
"I DO love the Bible and deeply respect its teachings."
It's worth noting that, in this very comment, you still clearly worked against against the authority, authorship, and veracity of those passages in the Bible where God commands wars of annihilation.
(E.g., "exactly because God is a just God, we can know that God does not command the slaughter of innocents.")
The claim that you respect the Bible's teachings isn't even credible within the context of the comment in which it was made.
In light of that comment, I brought up six doctrinal issues where your position (as I understand it) does not seem compatible with what the Bible clearly teaches.
1) Your rejection of the Passover as historically inaccurate.
2) Your denigration of the Virgin Birth as extra-biblical.
3) Your denigration of the Atonement as mere imagery.
4) Your stated belief that it is "doubtless" that Paul was a mysoginyst, homophobe, and/or bigot.
5) Your explicit invocation of your belief that the Old Testament commands atrocities to undermine other teachings, specifically its prohibition of homosexual behavior.
6) Your apparent belief that the historical and bodily Resurrection is an optional and non-essential doctrine of Christianity.
A few days later, I encouraged you -- for the first of several occasions -- either to clarify your beliefs where I misunderstand you, or to explain "how the details of [your] beliefs could ever be the reasonable result of a good-faith attempt to conform one's worldview to the teachings of the Bible."
You have never fully taken me up on this offer, and I asked two two-part questions, NOT TO ADD MORE QUESTIONS, but simply to make some small progress in what I had already requested.
For both subjects, I asked you a yes-or-no question to clarify what you believe, and I asked a conditional follow-up to justify that belief with Scripture, a request which should be easy if your beliefs are as rooted in the Bible as you say they are.
I asked about two subjects, two of the six I already mentioned:
1) The necessity of a physical and historical Resurrection.
2) The reality of the Atonement as something more than mere imagery.
My follow-up questions to those were NOT new questions; they were attempts to get clearer answers because YOUR ORIGINAL ANSWERS WERE INCOHERENT AND INCOMPLETE.
I've been trying to focus on the same few doctrines, all related to why I'm deeply skeptical of your central claim that you respect the Bible's teachings.
You haven't been helping this thread stay on-target and keep the chaff to a minimum, when you bring up other issues OUT OF ABSOLUTE NOWHERE, like Mark's long-since-deleted comment and your subsequent "moral reasoning" essay questions.
If there's nothing else I WOULD like to get to your answers about the Resurrection, sometime before the Rapture.
Bubba, let me first say that you more than anyone I have ever known, go to a great deal of trouble to reference what you are speaking about. You do an AMAZING amount of research and must spend way too much time to try to make your point. If you thought I was claiming that you do not try to substantiate your claims with data, I apologize, you certainly offer a HUGE amount of data to back up your claims.
HOWEVER, your voluminous data doesn't always back up what you claim. For instance, your first claim...
In a recent conversation regarding the use of lethal force, you claimed to care about strawmen, but you did so immediately after you yourself invoked such absurd strawmen as using lethal force to stop schoolyard bullying and suicide attempts.
What I had done, as I recall, was used an illustration using an extreme example. I was not suggesting it was someone's belief (ie, it wasn't a strawman suggestion that this is what some people believe), just an extreme example to make a point. Your "evidence" of my dishonesty, wasn't what it claimed to be. I don't care to try to find the original writing, if you want to try to find it and verify that I'm wrong, feel free to do so. As it is, it's just an empty claim. I was not dishonest by objecting to strawmen after using a strawman as you claim.
Similarly, as "evidence" that I was dishonest, you invoked my Wright comments and you offered this one:
You claim to love the Bible, but you reject Paul's teachings as mysoginy and bigotry, and you reject parts of the Old Testament as atrocity that resulted from human speculation
1. I do NOT reject Paul's teachings. I've never said that.
2. I DO acknowledge that Paul was doubtless a human being, flawed and prone to error. I further acknowledged that he was a product of his times and those were (what we would call today) misogynistic and bigoted times. Women did not have rights.
3. The fact that I acknowledge Paul as a flawed human being is not dishonest.
4. The fact that I acknowledge that the times were patriarchal and, what we would call sexist, today, AND YET, still claim to love the Bible is simply not dishonest. Where is the dishonesty in it?
5. The fact that I, like you, read the Bible and have to use my God-given reason to sort out troubling passages and that I come to the conclusion that the spirit and greater thrust of the Bible contradicts the belief in a God that commands the slaughter of babies found in a few places in the bible IS NOT DISHONEST.
In short, your "evidence" does not support your claim. Rather, they demonstrate HOW YOU FEEL about how I read the Bible, and how I earnestly seek to follow God's Will.
You CERTAINLY DO a HUGE amount of research and I did not mean to intimate that you do not, if that's what it sounded like, I apologize. But your "evidence" of my dishonesty and lying, simply aren't.
As it is, as far as I can see, EACH AND EVERY ONE of your "proofs" that I am dishonest or lying are, instead, your hunches because you don't understand my position. Or at least that's how it seems.
You certainly have not provided the first single microscopic bit of evidence of a lie. Would you not be better off to stick to the more realistic, "Dan, I DON'T SEE HOW you can reconcile your BELIEF X with your belief Z."
That IS, after all, what you're saying. You're not showing I'm dishonest, you're demonstrating that you don't see how I can possibly reconcile my views. Come now, isn't that a more realistic, apt way of describing our disagreements?
Just as I eventually allowed that maybe (MAYBE) some other terms were better to describe the actions of Jones, isn't what I'm suggesting a more honest, less slanderous way to describe your hunches about my views?
Oh, and I'll accept that retraction and apology any time, now, brother.
Bubba,
Thanks, for the note.
Dan,
Had you answered my question at your place it is possible I would know what you meant rather than what you appear to mean.
Why do you continue to persist is behavior that clearly contravenes the explicit teachings of Christ, who you claim to follow?
Dan, thank you for the apology, but I don't understand it: if I substantiate and document my claims so thoroughly, I don't understand why you apparently stand by the belief that all I demonstrate is "HOW [I] FEEL about how you read the Bible."
Even if my conclusions are wrong, they're clearly the result of THOUGHTS, not just FEELINGS: rationality, even if it might be (it isn't) imperfect rationality based on invalid assumptions, not just mere emotion.
I don't think my conclusions are wrong about you.
I quoted the strawman argument you invoked in full and linked to it, too. Here is the link again.
Your apparent point is that deadly force is intrinsically evil; proving that by appealling to extreme and ridiculous examples...
"Teacher using force That could be considered violent) to stop a fight?
"Not evil.
"Teacher slitting the throat of a bully?
"Evil."
...is an absolutely clear-cut case of invoking a strawman argument.
About Paul: in his epistles, he very clearly presumes to write with authority, conveying God's gospel as Christ's personally hand-picked Apostle. He gave orders using nearly military language and instructed that his letters be read, implicitly making them equivalent to Scripture.
By arguing that his writings were the result of the culture in which he lived -- the same culture Christ lived in, it must be noted -- and that he was "doubtless" a mysoginist and/or bigot, you give his writing FAR less reverence than they claim for themselves.
You clearly do not afford those epistles the respect that the text itself demands.
I have asked you numerous times: if I misunderstand your position, clarify it. If I don't, explain how it remotely possible that they are the result of the clear teachings of the Bible.
I know what the Bible teaches pretty well, though certainly not exhaustively.
I think I know what you believe, because you rarely correct my understanding of your position, except to offer incoherent claims that, for instance, the Resurrection is essential but you could do without it.
I know that there's an insurmountable disconnect between what the Bible teaches and what you believe, and you haven't really ever even STARTED to demonstrate the connection between the two.
You say you deeply respect the Bible's teachings.
And yet much of what it claims to be divine revelation, you disregard as human speculation, atrocity, and bigotry. What it teaches as true, you dismiss as metaphor without even ever explaining what it's a metaphor of.
Those details about what you believe, I think are honest reflections of your take on the Bible.
The claim that you respect the Bible's teachings does not line up with those details, given any reasonable definition of the word "respect."
I have not seen either a thorough explanation of what you really believe (if I misunderstand you) or a thorough explanation of why your beliefs are biblical.
In the absence of these things, and in the context of your literal years of obfuscation, I stand by my position that you are a dishonest, hypocritical liar.
I believe you have very little real integrity, and the only explanation I can come up with to account for your behavior is a deliberate attempt to subvert both language and rhetoric, all in an attempt to subvert Christianity, to bend the faith to make it less offensive to post-modern pluralists and more useful to you political progressivism.
On this count, I offer no retraction and no apology.
I have not always been as civil as I should have been, or as clear as I could have been, but I am defending honorable ground, and from this ground I will not move unless you give me an genuinely good reason to do so.
You haven't yet, so here I stand.
Bubba,
Always remember than you are not discussing interpretation of scripture with Dan, you are discussing opinion of scripture.
Once you reduce it to mere opinion, the rest is easy.
Here I will disagree with Bubba. I think the best explanation for Dan's behavior is that he finds himself trapped once again. The first time was when he thought he was a conservative and not truly understanding what conservatism was, he was shamed into defecting to the dark, I mean progressive side. There, he began to see conservatism from the same stereotypical and nonsensical perspective of the average liberal. Now, as a liberal, he's backed against the wall trying to reconcile plainly non-Biblical beliefs and finds if far too difficult. Far better to demonize his detractors, who have only sought explanations and substantive support for his positions, as cruel, hateful, and misrepresenters of his truth (or words to that effect). This is my opinion based on the years of observing Dan's responses to his conservative oppononents.
To move on a bit,
"But then again, I know nothing about this writer. Why should I trust him any more than I trust Hollywood?"
This is indeed an attack, albeit a low grade example. You imply by this question that there is some reason one shouldn't trust him. Why would that be if you don't know him? Had you simply asked for his sources, which I gave you, with one of them being one of Milk's own letters to Jimmy Carter, you'd have been on solid ground. But you went further and questioned the credibility of someone you do not know, the type of judgement warned against in Scripture.
Dan,
As to lying, as I stated, I feel your entire representation of Mark's comment is a lie beyond the fact of his graphic language. My recollection is that he made no definite pronouncements of your aunt's behavior, but instead suggested a hypothetical to procure from you a clarification of your position on the subject being discussed.
Mark suggested that Bubba could email him for Mark's retelling of the comment. But Mark stated it was long ago and I would suggest that unless Mark has an actual copy of the exact comment, that he should not venture to try to restate it. He could be as off the mark as you are. For my part, I am running on the ongoing sense of your misrepresenting the comment from the very beginning, and indeed, your little story of Smith and Jones is not a reasonable facsimile of the original.
Again, if anyone knows how to retrieve a long deleted comment, please let me know. It seems there is no other way to truly resolve this issue without everyone seeing exactly what Mark wrote, warts and all.
I say again and stand firmly by the following: Mark did NOT accuse anyone of anything, but merely asked Dan what he thinks about an act in which Dan's aunt might engage. The question did not require a specific lesbian, but only mentioned Dan's aunt after Dan mentioned that he had a lesbian aunt. Dan's reaction to the question was and has been a total put on, in my opinion, for the purpose of evading a troublesome point. If I am wrong on this, Dan could have chastised Mark for his use of foul language and still answered the question. I know I would have. Being a sinner like everyone else, I would not presume that someone has just committed an unforgivable sin that brought on the vapors. That's why I believe Dan's whole posturing is a lie and his claim that he wasn't evasive is dishonest.
That he then demands answers in order to determine OUR ability for moral reasoning takes incredible gall.
Craig asked...
Why do you continue to persist is behavior that clearly contravenes the explicit teachings of Christ, who you claim to follow?
I suppose you mean, "why do I persist IN behavior..." but, if that's what you mean, I don't know what you mean. WHAT behavior am I persisting in that contravenes the explicit teachings of Jesus? As far as I know, no one has been bringing up my behavior, only my reasoning.
Please answer this question because I am truly at a loss to know what you are speaking of.
Craig said:
Always remember than you are not discussing interpretation of scripture with Dan, you are discussing opinion of scripture.
WHAT ELSE IS THERE?? It is our opinions about how to interpret scripture. It is our opinions about what the scriptures mean. Who else's opinion are you using other than your own?
Bubba said...
...is an absolutely clear-cut case of invoking a strawman argument.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
Bubba offered this opinion:
You clearly do not afford those epistles the respect that the text itself demands.
And you are welcome to your opinion. I think the seriousness and great respect I show the teachings of the Bible are abundantly evident (if not perfectly evident).
Bubba opined:
In the absence of these things, and in the context of your literal years of obfuscation, I stand by my position that you are a dishonest, hypocritical liar.
And you are welcome to your hunch. You are wrong and you have no proof other than your failure to understand my positions (and, apparently, my failure to make my positions understandable to you), but you have NOT ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR HUNCH, ONLY your feelings.
As such, I'd sugggest you take a more humble approach to such slanderous statements. We are the body of Christ and such slander does not become us. But believe what you wish.
Marshall said:
This is indeed an attack, albeit a low grade example. You imply by this question that there is some reason one shouldn't trust him.
Once again, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Seriously fellas, look up the word...
Attack; verb (Merriam Webster)
1 : to set upon or work against forcefully
2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
I did not set upon or work against the dude forcefully.
I did not assail with unfriendly or bitter words.
I did not begin to work against injuriously.
What I did was, I asked a question.
Here's a story I recall from back when I was more conservative and taking part in a Bible study about homosexuality, where the presenter was pro-gay marriage (my shorthand for suggesting that homosexuality is not in and of itself bad) and I was anti-gay marriage.
I forget what exact topic, but he offered some example of a theologian's explanation of some word or term. I responded by offering another (more conservative theologian's explanation). I then asked, "WHY should we accept your theologian's thoughts on the topic rather than the conservative theologian?"
Tell me: Was that an attack?
To me, this is what it was: A "question," look it up in the dictionary. People do it all the time.
And Bubba (or anyone else), before you ask "WHY HAVEN'T YOU addressed my other question more quickly???!!! grumble grumble growl grow...", I'm busy answering all these other questions/misrepresentations.
If I drop them and go on to deal with the other question, will I be lambasted for not addressing THESE questions?
One other question for you, Bubba: I would still like to see your answer to "If you found out that Jesus did not rise from the dead, would you give up on Christianity?"
Marshall said:
This is indeed an attack, albeit a low grade example. You imply by this question that there is some reason one shouldn't trust him.
I didn't finish dealing with this. What I DID was ask a question. I did not imply that there was some reason not to trust him, I asked if there was some reason why we should trust him and not the producers of Milk.
I offered, in fact, that there WERE reasons to suspect the producers of Milk as being less than honest, I offered NO reasons to suggest that this fella might be dishonest. I just asked the question. Tell me, was I also attacking the producers of Milk by noting that they were from Hollywood and Hollywood sometimes twists things in telling their stories?
There is a MUCH greater argument that could be made that I have attacked the Milk producers, but there simply isn't one in the real world for suggesting I've attacked the linked essayist.
Now, I'm quite finished defending against that ridiculous misstatement. Believe it if you wish, pals. I'm done chasing that tale.
Well there you go, Daniel-san. That's the way you do it. You give what YOU think is the deal breaker and then dismiss the point altogether as unimportant. Another case of demonization, actually, though equally low-grade as was your attack on Flynn. And it IS an attack since your question automatically puts his credibility in question. Why SHOULDN'T you trust his honesty and/or sources? Is that not the American way, to presume innocence until guilt is proven? Not for you, apparently. You just went right for doubt.
Now to be sure, doubt, in and of itself, could not be held against you, though it is judgement. But for the purposes of this discussion, any doubt should have compelled your first move to be one of investigation of the author and/or his story, not simply to publicly proclaim your doubt without reason. (By reason, I mean reason to doubt Flynn, not authors in general) As to your definition, your public pronouncement of doubt was indeed assailing Flynn in an unfriendly manner by suggesting that there is some reason others should doubt him as well.
"As far as I know, no one has been bringing up my behavior, only my reasoning."
Then you are ignoring the comments regarding your unChristian idea of forgiveness. You continue to call Mark names to which he is unworthy and insist that he perform some level of penance to YOUR satisfaction before you forgive him for the invented crime of "verbally raping" your relative. I believe that's is the matter to which Craig referred. If not, then there are others besides this one.
Reminding you of this, when I've mentioned it yet again very recently, compells me to believe that you see what you want to see and therefor that explains why you think you are being slandered and misrepresented. So let me say again, on behalf of all who try to debate honestly with you, we do not lie or slander but only respond with the only conclusion to which your own words lead us. That there are so many of us should give you a hint that it isn't a problem of our understanding, but of your ability to defend your beliefs. I believe that this is because you can't. I believe that because you can't, you take every opportunity to distract, derail and evade. If the number of questions is too daunting for you, I offer this tip: answer each one honestly as they arise. This will save tons of keystrokes on our parts trying to get those answers, and quite a few for yourself trying to tap dance until your feet are sore. I think you'd be hardpressed to find too many occasions, if any exist, where I wasn't forthcoming with an answer to any question put to me. Feel free to try any time.
Are you afraid to find you are wrong Dan? It's understandable knowing you have a beloved aunt who is a lesbian, as well as friendships with other homosexuals. That would be a heavy cross to carry indeed. Are you afraid you might have to? This would seem to be the case as your inability to defend your position regarding anything connected to this issue indicates. Far easier to carry on than to face those who would be hurt by your facing the truth.
Art, "Mark stated it was long ago and I would suggest that unless Mark has an actual copy of the exact comment, that he should not venture to try to restate it."
On the contrary, Art, I remember exactly what I said. What I don't remember are Dan's comments immediately before and after mine. That's why I said I don't remember the context. You found the thread that led to the comment once. Perhaps you can do it again so Bubba can judge for himself, provided he e-mails me for the exact comment.
Now. Dan, you said, among other things:
"The fact that I, like you, read the Bible and have to use my God-given reason to sort out troubling passages..."
Dan, while you are reading the Bible, did you happen to come across the Book, chapter, and verse where God says He blesses homosexuality?
In a spirit of true Christian forgiveness and humility, I tell you truthfully, If you can point me to the exact passage where God says He blesses homosexuality, I promise I will not only apologize for the comment in question, I'll let you write the apology in the exact words you want me to say, just so you won't be able to say it wasn't a sincere apology.
And, I will be sincere.
But first, show me the passage.
I can't make myself more clear.
So, what do you say, Dan? Do we have a deal?
Marshall said:
That's the way you do it. You give what YOU think is the deal breaker and then dismiss the point altogether as unimportant.
What is there to do in this case.
MA: It IS attacking.
Dan: No, it is not.
MA: Yes, it is.
Dan: no, no, no.
How long ought we do that?
That's exactly what I'm saying, Dan. Yet, at the same time, you'll go on forever, crucifying Mark over a comment that only in your eyes deserves such attention. So the point is that everything works on your terms only, a very dishonest way to debate indeed. It's clear that in the strictest sense of the term attack, and I used YOUR definition, the statement you made about Flynn IS an attack, as mild as it may be. It's an attack because it suggests there's an issue with his credibility.
Meanwhile, aside from the universally accepted charge that Mark's choice of language was uncalled for, you level charges that cannot fit because his comment was a hypothetical seeking a clarification of your opinion. The irony is that you insist on obtaining clarification and now you distract over the means in which that clarification was requested. It's a shameful cry for victim status in order to gain favor while evading the point Mark was trying to make. An incredibly dishonest tactic and puts your own moral reasoning in doubt.
As I said, the only solution would be to "undelete" the comment in question if it's in any way possible. Mark insists he remembers exactly what he said, as I'm sure you do as well. I wouldn't bet on the memory of either of you at this point, nor would I risk the debate over who's memory serves best. If you would simply respond to questions immediately, specifically Mark's, without your usual tap dancing, as if you were unafraid of the outcome, and if you would have shit-canned the over-the-top outrage and sanctimony, so much time could have been saved and everyone would understand each other better. Despite your insistance to the contrary, you do NOT give straightforward responses.
Dan,
I haven't had time to search through the comment thread to find my original comment that would have answered your question. But you can do that yourself, if you care.
But the short answer is, forgiveness. Jesus had some things to say on the subject, that you either are unaware of, or choose not to heed.
Dan:
I've been working on an answer to your question, off-and-on, since yesterday afternoon and will begin posting it shortly.
To cover just one thing that's been discussed since then, it seems to me that you take great offense at other people drawing conclusions from what you write, or even concluding that what you write is incompatible:
You've written, "as a general rule, I would suggest when someone you're disagreeing with says A, that you all really, really should not assume that "By A, he must also mean B, and possibly C!!"
"Do not presume to make point B off my stated position A. I stated A (I would continue to be a Christian EVEN IF it could be proven that Jesus did not raise from the dead). I DID NOT STATE B (I reject the Resurrection as an essential doctrine of Christianity)."
"Believe it or not, but as a rule, when I say, 'A, B, and C,' I generally MEAN, 'A, B, and C.' Your failure to understand that does not mean that I DON'T believe it."
With demands like this, it appears that the ONLY way a person could prove that you're a liar is to show that you've written two explicitly contradictory statements: if you claim A and B, it doesn't matter how impossible it is to claim both simultaneously, as long as B isn't EXPLICITLY "not A" you can hide behind the implausible cover that we just don't understand you.
(Of course, you don't actually say that. How terrible of me for trying to draw conclusions from your ridiculous demand not to draw conclusions.)
The cover that you make for yourself with this absurd standard is awfully convenient.
You can claim that you deeply respect the Bible's teachings and then denigrate as many of those actual teachings as you want: so long as you don't actually write, "I don't respect the Bible's teachings," then we just can't possibly know with any confidence whether your stated respect for the Bible is incompatible with the details of your beliefs about its contents.
Beyond the obvious problems with such demands, Dan, is the hypocrisy in that you don't do to me, what you expect from me.
I claim that my arguments against you are substantive thoughts about what you write.
You dismiss them as "hunches" that only display my "feelings."
Did I call them hunches? No, I do not, and elsewhere I've made my objection clear to that dismissive term.
Did I say my comments display only my feelings? No, I do not, and here I'm quite vocal in my objection to your conclusion to the contrary.
Does that stop you from making those comments? No, it does not.
Does the possibility that you don't understand my argument, prevent you from drawing conclusions beyond what I explicitly write? No, it does not.
You continue to be quite hypocritical.
Now, finally, to get back to the issues I find to be crucial, Dan...
You ask what you claim to be a "quick and easy" question:
"IF IT WERE PROVEN THAT JESUS DID NOT RAISE FROM THE DEAD, WOULD YOU STILL BELIEVE IN JESUS AND HIS TEACHINGS?"
In a word, no.
In two words, absolutely not.
In a sentence, I would still follow SOME teachings that Jesus happened to repeat, but there are many teachings -- especially doctrinal claims, particularly those relating to Jesus -- that I would have to reject; I would not follow Jesus, nor would I trust Jesus as savior and lord.
Let me explain why, by walking through some of these specific teachings I would have no logical choice but to reject.
Jesus' own teaching that Jesus would rise from the dead. Jesus repeatedly prophesied His own resurrection.
"An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth." - Mt 12:39-40
Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. - Mk 8:31
"The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again." - Mk 9:31
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." - Jn 2:19, cf. Mt 26:61, Mk 14:58
If Jesus is still dead, then these prophecies -- some quite explicit -- have proven to be false.
That means Jesus is a false prophet, which has other implications.
Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. Jesus repeatedly claimed to be the Messiah, in a variety of phrases, included "the Son of Man," and Jesus even directly claimed to be the Messiah.
The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming" (who is called Christ). "When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us."
Jesus said to her, "I am he, the one who is speaking to you."- Jn 4:25-26
If He wasn't raised from the dead, He isn't the Messiah, for a variety of reasons.
1) The Torah predicts that the Messiah will be a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:18), but Jesus wouldn't qualify since Jesus would be a false prophet, which the Torah strongly condemned -- going so far as to order the execution of people whose prophecies proved to be false, in the very same passage (Deut 18:22).
2) The Messiah is supposed to be a king in the line of David, a king whose reign is eternal (II Sam 7:12-13, cf. Heb 1:8).
If Jesus is still dead, Jesus cannot be the everlasting king.
3) It appears that Isaiah's Suffering Servant is to be exalted and rewarded after His death: after His burial with the wicked and the rich in Is. 53:9, He is given a portion with the great in Is. 53:12 "because he poured out himself to death," implying that His death wasn't the end of the story.
If the Messiah's resurrection itself is prophesied and Jesus is still dead, Jesus is not the Messiah.
(For that matter, Jesus had no business invoking the last Servant Song of Isaiah 61 and applying it to Himself, as Jesus did in one of your favorite passages, Luke 4.)
If Jesus is not the Messiah, Jesus is not the Christ, since those words refer to the same title in different languages, Hebrew and Greek. If Jesus is not the Christ, then a religion built around Jesus is a false Christianity.
You restated the question, "If you found out that Jesus did not rise from the dead, would you give up on Christianity?"
CHRISTIANITY WOULD BE A FRAUD, so the principled thing to do would be to abandon it.
But there's more.
[continued]
[continued]
Jesus' claim to be God. This one is simple.
"Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am." - Jn 8:58
According to Jewish Scripture, God does not lie (Num 23:19). If Jesus promised to come back to life after three days, and it didn't happen, Jesus lied.
Q.E.D., Jesus is not God.
So, Dan, some of the central claims Jesus made about Himself hinge on a physical, historical Resurrection: His promise of the Resurrection, His claim to the be the Messiah, and His claim to be God.
If the historical and physical Resurrection did not occur, then these claims are false: for falsely claiming to be God Himself, either Jesus is an incredibly monstrous liar or an exceptionally deranged lunatic -- a false deity, either way, who worshippers of the God of Abraham would be forbidden from worshipping.
And if Jesus' claims about these things were false, despite whatever wisdom can be gleamed from some of the man's ethical teachings, these claims aren't the only teachings that fall apart.
There's Jesus' teaching that He would be the final judge (Mt 7:21-23).
There's Jesus' teaching that we're blessed if we're persecuted, not just for the sake of Jesus' valid ethical teachings, but for the sake of Jesus Himself (Mt 5:11).
Why would we be blessed if we stand up for this liar or lunatic?
And of the other ethical teachings that don't center around Jesus (the apparent egomaniac), each one could be evaluated on its own rather than accepted at face value as divine revelation.
The Gospels record that Jesus taught with authority (Mt 7:29), but since we would know Jesus is a false prophet and a liar or nutcase, we can evaluate the ethical teachings solely on their content and not their source.
"Love your neighbor," I would probably still affirm.
But the idea that lust is as bad as adultery isn't at all obvious. Though I can now see why it is so -- because God judges intent, and He sees and is right to judge us by what we desire in our souls even if we don't act on those desires -- the big reason I believe that particular teaching is simply because Jesus said so. If Jesus is still dead against what the man promised, Jesus' authority is worthless.
[continued]
[continued]
It's worth noting that those teachings that are most likely to survive proof of Jesus' rotting corpse, are those that are found in MANY other faiths.
As C.S. Lewis briefly documented in an appendix to The Abolition of Man, the law of mercy for the poor, the sick, the weak, and the widow is found in Hindu teachings, in Babylon and in ancient Egypt, among the Norse and the Native Americans.
There might have been a refinement and arguably a perfection of ethics in the New Testament. "Don't do what you wouldn't like" becomes "do to others what you would like done," and the parable of the Good Samaritan extends the duty of charity to everyone, not just people within your tribe or clan.
But that's not enough to justify personal loyalty to Jesus Himself, much less trust in Jesus as Savior and Lord.
What hinges on the Resurrection are claims that are uniquely Christian: the identity of Jesus, and our duty of personal loyalty to Jesus.
You seem to focus on those teachings that aren't unique to Christianity. I made this point last year.
"For all your talk about the radical message of the Gospel, you focus on simple living and alms-giving, practices that you can find in Stoicism and Islam."
The theological and historical claims that are unique to Christianity, what's truly radical compared to all other religions, to every human philosophy, and every other belief system: you may pay lip service to them, saying that some are essential, but then you write about how your faith would survive without a supposedly essential and uniquely Christian doctrine, and you're too busy invoking Scripture to support progressive economic policies in the name of "social justice" to defend what you claim to affirm as essential.
But the bottom line is this: logic dictates that a rejection of a historical and bodily Resurrection would entail a rejection of a great number of Christ's teachings, including some of His most important claims about Himself -- starting with the explicit prophecy of Jesus' own resurrection.
To say that one could still follow Jesus while denying that the central claim of a physical and historical Resurrection, is incoherent. It is as incoherent as your stated position that this claim is essential while you believe (and even boast) that your faith would survive without it.
About that obvious contradiction, I have more to say, shortly.
And I can't wait to read it! Unfortunately, I must leave. However, what you've said thus far puts greater detail to what I alluded in a recent comment on the question. Fine job, Bubba.
[rolls eyes]
To get around to addressing Bubba's questions about my position about salvation and atonement...
My belief about salvation is and has been consistently:
We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, the son of God, who came to earth, lived a perfect life showing us HOW to live and who was killed by the religious and political leaders of the day - cruelly on the cross (in the manner that they killed political prisoners, fyi) - and that three days later, Jesus rose from the dead met with many disciples and others for a number of days, and then proceeded to ascend to heaven, where he is preparing a place for us with God.
I believe God did this because God loves the stuffing out of us and wants not a one of us to be separate from God.
For our part, we are invited lovingly and longingly to accept God's gift of grace and this we do by confessing that we are, indeed, sinners in need of a savior and dedicate our lives to following Jesus.
This is my extremely traditional/orthodox belief about salvation.
But Bubba has objected to my belief system, nonetheless, suggesting I do not place enough emphasis on the cross and that I misunderstand the doctrine of Atonement (we have discussed this frequently and perhaps most thoroughly here).
One way of trying to distill our problems might be by looking at a question that (I believe it was) Bubba raised - and I can't find it now, but it boils down to this (Bubba, correct me if I'm wrong, please):
We need to look at WHY we are saved and HOW we are saved.
WHY are we saved? Because God loves us, by God's grace we are saved, that is why. This is what Dan believes.
HOW are we saved? By Jesus' death on the cross, spilling his blood and paying for our sins on our behalf.
Or words to that effect.
The way that I answer those questions and that I believe Bubba objects to is this:
WHY are we saved? Because God loves us.
HOW are we saved? By God's grace, through faith in Jesus.
Now, it is not the case that I disagree that the Bible often repeats that Jesus' death paid the price for our sins, that Jesus paid the ransom for our sins in order to save us, that Jesus shed his blood to pay for our sins. These are all imagery that are used in the Bible to describe the HOW we saved. Hallelujah! We have been saved by Jesus!
But that is not enough that I accept those as sound biblical, Christian descriptions of the salvation process, it does not seem.
Bubba wants to know that I agree that the ONE AND ONLY way to explain the HOW of salvation is "because Jesus died on a cross, paying for our sins," or words to that effect, is that correct Bubba?
However, because I respect the Bible so much, I acknowledge that this is just one way the salvation process is described. It is ALSO described as, "come follow me," and "Sell all you have, give it to the poor and come, follow me," and "To this you were called, to follow in the steps of Jesus," etc.
Thus, it comes down to this, for me: HOW are we saved? By God's grace, through faith in Jesus. Period. WHY are we saved? Because God loves us and desires for us to be saved.
That is the Gospel, boiled down to the basics. Is that not enough?
RE: the Atonement. Bubba objects to my calling it a metaphor, or imagery. But this is what it is. I don't know what else it could be.
In the OT, the Jews sacrificed an animal to "pay" for their sins in their place. But that was imagery. Running around, slaughtering animals and saying, "Yahoo! I'm saved because I've killed an animal! It's blood purchased my forgiveness!" is a gross misunderstanding of the atonement process. The sacrific SYMBOLIZES the recognition of how we have sinned and how we need God's (and others') forgiveness. It was done as a reminder, as a ritual to symbolically take away our sins.
However, it ought to be kept in mind that it was JUST a symbol. The Jews were not forgiven because they somehow physically attached a bundle of "sin" to a goat and killed it in their place. No, the ritual was to symbolize God's forgiveness, God's setting aside of their sin in order that they may be ritually clean before God.
Similarly, in the NT with Jesus, when it refers to his sacrifice, his paying of a ransom, it is speaking symbolically.
We are forgiven because God is faithful and just to forgive when we ask for forgiveness.
If we don't accept this language as speaking symbolically, what is it that you think ACTUALLY happens?
I've also referred to that sort of language as a metaphor. On Metaphors:
Metaphors are comparisons that show how two things that are not alike in most ways are similar in one important way. Metaphors are a way to describe something. Authors use them to make their writing more interesting or entertaining.
Unlike similes that use the words “as” or “like” to make a comparison, metaphors state that something is something else.
Read the statements that contain metaphors in italics. Then complete the statements that explain the metaphors.
1. Brian was a wall, bouncing every tennis ball back over the net.
This metaphor compares Brian to a wall because __________.
a. He was very strong.
b. He was very tall.
c. He kept returning the balls.
d. His body was made of cells.
Like that. So, when we say:
Jesus blood paid the price for our sin so that we might have salvation.
This metaphor compares Jesus' death to a payment because ___________.
a. God is a bookkeeper and the price for Bubba's sin is six quarts of perfect human blood.
b. God loves us so much that he was willing to send God's own son to earth to show us how to live and die. And by Jesus raising from the dead, God is able to illustrate that Love is greater than Hate and Life is greater than Death. Not even the price of living a harsh difficult life and dying a horrible death was too great a price to pay to illustrate that love and to invite us in that way.
c. The devil demans a human sacrifice be made to purchase our souls, which belong to the devil.
d. Jesus was a literal sacrificial goat.
I think B makes the most sense. That is the best way, it seems to me, to explain the CENTRAL truth that we are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus, the son of God, who came to live, die and raise again, showing us the way to live and inviting us to join in the dinner party.
You?
In short, it seems that no matter HOW MUCH I agree with you on basic Christian tenets, you are not satisfied and keep searching for (and often making up) disagreements.
1. I believe in God the Creator, almight maker of heaven and earth;
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, God's Son;
3. I believe that Jesus came, lived a perfect life, showing us how to live;
4. I believe that Jesus was killed by the religious leaders and political powers of the day - nailed on a cross as a political prisoner - showing us the depth and heighth of God's love for us, in that God was willing to come live RIGHT BY OUR SIDES, in difficult times and live in such a perfect way that we couldn't stand it and we killed GOD, in our hostility and anger and mistrust and all manner of sinfulness;
5. But I also believe that Life is stronger than Death, that Love is stronger than Hate, and that God OVERCAME the death on the cross, and that Jesus rose from the dead! Wow!;
6. I believe that we are saved by God's Marvelous grace, through faith in Jesus
7. I believe we are invited to "turn our sins over" to God, to ask for and receive forgiveness for our sins and that God, in God's grace, is faithful and just to forgive those sins;
8. I believe God forgives us our sins because it is God's will that none be lost and that all be saved;
9. I believe we are invited to join Jesus on this wild adventure of life in God's realm, starting right here and now!
All pretty standard stuff. However, because I do not say, "When the Bible says, 'Jesus paid the price for our sins,' that LITERALLY meant that Jesus gave God six quarts of his blood to pay a purchase price for 70 years' worth of sin," you bark. Because I think it is speaking symbolically, not literally, you bark. It's not that I REJECT the teachings that Jesus paid a price for our sin, because I don't. I just don't phrase it in a way that you want. Well, I am sorry, but I'm not trying to please you.
It is the spirit of prissy demandingness that I object to when I referred to it as an Inquisition. It doesn't matter that I agree with probably 90% of what you believe, it just isn't enough for you. This is yet another reason I am thankful for God's grace, especially when I DO find it in the body of Christ.
Dan, you seem to confirm that I understand your two claims, while (you say) I don't understand how they're compatible.
You reiterate those two claims.
"YES, YES, YES, the Resurrection is an essential doctrine of the church. I believe Jesus rose from the dead. I believe he is the Son of God who was killed by the gov't and by the religious leaders and that he was laid in a grave - cold stone dead - and that three days later (give or take), he was alive again and he met with many people and soon thereafter left this earthly plane to be in the presence of God.
"I believe in the resurrection and the resurrection is an essential tenet of the Christian faith, being talked about a good deal in the Bible.
"I believe, with me so far?
"BUT, I am saying that IF it were shown somehow that Jesus did NOT resurrect, even though that is an essential church tenet and one that I personally believe, I STILL would be a follower of Jesus."
But you don't credibly explain how these two claims are compatible: if a historical and physical Resurrection were disproven and nothing changes, in what POSSIBLE sense is the doctrine "essential"?
I don't know what you could mean by the word "essential" if you can do without an essential doctrine.
As an aside and for the record, it's true but woefully incomplete to say that Jesus was "killed by the gov't and by the religious leaders."
Jesus voluntarily died, as is clear in John 10: "I lay down my life... No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord."
And just as the Son volunteered Himself, it's equally clear that the Father volunteered His Son -- who, as Romans 8 tells us, He did not spare but handed over for us all. (The word used is paradidomi, the same word the Gospels use of Judas, the Jewish leaders, and Pilate.)
Here's another instance where what a question is raised about what you omit: do you deny or even simply minimize what you omit? If you do, then by emphasizing Jesus' death as a political martyrdom, you de-emphasize His death as a willing sacrifice for our sins, a de-emphasis that makes Christianity both more palatable to modern pluralists AND more useful to political progressives.
Now, you invoke the same phrasing and make it clear that you believe that Jesus was killed "in the manner that they killed political prisoners, fyi," but you insist that the Atonement -- His death as a saving sacrifice for our sins -- is mere metaphor.
Going back to the main point, I see you do try to explain how these two claims about the historical and physical Resurrection can coexist, that the doctrine is essential but your faith can survive without it.
I don't find your explanation -- your analogy -- to be convincing.
You write:
"I believe in Math.
"I believe that one core truism of Math is that 1 + 1 = 2. Each and every time, 1 + 1 = 2, yes, sir. No way around it, that is a CORE TRUISM for Math.
"HOWEVER, if someone were able to demonstrate to me beyond all doubt that 1 + 1 does NOT equal 2, well, I'd probably still believe in math.
"My belief in math goes beyond that one core truism. I believe in Math as a whole and, if that one truism were proven false, I don't think I'd lose faith in Math."
Whatever that "Math" that you would believe in would be, IT WOULD NOT BE MATHEMATICS as commonly and properly understood.
If you deny 1+1=2 and especially if you started drawing logical conclusions from that denial, it would become VERY CLEAR, very quickly, that what you believe is "math" is something entirely different. You would not only fail any and every thorough math exam, but any architectural designs based on your "math" would become real-world disasters.
You might believe in some sort of number theory, but it would be dishonest to call that theory by the name "mathematics," which actually DOES affirm that 1+1 really, truly does equal 2.
[continued]
[continued]
In the same way, if you were to reject a historical and bodily Resurrection, you might still have some sort of belief system about God that relates back to Jesus, but that belief system -- and the detailed beliefs about God and Jesus -- would deviate significantly and irreconcilably from orthodox Christianity.
You might have ideas and even in belief in a man called Jesus, but those ideas would be in frequent in opposition to Jesus as He is predicted in the Old Testament and described in the New Testament. That belief would also be an altogether different belief than what is commended in the Bible, too.
Hence, the idea that the historical and bodily Resurrection is essential: without it, what remains is RADICALLY different.
If I were to ask what you mean by "essential," I'm sure you could quickly cite any dictionary definition, but it still would not be clear how you're applying the definition to this doctrine.
Instead, it appears that you're using the word without any real meaning, JUST as much as if a doctor told you that the appendix is an "essential" organ whose removal would cause NO adverse effects.
If you can have your appendix removed and survive, thrive, and live JUST as you did before, it ain't "essential."
Likewise, if you can deny the historical Resurrection and suspect (and boast) that your faith would survive without it, IT'S NOT ESSENTIAL.
Alongside "essential" is a phrase that also seems to have no real meaning with you, a phrase you invoke in your math analogy.
"My belief in math goes beyond that one core truism. I believe in Math as a whole..."
What can you possibly mean, by saying you believe in math "as a whole" if you have no problem denying what you admit are "core trusims" of the whole?
It seems to me that belief in something "as a whole" means that you believe in EVERY part of the whole.
If it doesn't mean that, it doesn't mean anything: it's empty words, spouted to make you look fraudulently faithful to a belief system whose tenets you accept or reject on a case-by-case basis.
You're piling absurdity onto absurdity.
If you believe that the historical and physical Resurrection is "essential" but you can live without it, "essential" is meaningless.
If you believe in a belief system -- be it math or Christianity -- "as a whole" but feel free to deny parts of the whole, "as a whole" is meaningless.
A person who says he believes the Ten Commandments "as a whole" but denies the authority of the prohibition of adultery is either an imbecile or a liar.
What he really believes is (at most) NINE OF the Ten Commandments, but if he isn't mentally retarded, he has neither the courage nor the integrity to say so.
[continued]
[continued]
Now, Dan, you answered -- in a way -- my request to clarify what you mean, when you say you can do without the historical and bodily Resurrection, and yet the claim is still an "essential" doctrine.
You answered, in the sense that you typed more, different words in response to my request.
But it's not an answer in the sense that it actually explains a solitary thing.
Going all the way back to my two two-part questions -- but not all six doctrinal issues I've repeatedly mentioned -- I don't think you have even begun to provide answers that are coherent and complete.
"Question 1-a. Yes or no, do you believe that the bodily and historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ is an essential doctrine of Christianity?"
Your answer remains an incoherent "yes", where the doctrine is somehow -- absurdly -- "essential" while your faith would remain intact without it.
"Question 1-b. If not, why not?"
This part depends on the first part.
"Question 2-a. Yes or no, do you believe that the Atonement is a true and essential doctrine of Christianity, not to be treated as either inessential or as mere imagery?"
You never provided a "yes" or "no," but your answer is a clear "no." You continue to dismiss the doctrine as a metaphor.
But...
"Question 2-b. If not, why not?
"That is to say, do you believe that these numerous passages are unclear? Do you disagree with what I believe is their clear meaning? Or can you point to any passages that would justify your earlier position that the Atonement merely 'meant something' for first-century Jews, that it's a 'biblical thought' that's merely imagery and isn't a true description of the fact that Christ's death resulted in our forgiveness?"
...you have yet to begin to justify this position scripturally.
I'm still waiting for clear, coherent, and complete answers.
In the meantime, there is one more thing to say about your math analogy.
You write that "1+1=2" is a "core truism" of math that -- somehow -- can be denied while still affirming math "as a whole."
Your choice of mathematics as an example is handy, because, in calling "1+1=2" a "core trusim" while arguing that losing it would have no effect, there is such an obvious, if unintended, echo of that famous formula:
2 + 2 = 5
Your example makes it all the more obvious that you are engaging in a textbook example of Orwellian doublethink.
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."
I'm not sure how you could be a more complete demonstration of doublethink than you are now.
Now, Dan, to address your more recent comments about the Atonement, I begin by noting where you begin: with what you call an "extremely traditional/orthodox belief about salvation."
I quibble about the comparison of Jesus to a political prisoner, but that brief description about your belief IS for the most part traditional, orthodox, and even biblical, at least in what it includes.
But it's not complete.
And the problem with that description isn't what you say, but WHAT YOU OMIT, because it appears that -- at least regarding such things like the Atonement -- what you omit, you sometimes deny or at least downgrade from fact to mere metaphor.
I have a math analogy of my own.
Suppose Alan cut a polygon out of construction paper, and Alan's position is that the polygon is a square.
Alan bases this position on two claims:
1) The polygon has four sides.
2) All four sides are equal.
Suppose Bob DOES NOT dispute these claims. Suppose he agrees that they are true but incomplete.
That is to say, #1 and #2 are necessary for the polygon, but they're not sufficient.
There's one other fact that is omitted.
A square MUST have right angles. Every polygon that fits #1 and #2 is a rhombus, but a rhombus must have right angles in order to be a square.
If Alan plays up #1 and #2 to obscure the fact that his polygon has acute angles, he's being deceptive or at least VERY confused. Bob doesn't dispute what he claims, he questions what is omitted.
Dan, what you list generally fits with creedal Christianity, but you claim much more than mere creedalism. You claim fidelity to biblical Christianity, by claiming that you respect the Bible's teachings, that your beliefs cohere with the Bible's clear teachings, and that they even resulted from Bible study.
You're listing creedal beliefs to justify your claim to respect the Bible's teachings, and that's like listing the requirements of a rhombus to prove that a particular polygon is a square.
Or listing the requirements of a mammal to prove that a particular animal is a cat.
("The belief that cats are warm-blooded and nurse their young is VERY traditional. How dare you question my VERY traditional beliefs.")
("Dude, that so-called cat has hooves and horns.")
You're being too general, and -- at the very least -- you're missing the point if you think my problem is with what you list.
My problem is with what you omit, and your occasional denigration of important omissions.
What you include is generally necessary for biblical Christianity, but it's not sufficient: those additional doctrines that would make your list sufficient, you generally denigrate or deny.
[continued]
Bubba, once again, your inability to understand how I can think the historic resurrection is an essential Christian doctrine AND how I can believe in it AND YET how I would not lose my faith in Jesus if it were proven false in no way does not mean that I do not, in fact, think it.
THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE. You may not understand it. You may not think it makes sense.
I, for instance, do not see how any rational Christian adult can read the Bible and think it makes sense that God ordered Israel to slaughter children. I do not agree with you and I do not think your point makes a lick of sense.
But, I don't deny that you believe it. You believe what you believe.
I believe what I believe. It makes extreme sense to me. It is logical and coherent.
What I believe, once again:
1. I believe in the historic, actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead;
2. I believe it is a core/essential teaching of Christianity;
3. AND YET, if it were some how proven NOT to be true, I would not abandon Christianity (whereas you and Marshall would);
So, perhaps it would be helpful to say that while I believe in the Resurrection and while I agree that it is an essential teaching of Christianity, it is NOT an essential core belief for me.
Consider the definition of the word...
Essential:
1: of, relating to, or constituting essence : inherent
2 a: of the utmost importance : basic, indispensable, necessary
It is essential (in the sense of "relating to the essence, inherent") to me that the Resurrection happened.
It is NOT essential (in the sense that it is "indispensable") TO ME that the Resurrection happened.
I believe the Resurrection happened, but I would not quit believing in Jesus if I discovered he did not rise from the dead.
I find it interesting that you would abandon Jesus and his teachings if you discovered that the Resurrection did not happen. But I believe that this is your belief. You're welcome to it. I disagree.
I hope you won't mind too terribly if EVEN THOUGH we agree on every major doctrine AND EVEN THOUGH we agree that Jesus rose from the dead... I hope you won't mind that I would continue to believe in Jesus if it were proven untrue.
We get that you don't find that reasonable. Beyond that, do you have a problem with it, or can we move on, brother?
What you include is generally necessary for biblical Christianity, but it's not sufficient: those additional doctrines that would make your list sufficient, you generally denigrate or deny.
THIS should be interesting. What additional doctrines do I denigrate or deny?
[continued]
About the Atonement in particular, you're on the right track about the difference between the "how" and the "why" of salvation.
One way I put it was this, here, earlier in this conversation.
"In Romans 3:21-26, Paul indeed teaches that the source of our justification is God and His grace, and that the means is faith on our part, but he's also emphatic that the ground of our salvation is Christ and the cross.
"We are 'justified by [God's] grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.'
"It is this middle clause that you seem to deny..."
It remains clear that you dismiss atonement language as mere "imagery" and "descriptions," and there are problems with every reason that you invoke to justify this dismissal.
1-a. The Bible doesn't describe other means of salvation.
You understand my position correctly, at least on this point, but I believe your evidence to the contrary is extremely weak.
"Bubba wants to know that I agree that the ONE AND ONLY way to explain the HOW of salvation is 'because Jesus died on a cross, paying for our sins,' or words to that effect, is that correct Bubba?
"However, because I respect the Bible so much, I acknowledge that this is just one way the salvation process is described. It is ALSO described as, "come follow me," and "Sell all you have, give it to the poor and come, follow me," and "To this you were called, to follow in the steps of Jesus," etc."
In the Bible, salvation IS NOT described in any of these other ways, and I defy you to go into details.
For one thing, it's not enough to point to Christ's command of "Come, follow me," you would have to show where it is written that obedience to that command is how we are saved -- the means or ground of our salvation.
About the command to "sell all you have," I explained earlier this year that you seem to miss three key points that are present in all three Gospel accounts of Christ's encounter with the rich young ruler. As I wrote then, these facts dispel the notion that salvation is through man's obedience.
[continued]
[continued]
And it's an abuse of the text to invoke I Peter 2 and its statement, "To this you were called, to follow in the steps of Jesus," to suggest an alternate description of how we are saved.
To say that we are called to suffering, to obedience, to "live for righteousness" (2:24) IS NOT TO IMPLY that this call is how we are saved: it could simply explain one reason WHY we were saved.
And the conclusion you draw is not only presumptuous, it's in clear defiance of the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, because EVEN HERE Peter teaches that we are saved through Christ's death.
"For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly.
"20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.
"22 'He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.' When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.
"24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls." - I Peter 2:13-25, emphasis mine
Peter is clear that Christ bore our sins on the cross so that the RESULT is our living for righteousness. You're confusing the intended result with the means or grounds, even ripping one phrase out of its immediate context to do so.
1-b. The Bible PRECLUDES other means or grounds of salvation.
For instance, in Galatians, Paul repeatedly denies that we are justified at all by works of the law, and he even pronounces a curse against those who would preach a gospel different than what he preaches.
Instead, we are justified by God's grace alone, through Christ's death alone, by our faith alone.
I believe I've quoted it once, but I'll do so again:
"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." - Gal 2:21
If you think salvation comes through COMMANDS like "follow me" or "sell your stuff and give the proceeds to the poor," you are introducing a salvation based on our works rather than our faith -- and even one based on God's LAW rather than His GRACE.
To conclude that the passages you invoke suggest different views of HOW we are saved, is to introduce other views of salvation that the Bible fairly clearly prohibits.
[continued]
[continued]
2. The Bible teaches that OT sacrifices are metaphors, but not Christ's death.
I'm thinking specifically of Hebrews 10. While it does teach that the old system of sacrifices is a "shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of these realities," (10:1) NOWHERE does the Bible say anything similar about Christ's sacrtificial death.
Hebrews is clear that the "reality" for which the old system is the "shadow," IS Christ's death.
Heb 10:4 asserts, "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins," but what DOES take away sin?
"When Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, 'he sat down at the right hand of God,' and since then has been waiting 'until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet.' For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." - Heb 10:12-13
The Bible teaches that the old sacrificies were symbolic, and that they were symbols of the reality of Christ's sacrifice. It's an offense against the Bible's clear teachings to invoke and distort the former, in order to deny the latter.
You write, "in the NT with Jesus, when it refers to his sacrifice, his paying of a ransom, it is speaking symbolically."
That's nonsense, and I defy you to show where it ever suggests such a thing.
3. The details of Christ's death is clear that it was more than an mere example.
You write that what makes "the most sense" is this, that "God loves us so much that he was willing to send God's own son to earth to show us how to live and die."
The problem is, Jesus' death CLEARLY involved much more than showing us "how to die."
Look at every example of martyrdom in the Bible, Jewish and Christian: look at the times (like Daniel) where a man faced but survived an attempted execution, and look at the times (like Stephen) where he didn't survive.
Stephen is the prime example of a martydom, and there's a key difference between how he faced death and how Jesus faced death.
As did all the greatest martyrs, Stephen faced his death with confidence and even something resembling joy.
Jesus faced His death with unearthly anguish. If you think Jesus was giving us NOTHING MORE than a courageous example of "how to die," you will NEVER, NEVER account for His prayers in Gethsemane.
The only thing that accounts for Christ's anguish in the garden -- for His prayer that the cup would pass and the apparent answer from the Father that the cup must be endured -- is that Christ's death was a true and literal atonement for our sins.
The Father required it, because it was needed in order that we might be justly forgiven.
The Son dreaded it, because Jesus Christ didn't JUST face death: He faced a true separation from the Father, the penalty for our sins.
Quite a few Christian martyrs had to bear a literal cross and be crucified, Peter probably among them, and the BEST of them did so without the anguish of Gethsemane.
Christ was anguished, not because of the literal cross He bore, but because He REALLY DID have to bear our sins.
Once again, the details of the Gospels undermine your summary.
- You treat Luke 4 as a sermon about the liberation from a literal prison, when the Gospels record that Christ accomplished no such thing, instead freeing us from the bonds of sin.
- You treat the cleansing of the temple as civil disobedience -- an explicitly criminal act -- when all four Gospels make clear that Pilate knew he was condemning a man who was completely innocent.
- Here, you treat the crucifixion as a mere example of political martyrdom, when the anguish in Gethsemane is ample evidence that Christ's death was a unique and uniquely horrifying event.
I'm going to guess that you think such disregard for the details amounts to believing in the Bible "as a whole."
To conclude that the passages you invoke suggest different views of HOW we are saved, is to introduce other views of salvation that the Bible fairly clearly prohibits.
I do not invoke the other passages to suggest different views of HOW we are saved. Read and understand:
AS I HAVE STATED CONSISTENTLY: WE ARE SAVED BY GOD'S GRACE ALONE, THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS ALONE.
That is my view. The Bible uses different imagery and wording to describe various aspects of what that means, but that is the central teaching of the Good News.
I know more is coming. I'm hoping you will explain what you think a LITERAL interpretation of "Jesus paying for our sins" looks like, if you reject a symbolic interpretation.
Dan, there's one other thing in your latest comments on the Atonement that requires a reply.
(In reviewing this comment, I see you just asked about this, too.)
"So, when we say:
Jesus blood paid the price for our sin so that we might have salvation.
"This metaphor compares Jesus' death to a payment because ___________.
a. God is a bookkeeper and the price for Bubba's sin is six quarts of perfect human blood.
b. God loves us so much that he was willing to send God's own son to earth to show us how to live and die. And by Jesus raising from the dead, God is able to illustrate that Love is greater than Hate and Life is greater than Death. Not even the price of living a harsh difficult life and dying a horrible death was too great a price to pay to illustrate that love and to invite us in that way.
c. The devil demans a human sacrifice be made to purchase our souls, which belong to the devil.
d. Jesus was a literal sacrificial goat.
"I think B makes the most sense. That is the best way, it seems to me, to explain the CENTRAL truth that we are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus, the son of God, who came to live, die and raise again, showing us the way to live and inviting us to join in the dinner party.
"You?"
I think you're asking a deliberately loaded question, which reinforces my belief that you don't argue in good faith.
For one, I reject the premise altogether, as this sentence is not a metaphor:
"Jesus blood paid the price for our sin so that we might have salvation."
The phrase "paying the price" is an allusion to the sort of literal redeeming of a slave that you would find in a market place.
And "Jesus' blood" is an allusion -- arguably a synecdoche -- to Jesus' death.
But removing those figurative bits leaves a literally true claim.
Jesus' death really, literally IS the punishment that Jesus endured for our sins, so that we might be saved.
Even aside from that you give a false set of alternatives. You present a parody of what a literal atonement entails, in order to dismiss it.
"God is a bookkeeper and the price for Bubba's sin is six quarts of perfect human blood."
I would have said this instead.
"In order for God to remain holy and just, the just punishment for my sin must be endured. That punishment is death and separation from the Father, and the Son endured that punishment on my behalf."
You've since written more about how a physical and historical Resurrection is essential, so I'll get to that next.
In the meantime, I would like to say that I make ABSOLUTELY sure to make those comments that are chained with [continued] tags are all published at one sitting.
They're meant as one complete comment; if Blogger didn't have the character limits, I would publish it as one complete comment.
It MIGHT make things easier if we try not to step on each other's toes by posting while the other is in the middle of chained comment.
Dan, we return to the subject of the essential nature of a physical and historical Resurrection, with your comment here.
I'll begin with a brief aside about the supposed atrocities of the Old Testament.
In reiterating that you don't deny that I believe what I believe, you write:
"I, for instance, do not see how any rational Christian adult can read the Bible and think it makes sense that God ordered Israel to slaughter children. I do not agree with you and I do not think your point makes a lick of sense."
The question is, what does the Bible teach?
It certainly appears that we both agree that the Bible teaches precisely what you reject as an atrocity.
So far as I know, you have NEVER offered an alternative interpretation of the difficult passages that maintains what the Bible says about its own veracity and its divine authority.
Instead, the Bible teaches that God did command wars of annihilation, and what the Bible claims as a historical fact, you dismiss as an error. What the Bible attributes to the word of God, you attribute to human speculation.
If you want to do all that, be my guest. But DO NOT claim that you still "deeply respect" the Bible's teachings. That claim is not consistent with your approach to those passages.
On the subject of consistency, we turn back to the Resurrection.
"What I believe, once again:
1. I believe in the historic, actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead;
2. I believe it is a core/essential teaching of Christianity;
3. AND YET, if it were some how proven NOT to be true, I would not abandon Christianity (whereas you and Marshall would);
"So, perhaps it would be helpful to say that while I believe in the Resurrection and while I agree that it is an essential teaching of Christianity, it is NOT an essential core belief for me."
In Point #3 you say that -- if you were ever convinced that the literal, historical, physical, bodily Resurrection never took place -- you "would not abandon Christianity," but if you were ever to deny that doctrine, that's EXACTLY what you would be doing.
You admit the doctrine is "an essential teaching of Christianity."
By any reasonable use of words like "essential," ANY denial of ANY essential teaching of Christianity is to abandon Christianity.
You cite a two-part dictionary definition, and write the following:
"It is essential (in the sense of 'relating to the essence, inherent') to me that the Resurrection happened.
"It is NOT essential (in the sense that it is 'indispensable') TO ME that the Resurrection happened."
I can't think of a single case where an inherent property or doctrine is nevertheless dispensible, so these statement make no sense.
Consider these properties of a particular square:
1) It has four sides.
2) All of its sides are equal.
3) All of its angles are 90 degrees.
4) Each side is four inches long.
5) The polygon's color is blue.
Which are "relating to the essence, inherent" to the shape's being a square? Just #1, #2, and #3.
Which are "indispensible" to its being a square? The same three.
If a property, quality, or doctrine is "inherent" it is NECESSARILY "indispensible." If you could dispense with it, it wasn't inherent.
Feel free to correct me with an obvious counter-example.
The ONLY thing that you wrote there that makes some sort of sense is some kind of belief in Jesus.
"I believe the Resurrection happened, but I would not quit believing in Jesus if I discovered he did not rise from the dead."
Okay, fine, but...
[Continued]
[continued]
To say you would still believe in Jesus is fine, Dan.
But I already covered this, in a comment posted an hour before yours.
"...if you were to reject a historical and bodily Resurrection, you might still have some sort of belief system about God that relates back to Jesus, but that belief system -- and the detailed beliefs about God and Jesus -- would deviate significantly and irreconcilably from orthodox Christianity.
"You might have ideas and even [a] belief in a man called Jesus, but those ideas would be in frequent in opposition to Jesus as He is predicted in the Old Testament and described in the New Testament. That belief would also be an altogether different belief than what is commended in the Bible, too."
Let me remind you that Muslims "believe in Jesus" as a prophet, but because they deny many essential Christian doctrines -- such as the Incarnation -- Muslims are not Christians.
Mormons "believe in Jesus," but because they too deny essential Chrristian doctrines -- including the faith's fundamental monotheism -- Mormons are not Christians either.
You might "believe in Jesus" in some sense, but your conception of Jesus would not be a Christian concept.
Your belief in Jesus wouldn't be a Christian belief.
In fact, you would no longer be a Christian.
Contrary to your earlier claim, you would have abandoned Christianity, because you denied one of its essential doctrines.
There might still be some overlap -- Mormons and Muslims believing in giving alms to the poor, too -- but not enough for your ENTIRE belief system to be considered a valid instance of Christian belief.
This goes back to the distinction between beliefs that are essential for salvation (ES), those that are essential to Christianity (EC), and those that are clear teachings from the Bible (CB).
I'm not presuming to know for certain that belief in the physical and historical Resurrection is absolutely essential for salvation (ES) -- the thief on the cross might not have known Christ's claim about "rebuilding the temple," but then again, who knows? -- but I believe it's essential to Christianity (EC).
Anyone who actually denies the doctrine is not a member within Christianity.
okay.
I don't know what much point there is in continuing this much longer, but a few more thoughts anyway...
#2 - The Bible clearly teaches Christ's Virgin Birth, and you denigrate the doctrine as extra-biblical.
I'm not entirely sure that I've ever said the virgin birth is extrabiblical. I would suggest THE NOTION THAT THE VIRGIN BIRTH IS A MAJOR CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, that's what's marginally or extra-biblical.
I happen to believe that Mary was a virgin - it seems clear from the text and I have no problem with that. What I question as marginally (or perhaps extra-)biblical is the demand that this is somehow a major Christian doctrine. To me, in reading the Bible, it's just an interesting note, not having much to do with core Christian ideals.
You'd have to remind me of what I've said (if you're so inclined) but there is my position on the point. I believe that Mary was a virgin and I don't believe it is a major christian tenet. If you're suggesting that the Virgin Birth is a major Christian doctrine (as opposed to something that is just mentioned), on what biblical basis do you do so?
I mean, the Bible mentions that John the Baptist leaped in Elizabeth's womb, but that is not a major Christian doctrine. A story's appearance in the Bible does not make it a central doctrine.
#3 - The Bible clearly teaches the Atonement as a real fact, and you denigrate it as "imagery" and (now) a metaphor.
The point here is that YOU THINK the Bible teaches the Atonement (meaning something pretty specific to you) is a "real fact," and I think it is imagery, metaphor or symbolic. But I DON'T denigrate it.
We HAVE been made At One with God, Hallelujah! What a wonderful God we serve! This is NOT denigration and it is NOT a suggestion in the least that I don't hold the Bible in high esteem.
#6 - The Bible clearly teaches that a historical and bodily Resurrection is essential, and it seems clear that your beliefs don't match up.
I've agreed it's essential Christian doctrine. I've further said that even if I found out it was not true, I would still follow Jesus/God. You don't understand that.
Your failure to understand or find my position reasonable is not evidence that I disdain the Bible. Instead, it is evidence that you fail to understand. My point has been made and I think reasonable people can understand what I'm saying.
more...
#1 - The Bible teaches about the Passover and the death of the firstborn in Egypt, and you dismiss the account as inaccurate and ahistorical -- along with dismissing as atrocity much (perhaps all passages) where God either causes or commands death, denigrating what the Bible attributes to divine revelation by theorizing it's human speculation.
Yes, I don't believe that a fair and serious reading of the Bible requires that I believe in a six day creation or that I believe that God literally commanded Israel to slaughter infants or that I believe God literally sent a "death angel" to slaughter firstborn children for the sins of the pharoah.
The point is, I don't believe those are literally historic BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD DISHONOR AND UNDERMINE THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE. But to suggest that I don't take them as historically accurate is not "proof" that I disrespect the Bible.
IN FACT, as I have stated, I don't take them as historically accurate BECAUSE of the teachings of the Bible and my love of it.
ONCE AGAIN, just because you don't think my reasoning is logical IS NOT evidence that I don't hold the positions for the reason given.
Do you understand the concept of "evidence" and the difference between opinion and fact?
#4 - Paul claims his teachings have divine authority, and his teachings touch on the subject of the sexes, but you denigrate what he claims is God's command by attributing it to his "doubtless" bigotry and/or mysoginy.
Once again, I think a honest, loving and serious reading of the Bible would have us reject sexism and slavery and economic or other sorts of oppression. So, BECAUSE I LOVE THE BIBLE, when I read Paul making statements that reflect the sexist conditions of the day, I don't think that the sexism is attributable to God, but rather to the time and place.
And, once again, my reasoning for thinking thusly is out of a profound respect for and desire to follow God's will as found within the Bible.
Last time I'm saying it: Just because it does not make sense to you, does not mean you are justified in jumping to another conclusion (therefore, Dan does NOT love or respect the Bible).
Bubba stated:
I'm not presuming to know for certain that belief in the physical and historical Resurrection is absolutely essential for salvation (ES) -- the thief on the cross might not have known Christ's claim about "rebuilding the temple," but then again, who knows? -- but I believe it's essential to Christianity (EC).
Anyone who actually denies the doctrine is not a member within Christianity.
Well, since I DON'T deny the doctrine and since I DO believe in the Resurrection, all this is rather a moot point, is it not?
Dan, stop avoiding the question. I want an answer.
Either show me book, chapter and verse, or admit you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
And you think you deserve some kind of apology. HA!
I think you owe me an apology for insulting my Heavenly Father.
No, I don't think you owe me an apology. I demand an apology from you.
I am asking my brothers here to stand with me in demanding from Dan, an apology for insulting God.
I think an honest, loving and serious reading of the Bible would have us reject the idiotic notion that God would ever bless what He has already clearly declared to be an abomination.
On this subject of believing in Jesus, Dan, you write one minor thing:
"I find it interesting that you would abandon Jesus and his teachings if you discovered that the Resurrection did not happen."
Why's that?
Jesus taught about His own resurrection, so if you deny the event, you have to deny the teaching.
And it seems to follow that many of Jesus' other teachings fall apart as a result: the claim to be the Messiah, the claim to be God, the teaching about Jesus' judging the world at the end of history, and the teaching about the blessing that comes with being persecuted in Jesus' name.
Do you actually disagree? Do you think that what Jesus taught is WHOLLY unaffected by whether Jesus rose?
You frankly seem to boast about not "abandoning" Jesus.
"In case you miss it, then, my point in my comment above is that I WOULD NOT LEAVE MY FAITH IN JESUS THE CHRIST even if it were proven that he did not raise from the dead.
"That, at least to me, demonstrates an even stronger faith/trust in Jesus than someone whose faith would be shattered by such a revelation."
That position seems to reject Paul's teaching that, if Jesus was not raised, we're still dead in our sins.
But even beyond that, serious as that is, the important thing isn't the strength of one's faith, but the object of one's faith.
If someone has a truly unshakeable faith in his own self-righteousness, he is doomed before God Almight.
But if someone has even faith the size of a mustard seed in the resurrected Christ, he will be saved.
Really, really strong faith in a two-thousand-year-old corpse is worthless, Dan.
And it almost seems like you treat faith as something to boast about -- just another work -- when salvation isn't about works we do, but about simply receiving what God in Christ has done, is doing, and will do.
Earlier, on the subject of what your faith could survive, you wrote the following:
"If, for instance, it were proven that we are actually NOT saved by Grace but by human sacrifice, well, that would be ground-shaking and perhaps impossible to reconcile."
One thing to remember about atonement or propitiation, is that there are dramatic difference between Christian atonement and pagan atonement.
- For Christians, the need for propritiation is God's holy wrath against sin, not a deity's capricious temper.
- The author of the atoning sacrifice is God Himself, not humans.
- The nature of the sacrifice is God Incarnate, not animals, money, or even mere humans.
But I want to note that you invoke an idea -- human sacrifice -- that echoes (though VERY perversely) the Bible's explanation of our salvation: the Father and the Son's gracious initiative, causing the Son to become a man, fully human, to die in our place.
What's really interesting is that your faith would be shaken by a doctrine of salvation by truly evil works -- like pagan human sacrifice. It's interesting because you find it VERY easy to suggest salvation by GOOD WORKS.
"However, because I respect the Bible so much, I acknowledge that this is just one way the salvation process is described. It is ALSO described as, 'come follow me,' and 'Sell all you have, give it to the poor and come, follow me,' and 'To this you were called, to follow in the steps of Jesus,' etc."
Even ignoring what I believe is a clear teaching of the Bible -- that salvation is through Christ's death alone -- salvation by human good works is completely incompatible with salvation from God's grace alone, by faith alone.
But you muddy the waters about that, in your argument that the Atonement is mere metaphor.
MARSHALL ART:
FYI, I emailed you earlier today. Let me know if you don't get the message.
this is tiring and I can't imagine recovering any further ground after this comment.
Bubba said:
the claim to be the Messiah, the claim to be God, the teaching about Jesus' judging the world at the end of history, and the teaching about the blessing that comes with being persecuted in Jesus' name.
Do you actually disagree? Do you think that what Jesus taught is WHOLLY unaffected by whether Jesus rose?
Well, I don't KNOW that Jesus being the son of God is dependent upon Jesus rising from the dead. If God is God and can do anything God wants, God can have Jesus die and STILL be God. God is God, you know.
The thing is, it's just a bit goofy, since I DO believe that Jesus rose from the dead and I can't imagine any proof that would prove otherwise. It's a moot discussion about an impossible hypothetical.
Bubba also said:
What's really interesting is that your faith would be shaken by a doctrine of salvation by truly evil works -- like pagan human sacrifice. It's interesting because you find it VERY easy to suggest salvation by GOOD WORKS.
Finally, once again demonstrating the original question that was raised in Marshall's post: How often to conservative writers get it wrong?
I HAVE NOT SUGGESTED THAT SALVATION IS BY GOOD WORKS. You read my words and draw incorrect conclusions. Repeatedly.
Now, I can lay some blame at my own feet, since I'm apparently not making myself understood. HOWEVER (and again, getting to the question I raised initially), people who aren't from a certain religious right tradition often read my words and understand exactly what I'm saying.
For instance, they read me repeatedly and repeatedly over and over saying, "WE ARE SAVED BY GOD'S GRACE," and understand somehow that it is my opinion that we are saved by God's grace, not by works.
So, I have begun to wonder about the ability of some on the Right (some, not all, by any means) to be able to rationally and morally reason.
Some seem to tend to think, "Well, he is saying X, but that doesn't make any sense to me, so he MUST be lying!" and think that they have "evidence" that I'm being dishonest because something doesn't make sense to them. Some read me writing a question and find undeniable "proof" that I have, instead, made an attack.
It's really freaky. And while I am being a bit snarky here, I do find it incredibly interesting and write it down to a phenomena related to how difficult it is to understand someone not from your tradition. Thanks for the fun ride, pals.
More comments, so more replies, as appropriate.
Dan:
About the Virgin Birth, I encourage you to follow the links, as I linked to a VERY early conversation -- possibly our first, at DR Randle's, on the subject of "red-letter Christians" -- to substantiate my claim.
For what it's worth, I strongly doubt that belief in the Virgin Birth is necessary for salvation (ES). If it's essential to Christian orthodoxy (EC), it might still be minor if a hierarchy of essential doctrines is even possible.
But I think it's a VERY clear teaching of the Bible (CB), and denial of the Virgin Birth altogether would risk causing other doctrines to unravel, starting with the Incarnation and Jesus' being the Messiah.
However, in that original conversation, you seemed to denigrate the Virgin Birth as extra-biblical.
"I think all these extrabiblical doctrines (virgin birth, gay marriage = wrong, trinity, etc) can be interesting and even worthwhile to discuss, think and pray about, but I don't think ANY extrabiblical doctrine is included in what's needed for salvation." [emphasis mine]
(I do still wonder if you really think the Trinity is extra-biblical, but I don't think I've ever pressed the issue, and I won't do so right now.)
"I don't have a problem with the virgin birth. I just don't have a problem with Mary NOT having been a virgin.
"In short, I don't think it's a biblical principle at all - and certainly not 'incontrovertible.' It's a moot point.
"Unless I'm mistaken, the word translated 'virgin,' does not necessarily mean virgin in our sense of the word, but rather, 'young maiden.'" [emphasis mine]
I corrected your mistake, pointing out that Luke 1 doesn't use the word that can be interpreted "young maiden;" Mary is recorded to have uttered the idiom, "since I know not a man."
You never commented in that thread again.
It appears that you now believe that the Virgin Birth is a clear teaching of the Bible:
"I happen to believe that Mary was a virgin - it seems clear from the text and I have no problem with that."
That's great. I'm willing to take this new statement at face value.
As you express it NOW your belief regarding the Virgin Birth DOES NOT suggest a discrepency with your stated respect for the Bible.
Thanks for clarifying that; I'm fine setting that issue aside.
About the Atonement, it's still not clear whether your position is consistent with the clear teachings of the Bible; I've replied at length to describe my problems with your explanation.
1-a. The Bible doesn't describe other means of salvation.
1-b. The Bible PRECLUDES other means or grounds of salvation.
2. The Bible teaches that OT sacrifices are metaphors, but not Christ's death.
3. The details of Christ's death is clear that it was more than an mere example.
I'm awaiting any rebuttal to the substance of these points.
About the supposed atrocities in the Bible, you write:
"The point is, I don't believe those are literally historic BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD DISHONOR AND UNDERMINE THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE. But to suggest that I don't take them as historically accurate is not 'proof' that I disrespect the Bible."
I don't believe this statement is very precise, and its imprecision makes it inaccurate.
The Passover itself as a literal, historical event IS A TEACHING OF THE BIBLE, and you reject the teaching.
You may believe that accepting this teaching "would dishonor and undermine" OTHER teachings of the Bible, but you're having to discard at least ONE teaching.
In other words, what you're doing is dishonoring and undermining SOME teachings of the Bible, ostensibly out of honor and respect for OTHER teachings of the Bible.
You're being selective.
[continued]
[continued]
On the subject of Paul's supposed bigotry, you're doing the very same thing.
"Once again, I think a honest, loving and serious reading of the Bible would have us reject sexism and slavery and economic or other sorts of oppression. So, BECAUSE I LOVE THE BIBLE, when I read Paul making statements that reflect the sexist conditions of the day, I don't think that the sexism is attributable to God, but rather to the time and place."
Your behavior may well reflect love for SOME OF the Bible, but not all of it.
You dishonor parts of the Bible, here dismissing parts of Paul's letters as sexism that's attributable to "the time and place" when THE TEXT ITSELF presumes its divine authority and ultimate origin.
You may be doing this out of respect for OTHER PARTS but that doesn't change the fact that you clearly denigrate sections of the Bible.
You don't "deeply respect" ALL OF the Bible's teachings, you don't "deeply respect" EACH OF the Bible's teachings.
You denigrate some, in favor of others.
On the subject of whether a historical and physical Resurrection is essential, you write that the entire issue is irrelevant.
"Well, since I DON'T deny the doctrine and since I DO believe in the Resurrection, all this is rather a moot point, is it not?"
I HAVE NOT questioned your present belief in the Resurrection, what I've asked for is clarification on whether you believe the doctrine is essential.
On the one hand, you agree that it is, but on the other hand, you write that one who denies the doctrine doesn't necessarily "abandon Christianity."
You write that the doctrine is "of the essense" of Christianity, but you deny that it's "indispensible" to Christianity, which is bizarre.
Maybe we're on the same page, at least on this issue. I hope we are; it looks like we MIGHT be.
So, let me try to get you to clarify things once again.
YES OR NO: If a Christian denies the historical and physical Resurrection, has he automatically abandoned Christianity?
[continued]
[continued]
Dan:
About what teachings of Jesus would be undermined if Jesus is still dead, you write:
"Well, I don't KNOW that Jesus being the son of God is dependent upon Jesus rising from the dead. If God is God and can do anything God wants, God can have Jesus die and STILL be God. God is God, you know."
Notice, it wasn't just the claim that Jesus is the Son of God, but that Jesus is God Himself.
"Before Abraham was, I am."
It's a very simple argument for why the lack of a literal resurrection undermines that claim.
1) Jesus clearly prophesied the resurrection.
2) If Jesus is still dead, the prophecy is false.
3) Jesus claimed to be God.
4) God does not lie.
5) From #2 and #4, we see that, if Jesus ever uttered anything false, then Jesus is not God.
God is omnipotent, so He can do anything, so long as it's not contradictory, as contradictions do not actually exist.
But other qualities of God -- His holiness, His faithfulness, His love -- mean that there are some things that He WILL NOT do, even if His omnipotence gives Him the power to do so.
Lying is one of those things. Jesus promised to be raised after three days, and Jesus failed to keep that promise, Jesus is not God.
It is a minor point among all the things we've been discussing, but it's not a difficult point.
About salvation through works, you're adamant that you suggested no such thing:
"I HAVE NOT SUGGESTED THAT SALVATION IS BY GOOD WORKS. You read my words and draw incorrect conclusions. Repeatedly."
What in the world was this then?
"However, because I respect the Bible so much, I acknowledge that this is just one way the salvation process is described. It is ALSO described as, 'come follow me,' and 'Sell all you have, give it to the poor and come, follow me,' and 'To this you were called, to follow in the steps of Jesus,' etc."
You make the following claims:
1) The "salvation process" is described as "come, follow me."
2) The salvation process is described as "sell all you have, give it to the poor, come, follow me."
3) The salvation process is described as "To this you were called, to follow in the steps of Jesus."
That seems to suggest salvation by works. If I misunderstand you, explain yourself.
If the COMMAND to "sell all you have and give it to the poor," describes the process by which we are saved, how is this NOT salvation by good works?
You write about us, "they read me repeatedly and repeatedly over and over saying, 'WE ARE SAVED BY GOD'S GRACE,' and understand somehow that it is my opinion that we are saved by God's grace, not by works."
If that quote was the reason I wrote that you suggest salvation by works, then you would have a real issue.
Instead, MY COMMENT WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR in that it was in reference to your bit about "selling your belongings and giving it to the poor."
If you believe that ANY of Christ's ethical commands have to do with the CAUSE of our salvation (the "how") rather than the INTENDED EFFECT, I can't see how your constant appeals to "grace alone" are accurate.
You say you believe in salvation by grace alone, but in your argument that the Atonement is mere imagery, the OTHER PASSAGES you claim are other descriptions introduce ethical commands that WOULD seem to add what Paul calls "works of the law" or "works ascribed by the law."
If you can explain how those other passages describe salvation without introducing good works, I'd appreciate it.
As it is, it seems to me that you're in a pickle: the only counter-evidence you've produced against the reality of the Atonement, rubs against salvation by grace alone.
That seems to suggest salvation by works. If I misunderstand you, explain yourself.
1. You have misunderstood me. When I save, "Saved by grace," I mean that.
2. I'll pass on re-explaining my re-explanations. I'll pass on this thread forever, I believe.
I've forgiven 70 x 7 (probably quite literally) and cast enough pearls before swine only to have them trampled in snits of hypocrisy, religiosity and pomposity.
If and when you all want to start demonstrating a more adult and Christian manner of conversations (which could begin with multiple apologies for multiple misrepresentations - if nothing else, apologies for misunderstanding what has been said), perhaps I'll come back. I just don't think you all are reasoning very well, you seem to be blinded by traditions and partisanship to such a degree that conversation is dang near impossible.
I deeply apologize for any and all contributions I've made to that difficulty.
Peace.
Re. Jesus rising from the dead: I'm with Paul, which is to say I'm with the Holy Spirit: 1 Corinthians 15:17-19 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
If Jesus didn't rise from the dead then we can't trust the primary writings about his life (as they predicted his rising and documented it) and He wasn't God (so all his claims to forgive sins, that He was God, etc. would further nullify his teachings).
We wouldn't know if we were following his teachings or those of someone else. We could just pick and choose what we like (Hey, just like theological liberals!).
We would know for a "fact" that we were worshiping the wrong God, so at that point whether any of his teachings were useful would be pretty meaningless.
But I've got Good News: He is risen!
Bubba,
I did get the email. I responded, so perhaps you didn't notice as you were busy here. Though I think your fears are unfounded, I will proceed with your request if you wish. Let me know either way, here or by email.
Dan,
"I deeply apologize for any and all contributions I've made to that difficulty."
You have been the sole source of that difficulty. As I have stated before, we aren't misrepresenting your words. We are drawing the only conclusions your words allow. The discussion regarding a literal, bodily resurrection is one example. But perhaps the problem here is that it's not a question of whether it's essential to the faith, but essential to YOU. If it makes no difference to you should the resurrection be proven never to have occurred, then obviously that point isn't essential to YOU. What THAT point might say about your respect for the entire Bible I'm not inclined to say.
Again you question our ability to reason, when it is you who is unable to answer for your faith, or rather, your version of it. Bubba's been calmly and respectfully explaining why he finds fault with your positions and your response is to bail after trashing his ability to reason. I have to say, one could not be more adult and Christian in his methods than Bubba. Even when he calls your methods dishonest, he gives good solid reasons. YOU, OTOH, simply restate your position and claim you're not understood or that you're being purposely misrepresented. That's dishonest since it doesn't reflect reality.
So frankly, it is YOUR moral reasoning that has been shown to be suspect since you don't recognize the general tone of this discussion to have been respectful, but instead pout and make accusations, playing the victim once again. With few exceptions, everyone has generally stepped back and allowed you to deal with only one opponent. Sad for you that it was Bubba, but it did bow to your lament regarding the amount of questions put before you. Bubba reduced it to only two, and you failed to completely satisfy his request, even after complied with your demand that he first respond to one of YOUR questions.
But I think I undestand your dilemma. It's the old saying about engaging in a battle of wits: you're not well armed.
Of course it's not just a gotcha game here but a serious answering for one's faith. You've basically been reduced to "That's what I believe". But we get that. We've gotten that long ago and the discussion isn't about that, but WHY you believe it and/or HOW you can defend it. You haven't come close, you've just reiterated what you've already said and pretended we don't understand you.
You claim people in your circle understand you perfectly. I doubt anyone puts your positions to the test as severely as has been done here, or more specifically, by Bubba. Your circle of friends are like Larry King by comparison.
Dan:
If you're still checking in, I believe that there is a difference between a mere claim and an actual explanation, and over the course of this conversation you've claimed an awful lot, but you haven't explained all that much, much less present explanations that are actually clear, coherent, and internally consistent.
"I'll pass on re-explaining my re-explanations"?
What explanations?
You claim that the doctrine of the physical and historical Resurrection is essential to Christianity, but you also claim that a Christian could deny the doctrine and not abandon Christianity as a consequence. I believe these two claims are ultimately contradictory -- even if you do sincerely believe both of them, as doublethink is not entirely out of the question -- and I have asked you to explain how they're reconciled.
To your credit, on this score, you have tried to present an explanation, but it hasn't made things any clearer. What you've provided hasn't been a good explanation that I'm irrationally demanding you to repeat; it's been a poor explanation, for which I've asked completely reasonable follow-up questions.
There are other pairs of claims that I believe are contradictory, where you have not provided a plausible and coherent explanation about how to reconcile them.
You claim that the doctrine of a physical and historical Resurrection is inherent to Christianity, but you also claim that the doctrine is not indispensible.
You claim to believe in salvation by grace alone, but you also claim that the "process of salvation" is described by various commands, such as "sell all you have, and give the proceeds to the poor."
And, in what is the single central area of contention, you claim that you love the Bible, that you deeply respect its teachings, and that you desire not to dishonor and undermine its teachings; but, for quite a few passages, you also claim to hold a view that appears to do exactly what you claim to eschew. That is to say, your view of those passages does dishonor and undermine quite a few specfic teachings of the Bible.
- The Bible teaches that God rescued Israel from Egypt by killing all the firstborn, and -- along with numerous other passages where God is recorded as having caused or commanded death -- you believe this teaching is inaccurate and ahistorical, because you believe this teaching is a moral atrocity.
- The Bible emphatically teaches that Christ died for our sins, but you dismiss this teaching as mere imagery and metaphor.
- The Bible also teaches that there are different roles for men and women in the home and probably the church, but this teaching that the Bible attributes to God, you denounce as mysoginy resulting from the surrounding culture.
If you had ever provided a satisfactory explanation for any of these seemingly inconsistent sets of claims, I would have set the issue aside long ago.
That you're dropping this conversation now is particularly disappointing, if not surprising, because it has just now been very clearly emphasized that I am willing to retract what turns out to be an erroneous claim -- a misunderstanding, if not an unreasonable one given the evidence that I had.
From that evidence, which I went out of my way cite, I had good reason to conclude that you denigrated the Virgin Birth as extra-biblical. Ten days and literally 225 comments later -- and with the rather obvious indication that you never looked at the evidence I cited -- you made clear that you accept the Virgin Birth as a clear teaching of the Bible, and guess what? I immediately and clearly retracted my earlier position.
I had hoped that that progress would encourage this conversation to continue.
There was hope of that, but not a confident expectation.
If there's one word that keeps coming back to me about these many claims and far too few persuasive explanations, it's "scrutiny."
It seems that you're not very eager for your positions to undergo any scrutiny.
[continued]
So here's my take on the atonement thing. I'll try to be brief.
God created a perfect world. In it He placed Adam and Eve, who committed the first sin and brought death and decay into the world. Cast out of Eden they had to suffer and die, because the wages of sin is death. This is certainly an essential. What could be more wrathful?
Because the wages of sin is death, for every sin committed, a death or death substitute was required for atonement. To atone is to do penance to, as we all seem to be in agreement, come back to communion with God. Some sins, like engaging in homosexual behavior, required the death of the sinner himself. Other sins require only a scapegoat (the source of the term) to take the place of the sinner. An animal without blemish was required. But still, no sacrifice was perfect, thus no perfect atonement was achievable. For who or what is pefect? Only God Himself. Thus, He came to us as Jesus, fully human, a peferct human, and literally sacrificed Himself to atone for all of our sins. It was the ultimate outpouring of God's grace to sacrifice Himself in this way.
So it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross IS God's grace poured out for us IF we put our faith in Jesus. God's grace is salvation through the actual blood spilled by Christ through His death on the cross. It there for all of us. It rains on the righteous and the wicked. But we have to accept Christ as our Savior. He saved us from God's wrath, the wrath our sinfulness deserves, by dying in our stead. HE atoned for our sins by doing so and we atone by our acceptance of and faith in Him. (After we repent.)
There is no imagery here. No metaphor. This is EXACTLY how it works.
So. God's love for us is so great, that He became man and suffered a horrible torture (not the namby-pamby waterboarding type, but real torture) and was put to death in one of the most gruesome ways known to mankind. Wow. While it shows His love for us to do so on our accounts, does it not also show just how brutal He can be to put His own Holy Self to death in such a manner? For goodness sake, He's God. He didn't have to.
But we are saved from His wrath and will not die because of our sins if we accept Christ as our Savior! But what of those who reject Him? Obviously, they must receive His wrath, whatever that means in fact. There are all sorts of indications about how bad it could get, including Jesus imploring us, "Choose life!" Lake of fire? Eternal hell? Not a lot of details, but what there is does not sound pleasant. Sounds like wrath. Sounds a lot worse than being put to death by the sword of some Hebrew hoards, or an angel of death.
To deny the gruesome parts of the OT over some half-assed belief about what the Bible teaches, and it's at least a partial belief to deny God's wrath in the OT, then surely there cannot be something worse, like eternal damnation or hell or a lake of fire or something so bad that Christ will only say, "Take my word for it guys, choose life!"
He died to save us. Save us from what if not God's wrath for sin? If there's no accounting for those who do not accept Jesus, then there is no justice, God is not just.
To deny that God is wrathful and vengeful, that He could possibly mandate the destruction of entire cities and everyone in it, is childish, immature, and totally unBiblical. It's believing in a hippie god that does not exist. Worse, it gives others the wrong idea that could lead them to believe the heavy crosses in their lives need not be carried because, what the hell, I'm really a nice guy and God wouldn't do that to me.
Good luck with that.
[continued]
Dan, take the one other topic I've strongly emphasized for which there remains no good explanation: your claim that passages like I Peter 2 and the encounter with the rich young man contain descriptions of the salvation process, and your subsequent claim that these descriptions differ from the Atonement and therefore prove that the Atonement is mere imagery.
I responded to that claim at length, replying that the Bible doesn't describe other means of salvation and even precludes other means; that while the Bible is clear that the Old Testament sacrifice system is symbolic, it also teaches that the Atonement is the reality for which the old sacrifices are "shadows;" and that the details of Christ's death shows that He did bear the burden of our sins rather than simply endure a martyrdom.
About the encounter with the rich young ruler, I pointed to an earlier conversation where I highlighted key aspects of all three Gospel accounts, aspects that make clear the point was salvation by God's grace rather than man's obedience. Though you seemed to agree with my conclusion at the time, you seem to miss how that undermines the claim that "sell all you have" describes the process of salvation.
And, I showed how the context of your quote from I Peter 2 shows the opposite of what you argued: even in that passage, Peter clearly taught that Christ "bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."
None of this was acknowledged, much less addressed.
You make some broad claims about what you believe, but the details of your beliefs sometimes contradict those claims, even strikingly so.
It seems to me that what you want is for people simply to take all these claims at face value: you say you believe them, and we should not only accept that you do, we should also accept that the sum total of these beliefs result in a coherent system.
(I know you object to drawing conclusions beyond what you explicitly write, and I'm doing exactly that now, but I don't think your objection is reasonable.)
You just do not want us to scrutinize those beliefs.
[to be concluded]
[continued]
I conclude with an observation, Dan.
A counterfeiter doesn't want his forgeries examined by someone who knows what the really currency is like, what it looks like and feels like.
He doesn't want the forgery scrutinized, he wants it accepted, preferably without a second thought.
To echo something that Marshall just wrote, the counterfeiter's partners-in-crime don't want the forgery scrutinized either: why would they ask tough questions in public, questions about the watermark or the portrait, and risk drawing attention to the flaws?
Do I think you're a counterfeiter? I do, Dan, in the sense that you want to present your peculiar, but inoffensive and politically useful, beliefs as mundane. You do seem careful in making sure that your beliefs meet the minimum standard of the ancient creeds, but you go beyond claiming to hold a creedal faith, to claiming a biblical faith.
You claim to revere the Bible's teachings -- giving the impression you revere all of them, but I have noticed you don't actually use the word "all" -- and you claim that your beliefs arose from Bible study.
But you react to careful scrutiny as if it's the most belligerent and unreasonable thing in the world.
That's the behavior of a counterfeiter; more, it's the behavior of one who doesn't have a lot of confidence in his work.
If you knew, deep down, that your beliefs are biblical, your aversion to scrutiny would make no sense. You would be eager to share your reasoning to spread the good news of what the Bible teaches, in an effort to correct those of us who disagree with you and misunderstand the Bible: to disagree with you, would be to betray a weak grasp of what the text teaches.
Even if you weren't confident that what you believe is truly biblical, if you nevertheless genuinely sought to conform to the Bible, your aversion to scrutiny still makes no sense. Why not show others why you believe what you do? If they disagree with you, you can "compare notes" and improve your beliefs if their arguments are superior.
Scrutiny of one's beliefs is nothing to fear for those who know they have absolutely nothing to hide.
Dan, I do hope you continue commenting. If there's something for which I should genuinely apologize, do let me know, but I won't apologize for scrutinizing what you believe.
I know for a fact that I have no reason to.
OK, Dan.
Obviously, you have no answer for me. You have left no doubt that you have abandoned your love of God for your love of the world.
Instead of bewaring philosophy and vain deceit, after traditions of man, you have embraced it.
You say God blesses homosexuality, but God says it is an abomination. Do you seriously believe yourself right, and God wrong? You blaspheme God by suggesting He would bless an abomination to Himself.
Therefore, I have won, and you have lost the argument.
You have discredited yourself.
You have proven yourself a liar, a false teacher, a fraud, a heretic, an apostate, a blasphemer, and a God hater.
You have called God a liar, and accused Him of being self contradictory. Moreover, you have contradicted yourself.
You want to call me a pervert? Go ahead. I consider that a compliment coming from a reprobate like you.
In your zeal to avoid offending your Sodomite friends, you have offended God, and all God fearing Christians.
You owe God and every God fearing Christian on earth an apology, but you won't bend your foolish pride, and pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit, which you have demonstrated, goes before a fall. You will fall hard, my friend.
You have damned yourself, and by not seeking to rebuke your Sodomite friends, and thus perhaps save their immortal souls from everlasting Hell, you have placed a stumbling block in their paths, and you will have to answer to the creator of the Universe for your sin.
Good luck to you. You're going to need it.
Art is going to have to delete every comment I make towards you from now on because I will no longer hesitate to call you whatever name fits you.
Idiot.
Dan,
The fact that you continue to ignore Jesus teaching on forgiveness calls your devotion into question.
"You say God blesses homosexuality, but God says it is an abomination."
This is unsurprisingly rigid thinking from Mark. If your claim is that everything written in the Bible is God saying something, then you are the one who has made God contradictory.
What is the role of women in the church? Silent or not ?
What is the moral status of slaves? To serve well when in chains?
What is the responsibility of the brother-in-law of a widow? To marry her for her security?
Why, Mark, have you not sold everything you have to follow Jesus?
Why have you not plucked out your eye?
On these last two, I'm still hoping you can follow your literal proclivities to fuller discipleship.
___________
As for Bubba, the rubrics professor who forgets that rubrics have only a secondary function, he also misplaces that faith unto salvation is not faith in doctrine.
The only faith that saves is faith in Jesus. Be as a child. A child comprehends not the twisted "doctrine" of substitutionary atonement.
A child believes in the Master. Have the faith of child, Bubba, or a mustard seed. That is all that is necessary.
And while the atmosphere at these sinkholes of -- I can't call it faith -- cultural patriotism wear away at Dan's unusual Christian equanimity and seduce him into a viper's lair, the quality of his remarks continue to be more marked with the simple faith that is praised in heaven than anyone else (and I include myself preeminently).
So, finally for Bubbs, to lay hold to a doctrine of physical and historical resurrection as the right teaching of the church (which is the definition of doctrine -- and how you know salvation does not absolutely depend on doctrine since, as a Protestant surely you believe that salvation comes by grace through faith and not via the church -- as I say, to lay hold to a doctrine of physical and historical resurrection as the right teaching of the church is to claim a belief in that doctrine.
A belief. A belief in the "physical and historical" resurrection cannot be proved or disproved. It is a belief.
You act as if a belief is the thing itself. I believe the earth goes around the sun. But the proof of that is only found in calculations made from observations of angles. No one has seen the earth go around the sun. I used to believe Uranus was a planet. Because it was right teaching. Now it is not.
That you believe in that something two thousand years ago happened in a physical and historical way as we understand physical and historical in our time and place DOES NOT prove anything that is, in fact, physical and historical.
And like Dan, should Paul be wrong about women and slavery, if Paul is wrong -- or just simply time bound --in how he traverses the redemption line of Fall-Sin-sin-death-Christ's bloody appeasement-salvation, if Israel was wrong to have slaughtered Canaanites for the Promised Land, I will not be troubled.
My hope is in the Lord, come what may.
Feodor,
Everything was going just fine...
I think you'd be hardpressed to show that Mark's claim is that everything written in the Bible is God saying something. What Mark is saying is true, however, that indeed God says homosexual behavior is forbidden. So what followed your incredibly off-base statement is unworthy of his responding. But I will.
"What is the role of women in the church? Silent or not ?"
This comes up a lot, but I've never taken the time to look closely at it. However, I don't think you can make the claim that this point is either significant or essential, nor that it is any kind of mandate or command.
"What is the moral status of slaves? To serve well when in chains?"
I'd say the answer is "absolutely". But then, there's not a whole lot of slavery going on in this country, nor are you likely to find many Christians that believe in the institution of which I don't believe, but could be wrong, that God has made any comment regarding its morality.
"What is the responsibility of the brother-in-law of a widow? To marry her for her security?"
Since Christ reiterated the sanctity of marriage and the fidelity of each spouse to each other, and since in this day and age women are not held in the same regard, this is a silly question. Indeed a caring, Christian would step up should the widow of a sibling need assistance, but women can find work easily and most are certain of their own abilities to provide for themselves. In addition, there's life insurance. The long and short of it is that without the law to which you refer, at that time women might not survive and that was at least part of the reason for it.
"Why, Mark, have you not sold everything you have to follow Jesus?"
Bubba alluded to this cheap trap and could better refute this than could I. The bottom line: not meant as a mandate or command.
"Why have you not plucked out your eye?"
Like above, not meant as a command in the least. Very dishonest to pretend it was. To say that "it would be better for you that you pluck out your own eye rather than lust after another woman" is in no way meant that anyone should. However, feel free to, should you feel like head-butting me, decapitate yourself.
So obviously, it is clear that your questions were not sincere questions, but merely asked to entrap Mark. How unChristian of you, but not unsurprising for a false priest.
Marshall,
Are you self-conscious enough to see how you feel free to interpret Paul's directions and even Jesus' teachings in the Gospel according to what you think is a variable context and variable forms of speech?
How do you decide when to apply definitions of whether something is not a "mandate or command" but hyperbolic speech to make a point?
And who says your decisions are fiat?
How do you honestly interpret the Bible according to your best efforts but claim it is absolutely approved by God.
The situation for women has changed, you say.
The situation for homosexuality has changed, I say.
Your interpretation of scripture is just that. And mine is just that.
But you lie to yourself and say that you aren't interpreting. Or you lie to yourself when you follow the rubric master and say that he isn't interpreting according to proof text models and a seventeenth century take on the text.
Not surprising for a false Christian speaking falsely to himself, no less.
And the way you shrug off the "institution" -- and have the gutless vacuum of morality to use that word -- of slavery, will catch up to you when the Holy One puts you under examination.
What then followed in your comments to Bubba is especially goofy.
"A child comprehends not the twisted "doctrine" of substitutionary atonement."
Again, I feel certain the average child understands things far better than yourself. But after chiding me for suggesting (in your mind) that I would base anything on the opinions of children, you then turn to assume in a similar manner, but in the opposite way.
More importantly, to call the actual fact of Christ as a substitute for our own sinfulness "twisted", shows just how twisted and false your ordination truly is. The whole point of His sacrifice was to be a substitute for us, to take our sins upon himself and suffer what we deserve.
Your drooling remarks regarding Dan's holiness is touching. But coming from one who is touched is not saying much. It doesn't surprise me that you would side with Dan since your understandings are equally questionable, based what little you've presented in that regard. But he's been neither seduced or lured here, and has commented here on his own volition. Someday he'll actually answer questions honestly, defend his positions clearly, and do so without the pretense of piety, victimhood, outrage and all the other dishonest tactics he uses to avoid answering for that which has no honest answer.
That you believe the age of a document somehow diminishes it's authority indicates a lack of respect for the Tome that at least equals Dan's. The Bible is the source of all that a Christian believes. To dismiss any of it requires something more than the imaginings of people born thousands of years later. It requires something equal to it in authority. Nothing within the discipline of archeology has ever overturned any of its text, nor has anything stood before it in a manner that puts to a legitimate choice between the two in terms of faith or belief. What we know of the Bible aligns far more closely with what people like Bubba, Neil, Eric, Mark, Ms. Green, and myself believe and espouse than the truly twisted opinions of our opponents. That's why people like Dan quit the debate.
You're such a country hick Protestant you don't know how Jonathan Edwards you are in your faith and how much of Christian witness that leaves out.
The Bible is a source of how Christians believe, but not the only source, and -- here is where you're plugged into nothing -- is not the object of Christian belief.
Christ surpasses the Bible in authority. The Holy Spirit, too. By far.
But your Christ is still dead, killed by your literal idolatry of a book printed in Grand Rapids, and your Holy Spirit is the spirit of a white, agrarian America that no longer exists.
And it shows, badly.
For your remedial sake, here is what is Jonathan Edwards - but not Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Methodist, or even Lutheran:
"The whole point of His sacrifice was to be a substitute for us, to take our sins upon himself and suffer what we deserve."
Feodor, it seems to me that Marshall's "mistake" isn't pure Edwards.
It's Paul.
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." - II Cor 5:21
Oh, yeah, it's also Peter.
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." - I Peter 2:24
Oh, wait, there he quotes Isaiah, so it's also Isaiah. (In Acts, Philip also argues that the same passage refers to Christ.)
And let's not forget that it's Christ Himself who declared that the Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for many (Mk 10:45).
It might be easier simply to say, it's not Jonathan Edwards, it's the Bible.
If you're going to denigrate Marshall and the rest of us, you should do so solely for our accepting the authority of the Bible -- a criticism you do level, which I will address presently.
Focusing on our accepting the Bible's authority would completely undermine your whole stuck-in-Puritan-America schtick, but this position at least has the advantage of being based in reality.
Now, I made quite clear that I wasn't claiming to know that a belief in the physical and historical Resurrection is essential for salvation.
"I'm not presuming to know for certain that belief in the physical and historical Resurrection is absolutely essential for salvation (ES) -- the thief on the cross might not have known Christ's claim about "rebuilding the temple," but then again, who knows? -- but I believe it's essential to Christianity (EC)."
You overlook what I write, and I note that you do so even as you claim things that never took place: earlier, you attacked me for avoiding your questions when you never asked me any.
If you can't keep up with this conversation, you should probably defer to those who can.
Feodor, anothr reason you berate us is your claim that our faith in Christ isn't childlike, and I'm not sure that criticism's fair: a childlike faith in Christ does not preclude and has never precluded an adult theological understanding of Christ's Person and work.
Finally, you claim the following:
"Christ surpasses the Bible in authority. The Holy Spirit, too. By far."
The funny thing is, Christ Himself affirmed the authority of Scripture, down to the smallest penstroke, and Christ frequently appealed to Scripture as the final doctrinal authority, invoking the phrase "it is written" as if that fact settles the matter being discussed.
If you don't trust the New Testament's account that Jesus Christ affirmed the authority of Scripture, I wonder how it is you can know anything about Jesus with any real certainty.
But if you do trust that account, I don't see why you berate Christians whose approach to the Bible appears far more Christ-like than yours.
Bubba,
You forgot to incorporate Marshall's "suffer what we deserve."
The passages you quote are pointing to Christ's victory over death, The marker of fallen human nature and a fallen cosmos. For much, though not all of the NT approached to salvation, the wages of sin is death, not some suffering that we deserve but which Christ stays God's hand, as Marshall and Edwards would have it ("appeasing an angry God).
Death is the ultimate sign of alienation (ontological not relational) because in God nothing is flawed, nothing can die. But our Being has been compromised.
For a short course on this, I direct you to the paradigmatic hymn in Phillipians 2.
So, we are back to Marshall and Edwards positing a schema that is not Biblical, but American radical protestantism.
I think you cause your own faults for honoring the Bible in a way that dishonors Christ. And since that is a fallacy, it accrues as a fault of yours.
You really should put the living Christ first, and interpret scripture with that filter. It is what the better part of Christian history and Christian theology has always done.
Come in from the prairie and join Christ's one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. As for Christ affirming scripture, Christ affirmed Peter as the foundation of his church. I hope you are Catholic, otherwise you are in some contradiction somewhere. Either Christ's affirmations in the Gospels aren't always eternal... or you are in apostasy.
___________
Do you have so short a memory that you forget your fleeing from the scene of our discussion on Leviticus and Marshall's vaunted whirlybirdbiblical scholars?
You asked lots of questions which I reduced to the right questions and right answers. But when asked questions to answer I posited, suddenly you weren't around, Mr. Rubrics.
And please, tell me that you know that what the NT writers present as Christ's affirmed scriptures was what we know as the Septuagint. Not the TaNaK in Hebrew, but the Greek translation.
And there are significant differences by the way.
Tell me you know this. Otherwise you have built you house on the sand of something that never was.
I don't expect your colluders to know any of this.
Art, I believe any further blog posts are unnecessary. The comment thread in this post alone furnishes the reader with all the information he will ever need. And if you wish to opine on another subject, just bring it up in this thread and it will be addressed.
Feodor, since you appear to agree with Dan in his totally unsupportable position on homosexuality, perhaps you can respond to the challenge I presented him. He won't (or more precisely, can't) respond, so maybe you will.
Just furnish me with a clear answer to this challenge, and try to stay on point:
Show me Book, chapter and verse, where God says He blesses Homosexuality.
Don't respond with some obscure point that has nothing to do with the question. Just answer only the question put to you. Anything else with which you intend to cloud the issue will be construed as an avoidance of the question and will place you in the same category of which I already placed Dan.
Or rather, where he has already placed himself by his refusal to address the point.
2 Peter 1-10
(though God doesn't speak in the Bible, Mark; God is only presented as a character speaking in the OT and only once in the NT -- except for the apocalyptic literature of Revelation)
Feodor,
Lots of words from you but very little meaning, very little substance. You make charges but support not one word of it. If we're wrong, show us how. We get you don't agree. We don't get any real argument, just the usual pretense of superior Biblical understanding. What a fraud! Put up or shut up. Dan, despite his failures, at least gives the appearance of trying to dispute our positions. You just say we're wrong and act as if you can show why, but never do.
And what of this:
"(though God doesn't speak in the Bible, Mark; God is only presented as a character speaking in the OT and only once in the NT"
What kind of expert doubletalk is this? And also this:
"For your remedial sake, here is what is Jonathan Edwards - but not Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Methodist, or even Lutheran..."
How about just a little taste of what any of these traditions preach if NOT that Christ died for our sins in our stead? I charge you once again with being full of crap. A false priest who cares more for worldly things than for the Word of God as presented in Scripture.
You also join with ER in the false notion that we make an idol of the Bible, as if we worship IT, rather than He who inspired it. You say,
"The Bible is a source of how Christians believe, but not the only source..."
Really? What other source is there? To what else can you point that is not just an interpretation of the Bible?
"How do you decide when to apply definitions of whether something is not a "mandate or command" but hyperbolic speech to make a point?"
Again, all that education, all those books. What a waste. Does not "Thou shalt not..." tip you off in any way? Isn't there anything in your vaunted education that guides you in picking out the obvious? Or are you just hoping that poor less educated people like myself will fall for your spin? As I've said before, I don't see the Bible as a total mystery. I don't believe it was meant that only scholars, and 20th and 21st century liberal scholars only, can figure it out.
"And who says your decisions are fiat?"
Don't recall that I ever did. But as I say, not a lot of mystery about what's what in the Bible. It takes an educated fraud to muck it up and pretend it's a tough read.
"How do you honestly interpret the Bible according to your best efforts but claim it is absolutely approved by God."
Don't know that I have. What I do know is that I start from the point of Biblical authority, that it is the Word of God and interpret as best I can and act accordingly. And as I believe most of it is pretty obvious, it is obvious to me when some people, like Dan and yourself, each to your degrees, are off base in YOUR interpretations. Plus, I feel that my support for those opinions is far more sound, particularly since there is little if any support attempted, much less given, by you for your interpretation.
"The situation for women has changed, you say.
The situation for homosexuality has changed, I say."
But here's the difference; also obvious:
The situation for the women at the time was the basis for the law. Not so with homosexuality, or the other sexual prohibitions, for that matter. There's nothing about the 21st century that has changed in any way that alters the sinfulness of the prohibited sexual behaviors. Good example of comparing apples to oranges, though.
"But you lie to yourself and say that you aren't interpreting."
I don't say I don't interpret. I say that verses like "Thou shalt not..." don't require great in depth analysis, that they are pretty clear. What interpretation is required to understand "Thou shalt not..."? And what interpretation is present in pretending there is some kind of blessing for homosex marriage? There isn't interpretation, there is only adding to the text what doesn't exist for reasons having more to do with worldly concerns that Godly concerns. It's another liberal lie.
"And the way you shrug off the "institution" -- and have the gutless vacuum of morality to use that word -- of slavery, will catch up to you when the Holy One puts you under examination."
Another lame attempt to paint me as a racist, you liberal liar. I didn't "shrug off" the institution. I said the institution itself isn't addressed in terms of it's morality. If I'm wrong, show me where. The only guidance related to slavery regards the behavior of slave and slave owner. There is no mention of slavery as being moral or immoral, good or evil. Is your wife aware of your discomfort with race relations? Why do you insist on projecting your racial issues on me? I have absolutely no problem with other races whatsoever.
" Feodor said...
2 Peter 1-10
(though God doesn't speak in the Bible, Mark; God is only presented as a character speaking in the OT and only once in the NT -- except for the apocalyptic literature of Revelation)"
That doesn't even come close. Read the entire chapter in context. Not one word anywhere in there that addresses homosexuals or homosexual.
Go, for instance, to verse 4, where Peter plainly says God has cleansed us of decadence and evil desires so that we may share in His divine nature.
Or verse 6, where he says, Knowing God leads to self-control. Self-control leads to patient endurance, and patient endurance leads to godliness.
Verse 9, Those who fail to develop these virtues are blind or, at least, very shortsighted. They have already forgotten that God has cleansed them from their old life of sin.
Read it all and see that Peter is talking about the exact opposite of Homosexuality. He is talking a out sinners who have been saved from a life of depravity.
Frankly, I don't see how you could read "God blesses homosexuality" into that verse, or even in that chapter. Or anywhere else within the Bible, for that matter.
You obviously thought I just take your word for it and not look that passage up.
I'm not even going to say, "Nice try."
Oh,and by the way, while you're reading the entire chapter, take special notice of verse 17, when Peter mentions Jesus received honor and glory from God the Father when God's glorious, majestic voice called down from heaven, "This is my beloved Son; I am fully pleased with him."
That isn't evidence of God speaking? Please. Only a character?
I'm sure God is well pleased with a false teacher (also known as an apostate) calling Him "only a character".
Go away, I've wasted far too much of my time with your silliness.
Marshall,
Since you cannot connect the divots of your own thinking (which is all I ever really try to show) how are you going to follow mine which are formed by reading in documented Christian life from 65 AD through all centuries with the possible exceptions of the ninth, tenth, and fourteenth centuries?
Sources of authority which "guide" Christian reflection regarding the revelation that Christ is the eternal Son of God, willingly took on human nature in order to redeem human nature, lived among us, was crucified, died, buried, rose and ascended into hevean (this, by the way is the essential Christian faith and nothing else):
1. Holy Scriptures of both the NT and the OT.
2. The ecumenical councils of the early church which deliberated on:
- writings that became the NT or were considered authoritative but not put in the canon (you know any of these?)
- defined incarnation, the Trinity, atonement [which you are confused about], the role of the OT in Christian belief, the three orders of the church [bishop, priest, deacon]
- the sacramental liturgy of Christian worship [which you have no use for in your massively interpreted seventeenth century form of faith]
3. The God given faculty of human reason as worked out in a community of believers [no radical Protestant faith in the individual believer to read the Bible and know the truth in such a way that he or she is justified in dumping out all of Christian history, the church, and one's neighbors that has given rise to all the schismatic activity of a hundred thousand different little hick Protestant churches that you seem bound and determined to fall into once you've made your temper tantrum break from the UCC].
More later on the rest (like where is the "Thou shalt" on women and slavery) but since you can't begin to fathom the above basic "arguments" that you say you want to hear about, and which are basic Christian principles from the first experiences of the earliest Christian faith, anyway, I don't really see the point.
My answers are beyond you, again, because, you were formed and remain in a little isolated hut of Christian life. You are a Giilligan's Island of faith, and just as silly.
Bubba says Jesus confirms the authority of the scriptures, and yet doesn't know what scriptures Jesus is referring to.
This is the sitcom you guys write.
Here's my point, Mark, on 2 Peter 1:
Peter has a list of eight spiritual attributes: "add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."
My problem is that, once having been where you are now, I nonetheless witnessed gay men and women exhibiting all eight spiritual attributes.
I had not choice but to submit to the testimony of the Holy Spirit and confess that these brothers and sisters of mine were indeed "participat[ing] in the divine nature and escap[ing] the corruption in the world caused by evil desires."
For who am I to judge when Christian faith and witness is so powerfully demonstrated before my eyes.
Now, as for yourself, I fail to see how pass item #3 on the list.
Marshall,
On childlikeness:
My point: have the trust and love of Jesus like a child does.
Your point: have the judgments of a child.
Now, those of us who walk in the educated world know that developmental cognitive psychology of a child will point out how children need to make hardline decisions in order to feel like they are mastering it.
So, again, my point: have the trust and love of Jesus like a child.
Your point: make hard childish judgments in order to fend off fear of managing in a wide world.
Which do you think Jesus was talking about?
Feodor,
Ah. The old "you just couldn't understand, so why should I try" gambit. Very mature. Very educated. Very Christian. You're a fraud. A very self-satisfied fraud for where you think you've "connected the divots" of my own thinking, you've failed to even find a divot at all. It's amusing that you think you can throw any verse and think you've made a point, whether that verse is relevant or not. Further, you don't even attempt to show how anything you present trumps my thinking in the least. All that education...
You could have read double the "authoritative" sources you claim now to have read and you would still be left trying to convince me that you possess the inherent ability to properly understand the material. What little you've revealed about your understanding convinces me that you don't possess that ability. So you can repack that condescending arrogance back up the orifice whence it came because I'm not the least bit impressed or intimidated by your "education". All those books...
"- writings that became the NT or were considered authoritative but not put in the canon (you know any of these?)"
If they "were" authoritative, they'd be in wider circulation, if not in the canon itself. Considered so by whom? I mean besides yourself and other liberal Jesus Seminar chuckleheads?
"atonement [which you are confused about],"
But have yet to be enlightened by any self-styled authority such as yourself...a comical thought indeed.
You arrogant and prideful puss-for-brain progressives fail to understand that human reasoning cannot trump the plainly revealed Will of God as written in Scripture. When there's conflict between "human" reasoning ("human" just doesn't seem good enough for progressives so close to godhood by their dismissive attitude toward Scripture) and Scripture, Scripture is to be followed, not reasoned away. And the type of church I seek is one that will adhere to Scripture even when it seems to cramp one's personal style, rather than one like yours or the UCC that will put Scripture aside in order to swell their ranks, avoid offending those comfortable in their sin, and allow the filthy to posture themselves as pure. No tantrum here, Sparky. The only tantrum comes from those who can't bear the weight of their cross, but are encouraged to carry it nonetheless. Folks like yourself, for example.
You puff yourself up by assuming your answers are "beyond" me. When I see an answer, I'll let you know if that's true. So far, you haven't come close to persuading me in the least in any regard concerning my positions on issues of faith or Scripture. You have, however, proven your ability to posture yourself as peacock with a diploma, strutting about with your colors exposed as if you know something, expending thousands of keystrokes to that end, yet never once saying anything substantive. "Oh you could never understand all that I have absorbed in my many years of educational pursuit!" Your gaseous emissions do not impress. They only foul the air. All that education. All those books. What a complete and utter waste.
Forgive him Lord, for he hasn't a clue.
2 Peter 1-10 doesn't bless Homosexuality, but 2 Peter chapter 2 addresses Feodor and Dan's position on the subject pretty clearly in verses 18 and 19.
As a matter of fact, the second chapter of 2 Peter pretty much predicts Feodor and Dan in fairly sharp detail.
Just sayin'...
Sorry, one last summary point for Mark, before I go for the day and come back later to take more whacks at these straw defenses:
You make your judgments based on the dead letter that is Leviticus where we have already seen food and ritual cleanliness laws erased by Jesus' testimony that is the intentions of our hearts that matter.
I take my judgment from the living and active power of the Holy Spirit in the witness of the Christian community.
I understand that this seems too whimsical and uncontrolled for you. But my reading of the Gospel Jesus is that we should follow his commandment o love and commit just such breakdowns of rigid, small hearted, self-protecting moral defenses, such as that of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
It is not wrong to be a Pharisee, per se. For Jesus Christ is wrong to make moral judgments that are not driven by the prodigal love of God. This is not to say that everything is permitted. There is a lot that is not permitted.
Contra Bubba who doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to authority, Jesus Christ asks us to pay attention to the Spirit who comes to us after he has ascended. Not a leather bound book. He prepared us to expect that paying attention to the Spirit would be a scandal for the immature.
And here we see it played out, not on thin, red-lettered paper, but in electrical obsessive, compulsive endlessly blogged anxiety, fear, and pharisaism.
Tugnut and I are thinking along the same lines.
But those of you who put a book first are the ones who slander the Lord and all celestial beings who are even now praising God in the highest, ready to receive our prayers and speak on our behalf, and coax the Holy Spirit to make powerful witness to the faith of gay Christians known to us even as, in past times, the Spirit removed our blinders to the faith and leadership of women, single and/or childless adults, slaves and Gentiles.
All of whom, which you guys keep missing, were once thought... BY SCRIPTURE.. to be outside the covenant with God!!!
Yet the Holy Spirit kept knocking until we used our communal faculties of Christian reasoning under the guidance of the Spirit to realize our damnable tendencies to withhold love.
Can any of you possibly connect these dots?
Can you possibly choose a more civil tone when you engage in these discussions, Feodor?
I've been reading your comments for several months, and I cannot help but point out that one of the major issues which continually undermines your credibility is the fact that there is no hint of Christian Love displayed in your words.
Everything is contention, attack, strife.
And you continually accuse your intellectual adversaries of hatred, racism, bigotry, closed mindedness.
And you cannot seem to get anyone's name right.
Why are you here, exactly?
Yet the Holy Spirit kept knocking until we used our communal faculties of Christian reasoning under the guidance of the Spirit to realize our damnable tendencies to withhold love.
Feodor, my toddler does not understand that I spank his hand to teach him not to stick things in the electrical socket because I love him.
But, nevertheless, that's the reason.
The same way that the Church, The Lord, and actual Christians try to dissuade people from engaging in self destructive behaviors of all kinds, rather than trying to provide them with a biblical "loophole" through which they can continue in their sinful and self destructive lifestyles in spite of the fact that Jesus provided a way to escape from that type of bondage.
Or more accurately, to let them believe that they can and should attempt to hold on to their favorite sins, instead of turning their whole lives over to Christ to be used for His Glory.
Isn't that your point?
Embrace the sin in order to avoid rejecting the sinner?
Feodor, that's balderdash, and you know it.
I asked for Book, chapter, and verse where God blesses homosexuality and you couldn't come up with anything even close to an answer.
Now you're trying to create some kind of obscure justification for your anti-Biblical arguments by attempting, rather weakly, to make scripture conform to what you want it to say rather than what it actually does say.
You failed to prove God blesses homosexuality.
But, you did prove you are just as much a liar, heretic, apostate, God-hater as Dan.
I won. You lost.
NEXT!
First off, I must welcome Tugboatcapn, who I don't believe has ever commented here at Marshall Art's. If you have, forgive my not remembering. Otherwise, as I say, welcome. Good points, also, BTW.
Feodor, you poor deluded fool,
I'd like to just let you know, if I haven't already (which I have numerous times) that none of us worships the book, but the God therein described. I notice you've offered nothing in the way of some other authority on par with that book. I'm not surprised.
What's up with this:
"the Spirit removed our blinders to the faith and leadership of women, single and/or childless adults, slaves and Gentiles.
All of whom, which you guys keep missing, were once thought... BY SCRIPTURE.. to be outside the covenant with God!!!"
I don't know that any of the above, since Christ, has ever been true, nor that before that time was it impossible to join with the Hebrews and be within the covenant with God. Are you now reduced to simply pulling things from next to your head, which seems to be up your posterior, in order to make some false point? Are you, like Dan, going to insist on our misunderstanding without any true attempt to prove us wrong? What was the point of all that education if you can't provide something substantial for us to chew?
And another thing, where do educated people like yourself get the idea that we withhold any love from sinners, simply because we won't tolerate the sin? Was there nothing in your vast pool of knowledge that can reconcile the two?
Regarding Peter's list of eight, your homosexual friends have failed it at the start. For where is there goodness whilst engaging in that which is not good, but sinful? Then where is the self-control? What's godly about engaging in behavior He calls an abomination? And where, pray, is brotherly kindness in inviting another to engage in that sinful behavior with you?
It's obvious you've only seen what you want to see, and you intentionally dismiss what is there, that being, lost people who have allowed themselves to be misled, that they can continue in their sinfulness so willingly and still claim that they are right with God, or posture themselves as saved. What's worse, your enabling makes you party to their sin as if you engaged in it the same way. There's your brotherly love, my stupid and pompous friend. That I point out these obvious facts to one so foolishly proud of lies is proof of my sense of brotherly love. That I continue to hold the truth of God's Will before such as you and Dan is proof that I care, otherwise I'd just mock you for the fool you are.
Oh yeah, Feo. Why not just try answering Mark's simple question. That would go a long way toward proving you've got nothing but self-stroking in your mind.
Tugger, I don't think you've read Marshall very closely. If Marshall wants to be polite, I'll follow. He sets the tone here.
Marshall and Mark, as you say, I enable gay Christians where I can. Again, because the third person of the Trinity -- whom neither of you know and neither can understand -- asks me to, just as Peter was asked to eat with Gentiles, just as the church was asked to override Paul's injunction for the women of Corinthians.
My argument stems from a readiness to hear the living God. Is it any wonder neither of you understand that, having bound God up in a book you've prostituted as the sole source of Truth.
I enable gay Christians because God created sexuality that is fully holy and fully revealing of all of human nature.
You both enable people like Scott Roeder and James von Brunn
I am more than happy to let God judge between us; in fact, I welcome it in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ who is living and not found in the text of the Bible, only witnessed to there.
So the answer to my question is yes then?
You are claiming that The Holy Spirit has instructed you to embrace the sin in order to avoid rejecting the sinner?
Oh, and your claim about Marshalls tone might work if this conversation were taking place in a vaccuum, but Ive seen you around at several different blogs, even at mine occasionally.
Never a hint of Christian Love, or tolerance, or even of interest in seeking the truth.
Always snarky, self righteous consescension, browbeating, baiting and name-calling.
If Marshall is short with you, it is most likely because he is tired of your constant animosity.
I know I am.
Fine Tug, you get the Dan Trabue award for your team.
Congratulations.
Look to your sins. It's the only way to heaven.
And thanks, Marshall.
I've read your comments and your blog posts for months now, and I don't believe I've ever known you to be wrong about anything.
Why can you not answer a simple yes or no question?
Are you claiming that the Holy Spirit commands you to embrace sin in order to avoid rejecting the sinner?
Don't worry, Tug, every time Marshall gets impolite with me, I'll remind him what you said.
I'm sure that'll work.
No, I'm saying that the Holy Spirit told Peter that he can eat with Gentiles, the Holy Spirit has finally convinced the patriarchal church that women can lead, the Holy Spirit has convinced many whites of the western empires that skin color means nothing, and now you are witnessing the late edge of the beginning of the Holy Spirit witnessing to the full god-given service of Christians regardless of sexuality.
The Gospel is uncontrollable. Because it is not a book, it is the good news of Jesus Christ as the incarnation of God and the true representative of human kind.
What power does it have if it cannot release us from the bondage of Sin, Feodor?
It points us to the One who does have the power to fulfill in us our best selves.
And he has to be met in the life within you and around you, not in print. Scripture -- when it is heard in the context of the community -- helps one recognize him when we meet him life. But he is always bigger, always vaster, always much more transcendent than scripture, than the church, than the largest visions of the human heart.
And on that point we agree.
God is absolutely bigger than a book, bigger than a doctrine, bigger than our feeble human reason.
However, He does not change.
If a particular practice was ever sin, it still is.
And your position seems to be that God, who loathed sin so much that he was willing to sacrifice His own Son to deliver us from it, has now either changed his mind, or reconsidered his position (at least on particular sins), and now has chosen to reveal to you through the Holy Spirit that these few practices are all hunkey dorey with God now, because we won't have to exclude anyone anymore.
And we are all apparently supposed to take your word that this revelation comes to you from THE Holy Spirit, (whom you claim that we cannot possibly know), because you said so.
Even though you display absolutely no civility, no Christian Love, no forgiveness. The Spirit of Love is not in you, Feodor.
There is a big difference between eating with Gentiles and treating women with respect, and announcing that we are now supposed to allow people (who engage in activities that are called "Abomination" and "Sin" everywhere they are mentioned in God's Holy Word) to drag their Sin and degradation with them while we embrace them into God's Church.
Big difference.
So, if you would do me one favor...
Rather than speaking for the Holy Spirit, would you simply pray for Him to enlighten me if I am wrong.
You aren't going to be able to do it yourself. Your hateful spirit has polluted your witness.
Thanks!
Tug,
"I've read your comments and your blog posts for months now, and I don't believe I've ever known you to be wrong about anything."
I wouldn't make book on that if I were you, but I truly appreciate the sentiment.
Feo,
"If Marshall wants to be polite, I'll follow. He sets the tone here."
As this post began in the neighborhood of liberal lies, this is the closest Feo's come to staying on point...by lying. Not so very long ago, I had a civil discussion with a homosexual guy at ER's blog. The guy appreciated that my "jackassery" wasn't in play. I responded, and you really need to hear this Feo, that my "jackassery" isn't pre-emptive. It's triggered by the tone of the person with whom I'm debating. As Tug insisted, from the first time I've seen you on any blog, you've been an arrogant sonofabitch. Don't go playing the victim card here. Besides, Dan's already played it. Is it wrong for me to be a prick to a prick? Of course it is. But you're a special case so I bend the rules for you and it brings me enjoyment.
"...I enable gay Christians where I can. Again, because the third person of the Trinity -- whom neither of you know and neither can understand -- asks me to..."
Above is another lie. Why would the Spirit tell you to enable anyone in their sin? He wouldn't. If you're having hallucinations, you should first, see someone about it, and secondly, check what your appartition is saying against Scripture. If it conflicts, your "spirit" likely comes from a more southernly locale.
"...the Holy Spirit has finally convinced the patriarchal church that women can lead..."
How do you know it wasn't just a bunch of other "know-better-than-the-Bible" progressive chucklheads? Again, I haven't looked closely at the "silent women" case yet, but there is plenty in the Bible to suggest that women were never considered second class as you seem to suggest (that would be "2nd class" in the sight of God, not "2nd class" according to the culture of the times).
"...the Holy Spirit has convinced many whites of the western empires that skin color means nothing..."
There was never anything in Scripture to suggest otherwise.
"...and now you are witnessing the late edge of the beginning of the Holy Spirit witnessing to the full god-given service of Christians regardless of sexuality."
No we're not. We're witnessing a segment of society that, without anything in the way of Scriptural support, decide for themselves outside of the Will of God, to insist that somehow God speaks only to "progressives" regarding homosexuality to say that it is no longer of concern to Him. What a bold-faced lie. What a heresy. What a shame that so many fall for the crap that people like you vomit out of all orifices. (May God have mercy on them.)
Your just as bad as Dan and his friends, pretending that you have gotten some revelation, that you somehow have evolved as "Christians" to some greater understanding, that you have transcended Biblical teaching and lo and behold, now advance a theology that just happens to allow this group of sinners to continue in their sinful ways and feel as if God has blessed them for it. That's called a steaming, heaping load of crap. That does NOT come from the Holy Spirit, false priest. It comes from fallen man, plainly and simply. You need to either repent of this travesty, or offer something in the way of proof for this "belief".
You look to the world for your positions. You see what appears to be "good Christians" who are homosexual and believe that they are saved anyway in the face of solid Scriptural prohibition of their behavior. It doesn't matter how "Christian-like" they behave in every other area of their lives if they insist on rejecting God's Will in one.
I knew a great guy who was very kind and generous with me, always popping for dinner, happy to share my company. I liked him a lot. Was fond of him, in fact. But he sold cocaine. He was a great guy, but selling cocaine is wrong and I told him so.
I knew another guy who was also a good friend, but he just had to bag every cute chick with whom he came in contact, even after he was married. That was wrong as well.
The point is that being a good guy didn't make their one major flaw OK. They still were in the wrong and continuing in those sins, no matter how they might try to justify them, is rejecting God's Will. Rejecting God's Will is rejecting Him. Worse still, pretending that now the Spirit is working within these people because aside from their sexuality, they seem really, really saintly is not only worshipping a false god (because God hasn't changed His mind about prohibited sexual behaviors), but is about the most childish belief one could imagine.
"My argument stems from a readiness to hear the living God."
But you don't. You hear the Evil One who is the great deceiver. You hear the world and the desires of humankind for the flesh.
"I enable gay Christians because God created sexuality that is fully holy and fully revealing of all of human nature."
God created sexuality to ensure we procreate. Fully holy? Nonsense from a nonsensical understanding of God and His Will. Fully revealing of all of human nature? More nonsense. What is revealed is that people enjoy sex so much that they will subvert Biblical teaching in order to make their selfish, self-gratifying urges a holy thing so that they can wallow in them without guilt. Nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that God gave us sex as "a wonderful gift" as some other lefty bloggers laughingly put forth. Look to the original languages and find where "love" is meant in anything resembling an erotic manner. If you find such at all, you'll find you can count the instances on one hand (likely one finger). God isn't concerned with sexual pleaures. That's not "love" to Him. That's not the "love" with which we are to concern ourselves. Even within a real marriage is it to rule our lives. Outside a real marriage it isn't even supposed to happen.
Yes, Feodor. You are indeed a false priest. All that education. All those books. What a waste. What a terrible, terrible waste. Praise His Name there is still time for you. Don't blow it.
Tug,
"If a particular practice was ever sin, it still is."
Well, now this the very idea that Bubba and Marshall and Marshall's engineer biblical scholars could not straighten about regarding polygamy Leviticus and pervasive in the society of God's Chosen People, especially all the great patriarchs in the OT.
Marshall says that the beginning of Genesis lays down the law of a one-man-one-woman rubric for what makes a family. Though Genesis 1 and 2 say not such thing about oneness. It only prescribes that it is "not good for the man to be alone."
Then he claims that God gets begrudgingly tolerant of polygamy throughout the rest of the OT, which seems odd to me, but that Jesus re-establishes it in some ambiguous Gospel verse, so memorable I can't remember it.
Marshall's "biblical scholars" say exactly what you said, "a sin stays a sin, God is ever clear."
But on the issue of monogamy, either 1. God relaxed his judgment for a while, 2. the Bible wrongly presents God as relaxing his judgment for a while, or 3. monogamy became mandated social practice for western civilization only because the Roman Empire instituted its practice and the bible only reflects the sociologically norms of whatever times the text was written in.
Any one of which means that your statement on sin is anachronistic, points out the deep irresolvable contradictions of reading the Bible with seventeenth century literal principles, and inferentially opens up the whole question of what the Bible variously considers marriage and family.
You say God doesn't change. The NT says that the Holy Spirit moves where it wills.
How do you resolve these two ideas?
I resolve them easily: God is not exactly the same as the God you find made out the paper and ink of that great good book. For better or worse, the God of the Bible changes simply because the writers could not caucus together and get every one of their ideas in sync. Which is not big deal for people living with the living God.
"Even though you display absolutely no civility, no Christian Love, no forgiveness. The Spirit of Love is not in you, Feodor"
This, and Marshall's fulminations are just your way of warding off the creeping realization that you can't answer the issues at hand and Marshall can't answer the problem I just posted.
And it is not just me who witnesses to the movement of the Holy Spirit in our times. And I think you massively aware of that, this post is aware of that, and both are showing deep anxiety at such awareness.
"... and announcing that we are now supposed to allow people (who engage in activities that are called "Abomination" and "Sin" everywhere they are mentioned in God's Holy Word) to drag their Sin and degradation with them while we embrace them into God's Church..."
Precisely the response that kept African Americans out of white churches until... until...
... well still in some places.
The Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways, Tug. You just can't box him.
Your hateful spirit pollutes your whiteness.
Marshall, first, thanks for giving me license to call you a prick, it makes things more honest.
Second, I'm sorry you and Tug take such apparently opposed positions on politesse and now must acknowledge your opposed understanding of Christian witness.
Third, God created sex so that we are not alone.
Read Genesis, prick.
Fourth, since you seem to ask about, warily, the construction of the NT, why not take ten minutes of your prickish life and investigate it's construction in the first three centuries? Why not? Scared?
Look up "Shepherd of Hermas" and read it. From your library (Wikipedia):
"It was cited as Scripture by Irenaeus and Tertullian and was bound with the New Testament in the Codex Sinaiticus, and it was listed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus. Some early Christians, however, considered the work apocryphal."
Of course, Tertullian, the Christian father who argued against its conclusion in the NT (and also conceived the term, Trinity, and its first theological elaboration) later became a Montanist and left the orthodox church of the time.
Sorry, Tug, I could not do your favor. Marshall got in the way.
Genisis 3
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Feodor, have you found a verse somewhere that says something like "Thou shalt not take more than one wife: it is abomination"?
If you have, please tell me the reference from scripture, so that I can read it and research it myself?
Thanks!
If you haven't, then we cannot really compare the two issues now, can we?
And, if you would, please use the actual Bible, not some fringe, questionable Apocryphal scroll than has never been authenticated.
Thanks!
There is no point in continuing to argue with Feodor. He has convinced himself that he is far superior to us mere mortals in intellect and understanding.
He will not listen or even reflect on any common sense argument, preferring instead to rely on his own flawed (and non-biblical)point of view.
He thinks he has some superior insight into God's mind that the rest of us cannot, with our inferior, puny little brains, comprehend.
Geeez, all we do is read what God says, and believe it. Just like a child. He reads things into what God says that God doesn't and wouldn't say.
His outrageous arrogance is exhibited in his response to my challenge, when he condescendingly replied with a decidedly obtuse response which didn't even come close to answering the question.
It was obvious he didn't expect me to look up the passage, since his answer not only didn't answer the question, it didn't even address the subject.
He is that arrogant.
I am not going to respond to any more of Feodor's pathetic attempts to entrap us by using the oft used arguments other theologically impaired Liberals have used.
But if I were to respond, I would say something like, There was no prohibition against polygamy in OT times because God knew it was necessary for a lot of procreation to be going on in order to propogate the species of mankind on Earth. That's the same reason that initially there were no prohibitions against incest. Cain and Abel had to have sex with their sisters or mankind would have died out.
Remember the words, "be fruitful and multiply?"
The prohibitions against eating shrimp and other things were necessary at the time because the the people didn't have the resources to clean and preserve foods, and to eat those particular things without that knowledge would have been lethal.
As is homosexuality. Do you think it's just a coincidence that AIDS first attacked homosexuals?
Fact is, whether you want to believe it or not, practicing homosexuality is still a death sentence, and God knew that from the beginning. We mere mortals are just now learning that fact, yet there are still some blind, arrogant, stupid Liberals that think they know more than God, like Feodor.
But I'm shaking the dust off my shoes at Feodor. May God have mercy on his miserable soul, because I won't.
I've shaken the dust off my shoes at Dan, too.
See, what Dan and Feodor don't seem to understand, despite their rather impressive high opinions of themselves, is that God makes the rules, and the rules are specifically designed to protect His children.
Only God can make the rules, and Only God can change them. And I don't believe He ever consulted Dan or Feodor on whether they agree with Him or not.
And I know He never changed His rules regarding homosexuality. It was an abomination then. It is an abomination now.
Neither Feodor or Dan can offer any evidence that God ever changed that rule.
Tug,
I'm unclear what you intend to say with Genesis 3.
As for the lack of OT clarity on monogamy v. polygamy, we seem to agree on the face of things.
It is Marshall and his helicopter pilot biblical scholars that say God has meant one and only one thing throughout the biblical text regarding family and it looks peculiarly like the modern Victorian nuclear family.
Perhaps we should ask you where the "Thou shalt no longer need to heed the laws I gave you in Leviticus" verse exists?
Either way, you've painted God in the contradictory box of the bible when you say:
"However, He does not change.
If a particular practice was ever sin, it still is."
If your position is that polygamy was fine until monogamy was mandated (and when was that?) and so does not fit into your schema of "if a particular practice was ever sin...", still food laws, handling pig laws, menstruation laws, etc., were all sins.
Are they now not sins? This would seem to contradict your statement. How do you reason here?
Mark does not seem to want to follow the tone you've asked me to take up, Tug. Surprised? I doubt you're surprised.
Feodor, I tried to explain the tone thing to you already.
Everyone here is sick of your snarkiness and condescension. If they are short with you it is because they are tired of your constant baseless attacks and hate filled derision.
As am I.
I am however enjoying the discussion, that is, when you can stay on topic.
The Laws of Leviticus read like an owner's manual for the Human Body.
If a person would adhere to them strictly their whole life, they would live a much, much longer, healthier, happier life.
Again, I do not believe that I have attempted to make the case that those laws were ever refuted or repealed in the Bible.
I, personally, do not strictly adhere to them (never thought about it really...), but if I come under conviction by the Holy Spirit for not burying my bodily waste in the earth or some such thing), I will certainly try to change my sinful ways.
And when I have repented, and asked for Forgiveness, I will be forgiven, and restored to pure and Holy Fellowship with the Father.
But here is my question to you now.
If we decide that now we can engage in Homosexual Activity because we eat shrimp, why stop there?
Is it okay to have someone who unrepentantly engages in bestiality take a leadership position in the church?
Pedophilia?
Where is the line?
Marshall understands the Genesis 3 thing. Maybe if you are nice to him he will explain it to you.
Not so fast, Tug. You've given us the picture that God's laws may be the best thing going, but we don't really have to pay strict attention.
To take your practice as the rubric, we could easily say:
In this case, it would be the best thing if I were heterosexual (as the laws of Leviticus confirm) but I don't strictly adhere to that -- and at some future date the Holy Spirit may convict me to become so, but in such an event, all I have to do is ask forgiveness.
I don't understand how this is not a logical failure of your reasoning. It seems to me that, so far, you're hung on your own nail.
(We seem to be having a discussion without snark and ceaseless attacks. Wonder why?
And what was Genesis 3 for?
"...it is because they are tired of your constant baseless attacks and hate filled derision.
As am I.
I am however enjoying the discussion, that is, when you can stay on topic."
This is all snark, by the way, since you and I keep having exchanges of views without all the heat.
Why is it always a one-way-street only with you guys? Always about the speck in the other guy's eye. I don't think any of you read the Gospel all that closely or all that recently.
And, Tug, you have yet to answer why a polygamist can't talk the way you do. When did monogamy become God's law? And why the change? And what does this say about God?
Again, unless you have a verse from the Bible declaring poligamy to be "Abomination, I do not see how this is a fair comparison.
Forgiveness from sin depends upon repentance, which must be preceded by an acknowledgement that we are indeed guilty of sin.
You are lobbying for abolishment of the term "sin".
Furthermore, there are very specific guidelines in the New Testament (Post Covenant)as to what we are to allow and reject within the Church.
Homosexuality makes the list, eating shrimp does not.
I've already told you that you are not going to be able to convince me that Gay christianity is blessed by God.
If the Holy Spirit reveals it to me, I will promote it for the rest of my life.
If you lead me to the conclusion that I am wrong, I will forevermore question the revelation.
Sorry.
As for the snark, I have made no secret of the fact that I do not like you, Feodor.
But I enjoy the prayer fellowship with the Holy Spirit while I ponder the discussion.
So I put up with you for the sake of that.
You can stop whining about how others have spoken to you here.
You brought that on yourself.
I'm not whining. I'm just pointing out how you are two-faced.
__________
You're the one who says the Bible cannot represent a God who changes. You say polygamy was acceptable to God. Apparently, according to you, it still is, since there is no injunction that you have located for us.
Rather than being vague and obfuscatory with:
"Furthermore, there are very specific guidelines in the New Testament (Post Covenant)as to what we are to allow and reject within the Church.... Homosexuality makes the list, eating shrimp does not,"
why don't you point us to where in the NT such "specific guidelines" can be found, according to your insight?
The revelation is that Christ is the Son of God -- it is not and never was a book that was, how did you put it?, "authenticated" in a haphazard process with umpteengillion different lists of what should be in and what should be out, and throughout which the church never understood that it was creating something akin to or even trumping the OT until the fourth century.
That is what you were unknowingly searching for when you come with the mythological "authentication." If you do not the history of the Bible, or the history of the church in which the Christian bible was given form, you will forever misunderstand the thing you are reading.
As for your prayer fellowship with the Holy Spirit, I'd leave it alone if I were you. That's not what it was meant for.
I've been so busy that so many comments stack up before I can return. I'm not going to try to address everything, so if there's one thing that stands out for you, feel free to bring it up later.
For now, I'll start with a stark lie from the man who is nothing if not dishonest in his discourse, Feodor.
I did NOT give you license to call anyone names, you childish liar. What I did do was ask and answer the question, "Is it wrong for me to be a prick to a prick?" Putting the answer aside, only an educated prick would take that as license to engage in name calling (as if you haven't done so anyway). More importantly, your "thanks" for "giving you license" suggests that others, such as myself, were first to take a nasty tone. This makes you a liar for as it has been noted, your first "contributions" to blogs we visit show you at your typical arrogant, condescending, prick of a human being self. So you can pound that nonsense back up the orifice whence you pulled it.
Then, you act as if I suggested that God forbids a man to remain single. This drivel can be posted under either heading: lie OR stupidity. The first because an educated man should know I never even suggested such a thing and the second, because of how stupid the suggestion is.
Regarding God's mandate that we remain monogomous upon marrying, that has been covered. Too bad you're too educated to understand something so simple.
As to which laws from the OT have relevance for Christians today, that too has been covered. You, however, rather than dispute the solid and logical explanation of Oliff and Hodges, prefer to denegrate because of Hodges' alleged connection to aircraft. Assuming it's the same guy, I can only say that for one who is schooled in at least two fields, he has a far stronger handle on Biblical understanding than a buffoon with one area of learning, such as yourself. I mean, if his being into helicopters means he is unable to understand anything else well, how can we account for your complete lack of understanding?
What we have here, now that Tug has entered the fray, is Feodor running the same crap with Tug as he has tried with me and with Bubba, and has yet to support. It still comes down to the very basic question asked by Mark: Since Lev 18:22 forbids homosexual behavior, where do you get off saying that God now blesses it or homosexual marriage? The Bible teaches us to hold everything against Scripture. Your "holy spirit" is in doubt since it speaks to you in a way counter to Scripture. Thus, we can assume it is likely not THE Holy Spirit.
You also try to compare this sin, this sin so plainly forbidden, with issues like slavery and women's rights, never showing where there were any rules from God for these areas on the order of "Thou shalt not..." At the very least, you should be able to show why they compare, which you can't since they don't. But you don't even try. You just throw shit out there and expect us to be as stupid as you are. I'm sorry we can't comply with that expectation. You'll just have to be stupid all by yourself.
Two faced?
May be.
I would love to have this conversation with you face to face.
You might try reading the First Chapter of Romans, for starters...
The 7th Chapter of Romans is pretty interesting, (Thank God for Salvation and Forgiveness!)
Wait a minute...
You have yet to offer a single verse of Scripture to support your side of this...
Your turn.
Quote me some scripture, or admit that this is all just your opinion.
I treat Leviticus 18:22 just like you treat the rest of Leviticus: surpassed in Christ. And I treat Paul on his responses to sociological situations that have nothing to do with the Gospel just like you treat him in the issue of women and slavery.
They way you pass by some stuff in the NT that the world no longer finds tenable has always been an education for me to pass by the hateful stuff which only some small hearted parts of the world cannot accept.
You know how I found the Holy Spirit and wised up? Listening to the idiocy of Christians just like you.
You are an anti-Gospel. There, prick, shove that up your large, lazy ass along with your helicopter club scholar.
Okay, Feodor, it's been nice talking to you.
It's pretty clear to me now Who your master is, and you serve him well.
The Spirit of Love is not in you.
You have no interest in Truth.
And I have no more time to waste on a discussion with someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
Goodbye, Feodor.
Go persecute Christians elsewhere.
I've had enough of your flawed theology.
Tug doesn't agree with your engineer, either (and the engineer is not trained in anything having to do with Christianity -- it's just his hobby horse). Tug has no problem with polygamy in the OT.
But, Tug, Marshall and Mark do.
Which is a problem for them when they come to read 2 Samuel 12:7 and 8.
So, none of you can fight your way out of Leviticus, much less find your way to Luke 2:10, Luke 2:29-32, Romans 7:6, Galations 3:28 or 2 Peter 1:11, where your "nearsightedness" is called out.
All you guys do is bring Christ down from the throne and bury him in the red and black ink of your Rex Humbard bible as if he is not living as the King of the Universe even now. Or you bring him up from the grave in order to fixate on the crucifixion as if he was not already risen in splendor to represent all of human nature to the Father. You imprison the Word of God in the words of English printed by machines in Grand Rapids.
You are Crusaders, so suggestible by the lowest common cultural denominator as to be imprisoned yourselves. You are not Christians. You are Pharisees.
My text, Tug?
Romans 10:5-13.
P.S. I don't like you either, Tug. Two faced self-incriminator.
Really, Sparky. Can't you take crap as well as give it? Poor baby.
And please, try to be at least a little bit honest. I don't know that anyone but you has suggested that polygamy was acceptable to God. I, for one, have debated that it was not acceptable, but tolerated. Is there anywhere in your vast education where that distinction is understood? The difference between the two is a universe apart. Of course it doesn't help your argument, but that's the type of thing one must reconcile in a debate.
Also, your sorry sack, I do not treat all of Leviticus the same at all. Again, it was all plainly explained, and perhaps that's why it so poorly understood by you. The explanation wasn't clogged with superfluous crap that wasn't relevant to the discussion. You're not used to that.
But I don't apologize because you're not interested in anything that confirms the truth about human behavior and God's position on it. You must be one of those "free love" hippies from the sixties, or a child of one. Well, either way, you're a child. Run along now.
2 Samuel 12, nitwit.
If you think you can parse acceptable from tolerated in what Nathan has to say, then you can split the atom.
I don't think you can split the atom.
Nice try, Feodor.
The passage you refer to says nothing about repentance of Sin.
It is a wonderful passage when taken in context of the Whole Bible, but incomplete when taken out of context.
More confusion from the servant of the Father of confusion.
Thanks anyway.
It is a beautiful passage about the miracle of Salvation.
But it does not supersede everything else that is written about Sin and repentance throughout the Bible.
I've had enough of your hatred.
The Spirit of Love is not in you.
Have a nice day.
You're beginning to repeat yourself, Tug, especially with the "goodbyes," perhaps I'm casting a Satanic spell.
Marshall doesn't believe God OK'd polygamy. The prophet Nathan says different.
Who should I believe, Tug, Marshall or the prophet Nathan? Nathan claims he hears what God says, so maybe he is a little too liberal and theologically overladen to follow.
Marshall cant' believe God OK'd polygamy because his aeronautics engineer -- who has no training but teaches the Byboll -- says God says a thing and never changes it. So Genesis has to be about monogamy and God just tolerated -- turned a blind eye -- to all that polygamy going on in Israel.
In fact, God turned such a blind eye that he named his chosen people after a dyed in the wool polygamist: Jacob, whom God blesses in his pursuit of polygamy.
The point is that the texts of the Bible present a God to us that mirrors the issues of the times and society in which the writer is writing as the writer is trying to communicate God's greater nature and plan for that society. So, as you say, there may have been issues of cleanliness to certain laws. Other laws were just to be different from the tribes next to them. Regardless, they are time and place specific.
New times, new laws. The divine coincidence of the church being born under Roman law instilled monogamy. A change in Judeo-Christian thinking.
A truth that you all choke on.
Therefore, we must seek to use the Bible, the early Church theologians and the early church's understanding of how to be the church in the world, and use our God given faculties to reason out how it should work in our time, trusting our deliberation together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This, at any rate, is how we do it in my ecclesiastical fellowship.
That's the relevance of 2 Samuel 12, since you asked -- and then unasked.
I can only lead you to scripture, Tug. It's up to you to find the greater commandments in it and not the lesser ones.
As you judge, so shall you be judged.
To repeat myself once again, Goodbye Feodor.
You can be of no possible use to the Holy Spirit, because you cannot contain your hatred and self importance.
You do not display the obvious qualities of a real Christian, so I will give no more thought to your arguments.
Go get right with God, Feodor.
I have no more interest in your opinions until you do.
You cannot lead me to anything until you give your heart to Christ.
I don't care to lead you anywhere, Tug. You have what you need in front of you. God awaits a wider heart that can participate in God's nature in a broader way. Until then, you kill your ministry in the world with your own anxiety.
If you are looking somewhere for light, but now feel disappointed by getting ire from me, then I suggest you don't let things turn with your hypocritical judgmentalism.
When someone says they don't like me, I usually take them at their word.
If they say they don't like me and then accuse me of not being loving, I take them to be babbling self-incriminating idiots.
And look! I was right.
Congratulations.
Another busy weekend away from the computer, and it seems like another thousand comments came up in the meantime.
To respond to the last comment or two Feodor directed to me...
1) I actually don't remember your asking any questions about Leviticus in some other thread, questions to which (you claim) I didn't respond. I think I've proven, in this thread and especially with Dan's "moral judgment" test, that I am willing to answer questions thoroughly and at length, even when it's doubtful the questions are being asked in good faith.
If I glanced past your questions and declined to answer them (again, I don't remember your asking me questions in the first place), it might not be a reflection of any fear of those questions. Instead, it might reflect the lack of respect I have for the person asking the question.
Either way, the original comment isn't clear that your complaint is about another thread.
"After I've answered his, Bubba never answers my questions either. He just disappears and then Marshall is left to try to cover for him."
I'll reiterate that, if you have questions for me, you should ask them, and I'll try to answer them.
2) About your apparent attempt to dismiss Christ's suffering as extraneous and your desire to focus solely on His death, I would refer you to Isaiah 53.
3) About the Gospels quoting Christ's quoting the Septuagint, it's worth remembering that the New Testament is written in Greek. It's certainly possible that Christ taught in Greek, but if He didn't, then -- to the extent the Septuagint was used -- the Gospel writers might have simply used that existing Greek translation of Jewish Scripture rather than retranslate from Hebrew.
One could certainly argue that it is the Septuagint that Christ uniquely affirms, but I don't think that argument is very solid. What is much, much clearer is Christ's affirmation of Jewish Scripture -- not a particular translation per se, but certainly of Scripture itself.
4) About Peter, I think it's actually an open argument whether "this rock" in Mt 16:18 refers to Peter or to Christ Himself, but even a reference to Peter doesn't entail an apostolic succession that would require membership in the Roman Catholic church.
After all, Galatians 1 is clear that Apostles aren't chosen by the church or even by other Apostles (or any other human mediator) but by Christ Himself.
But if you think Christ instituted an apostolic succession, I wonder if you're a Catholic. If you are, I wonder why you're not conforming to their teachings regarding homosexuality.
To hit on a few points that have been covered since I've been out, it's question-begging in the extreme to presume that those who believe homosexual behavior is morally permissible, is displaying even the self-control that Peter commend in II Peter 1 -- amidst his condemnation of lust and licentiousness (1:4, 2:2)
But even if they displayed a superficial resemblance to these qualities, the New Testament is equally clear that doctrine matters. In I Corinthians, Paul emphasized the historical resurrection of Christ. In his first letter, John emphasized the Incarnation, the doctrine that Jesus came in the flesh. Even in the last chapter of the epistle Feodor cites, Peter writes against those who mock Christ's return, a matter of doctrine.
The New Testament emphasizes both doctrine and character. We should be skeptical of the seemingly orthodox if the fruit of their character is rotten, AND we should be skeptical of the seemingly virtuous if they deny clear Christian doctrine.
Along the same lines, I wouldn't deny that Christ affirms the authority of the Holy Spirit, but He ALSO affirmed the authority of Scripture.
There's not a dichotomy between the Bible and the Spirit, as the Spirit inspired the Bible (see II Peter 1:20-21, or shall we cite this book selectively?) and the Bible teaches us about the Spirit.
More broadly, there's no conflict between the Bible and any of the three Persons of the Trinity. For instance, Scripture first predicted and then authoritatively explained Christ's coming, and Christ affirmed Scripture.
It's a matter of metaphysics and epistemology.
Inerrantists don't "worship" the Bible. We worship God.
But we believe the Bible is the authoritative written revelation of God: it's not an idol to be worshipped, it's an artifact of revelation from the One we worship.
And because the One we worship is almighty, holy, and faithful, we can trust that His communications are reliable "inside information" about Him.
One other thing worth noting is this: not only does Feodor claim to speak on the behalf of the Holy Spirit, it appears that he denies for the authors of the Bible, what he claims for himself.
"For better or worse, the God of the Bible changes simply because the writers could not caucus together and get every one of their ideas in sync. Which is not big deal for people living with the living God."
Implicit in this claim is the denial of that which would make such a "caucus" unnecessary: inerrant inspiration by the Holy Spirit of all the Bible's writers, despite their disparate personalities, the gulf of literal centuries, and the intention to address very different circumstances.
But, of course, we're supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit has told him that homosexual behavior is morally permissible.
Heh.
To bring this comment thread back to the very original topic, I see that, over at his blog, Mr. Trabue has taken to question the veracity of a story published apparently at World Net Daily, a story that apparently has "Right Wing blogs foaming at the mouth."
I say "apparently," because Mr. Trabue doesn't link to the story itself or to even a single conservative blogger who's "foaming at the mouth" about the story.
That last phrase, it is worth noting, is figurative language that could be considered dehumanizing, but it's not nearly the most offensive thing he writes even in this one blog post: WND "are to 'News' what the 'KKK' is to 'Civic Organizations.'"
I'm sure we could think of plenty of analogies about Dan Trabue, but instead I would recommend we note just how little he learned from this lengthy conversation, even regarding the City Journal essay on Harvey Milk.
Dan Trabue provides not one shred of evidence to support his claim that WND is habitually dishonest, nor even one bit of evidence that this particular story is making waves at conservative blogs. I personally haven't heard one thing about this story, at the blogs I frequent, so (shockingly) it might not be the big story he's making it out to be.
What happened to his stated concern for providing thorough documentation to support defamatory claims? As usual, it disappears entirely when he's the one making the claims or when he otherwise finds the claims convenient.
Bubba! You're back.
It does seem that you disappear on weekends and perhaps that's what happened on Marshall's earlier post where the three of us engaged on pologamy in Leviticus and the OT generally as a test case (as I saw it) of the kind of biblical reasoning you four employ (Marshall, yourself, and Marshall's helicopter hobbyists) that is so contradictory as to undermine your interest in keeping whatever abomination the OT writers were identifying as the same phenomenon as modern day gay life.
The old argument of you four was the God would never change his mind and that monogamy has always been the plan and that polygamy was only tolerated by God turning a blind eye, as it were, to the practice and continuing to work through the Chosen People. Now why that reasoning wont work for gay Christians is beyond me, but that's the current sticky wicket (so to speak).
That's kind of where you disappeared: Does Genesis mandate monogamy as Marshall says or is it concerned with the "man" not being alone as my Bible has it? Does yours have something else?Only in that thread you did not come back on Monday. Why would that be?
No worries, though, because you have a new chance to take up your ability to pin me down on God's unchangeableness in responding to 2 Samuel 12:8 on the issue of "Polygamy: God's way or the Highway?"
Now Marshall has made some kind of distinction between what God accepts and what God tolerates. This, though, was before I steered him to 2 Samuel, whereupon he, too, disappeared for the moment.
What say you, Bubba, is Nathan a prophet or a prick?
Take up this opportunity to show you will answer questions put to you and I promise to respond to your latests.
I'll even straighten you out on one fundamental mistake right now: you twist and neglect what I said.
I said that reasoning in the presence of the Holy Spirit has to happen in the communal setting, i.e., church, because -- I'm adding the rationale here -- that is where Christ is present in the Spirit.
I said this three or four times. But you "missed" it.
So, no unique claim for individual insight. Just a witnessing member of Christ's body alive in the Spirit rather than dead in a book.
Again, I promise to take on more of your water if you can deal with the divine plan of monogamy only from Genesis till now despite the assumptions in Leviticus, despite all the polygamous Patriarchs, despite the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel, and despite God naming His own Chosen People, His beloved, after a known polygamist.
I'll be waiting. Off you go.
Tug, by the way, doesn't agree with you guys. He thinks polygamy in the OT was acceptable to God because there is no "Thou Shall Not."
I tend to agree with him, since we're such close friends. He asked me nicely to play nicely with you guys. But mean Marshall got in the way and things went sour. He called me things, I called him things back. Then Tug got mean, too, saying I'm the only mean one. Poor blind Tug.
Now you're caught up on the tenor of the discussions as well.
Feodor, you haven't seen me get mean yet.
I don't believe I have taken a position on poligamy yet, have I?
For the record, the point where things went south was when I asked you to back your position with some specific Scripture Verse. (Which you have yet to do.)
What happened next was you snarled and vomited pea soup all over me.
And I dismissed you.
You are a fraud, pretending to be a Christian for the purpose of persecuting actual Christians.
I checked your link, Bubba. Dan doesn't even attempt to check the story itself. Just immediate smearing of right-wing sources. I'll have to visit later to remind him of that. In addition, his echo chamber added ditto comments, and then Tug showed up. They'll likely rip on him for that. We'll see. I'll report, any can decide.
Tug, you know the word, facetious?
You fail to demonstrate understanding the word, goodbye, which you've tried to say for a handful of times, now.
You're also repetitive with the Christian insults -- almost like it's an industry akin to Christian music which you've learned by heart.
And you say that was my forte. You've been selling yourself short, Tug!
Now for the troll, Feodope.
I read your suggested chapter of 2 Samuel and as expected, I found no support for you argument. This is not to say that I found support for mine, only that you will grab the thinnest of straws and like the false priest you are (that would be Anglican, Bubba), you do a happy dance as if you've scored a touchdown. But anyone without an agenda would realize that God certainly doesn't show acceptance by saying, "I gave you wives". His point had nothing to do with wives but with "wife", meaning Bathsheba, and how David got her. The "wives" comment was in reference to all that God had done for David, but wasn't a commentary on the acceptability or toleration of the practice of polygamy. God gives us everything we have, doesn't He? He allows our lives to proceed as they will, even when we do wrong. All we gain, by good or ill, is still a matter of Him allowing it to happen. He gives us all. It doesn't mean he accepts that we might have what He'd prefer we didn't, only that He tolerates our having it.
So try again, pretender. And while you're at it, you can present evidence that Hodges isn't trained in Biblical studies. If he lacks the sheepskin that would impress you, what makes you think that means his take on Scripture isn't spot on? I mean besides the fact that you don't like the conclusions and are incapable of rebutting them intelligently.
You seem to think we're having trouble reconciling Scripture. What is actually happening is that we might not be reconciling what you think Scripture says. You can restate your creds if you like, but so far, I'd listen to most anyone regarding Christianity before I'd take at face value anything YOU have to say. Your explanations are weak and mostly supported by that which is irrelevant to our discussions. To put it another way, you can't possibly succeed in changing minds simply by saying you've read stuff. You'll actually have to make a real argument.
So, if you want to offer any more verses or chapters to support your world pleasing nonsense, you'll have to do more than simply type us a chapter and verse. You'll have to explain why it's relevant and why it says what you think it says. Try to be specific for a change. Try to be intelligible.
"Now why that reasoning wont work for gay Christians is beyond me, but that's the current sticky wicket (so to speak)."
Because nothing that means they'll have to reject their sexual practices will work for them.
Marshall reads the prophet Nathan, who says, "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says..." and -- despite claiming to read the Bible literally and faithfully -- calls it the "thinnest of straws":
"Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."
Missed it Marshall? Can't find your glasses? Try this again, a little shorter this time:
"I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."
Even shorter?
"I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms."
Now, nitwit, tell me about your whirlybird biblical hermeneutic of "tolerated and not accepted."
You and you biblical "experts" are leaking copter fuel.
Therefore, the OT presents the God whom they recognized as being in covenant with.
This is not the same God which the NT, formed in the era of the Roman Empire would recognize, taking on, as it does, the Roman practice of monogamy.
Nor is it still the ancient, almost pre-cultic God that the writer of Genesis wants to portray at the beginning of time.
And none of these have to be the God which we are in covenant with today. Our understanding is different. Our understanding of the status of women is different. Our understanding of the abhorrent institution of slavery is different.
Our understanding of community, of widows and orphans, of church houses, of martyrdom, of oligarchic rule, empire, bishops, miracles, family, sex, and children are all very different.
And so is the view of homosexuality by an ever increasing crowd of Chrisitan witnesses.
God does not change.
Our faith changes our ever growing understanding of God.
It has always been this way. The majestic Bible reveals to us that it has always been this way.
This is why it is a living document. Not because you fellows seal it up in a non-decaying gas. But because it reflects what life is like in Christian faith as no other text or set of texts we have can.
The Bible is the inspired word of God. Because it points us to the living Word of God, who perfects us, changes us, glorifies us in himself -- in his birth, his life, his suffering, his death, his resurrection, and his reigning in glory.
You guys honeycomb this magnificent truth by taking scissors to it. Or, rather, not you guys, but the seventeenth century extremists you've inherited, but only know as an American clay doll of belief.
That's my story, and not only mine. It is a long story, exceedingly crowded with saints.
Well, If it leads to "christians" like yourself, Feodor, it's a poor replacement for "That Old Time Religion" you claim to replace.
If I knew absolutely nothing of Christianity but the example that you put forth, I would want absolutely nothing to do with it.
It occurs to me that the Laws of Leviticus, the guidelines for Marriage, and the framework for the Church which are given in the Scripture are given for the purpose of protecting the obedient.
It is the disobedient who find them restrictive and must find ways around them.
It is the disobedient who feel the need to spend years studying the Scriptures looking for loopholes and contradictions, and have to turn it into a "living, breathing doccument" which portrays only a loving, accepting God (or several gods, as the case may be), who is devoid of wrath or judgement against what is clearly described as Sin.
Just an observation.
It occurs to me, then, that you should not touch a pig, a boil, or be anywhere near a menstruating woman.
You obedient soul, you.
Just an observation of Pharisaism.
_____
And, just so we get our history straight, it was "That Old Time Religion" that replaced historic Christianity (not the other way around) and strung up black bodies on the trees as it whistled down the narrow way.
I don't think we ever did anything like that at my Church...
And, FYI, I don't touch pigs, or boils, or menstrating women.
You sure do live out the zest of Christian life, then. The Lord of the Cosmos is so proud.
Feodor, if you could provide a URL link to the previous discussion, I could review it and see if the tail end jogs my memory. It's possible that I simply stopped visiting that thread before seeing your questions, it's possible I decided to ignore your questions, I don't know because I don't remember the conversation in detail.
About the scriptural argument against homosexual behavior, I may break to some degree from others who take the same position I do, in terms of what passages are the most crucial.
Myself, while I believe all Scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant, I don't think the most important passage is found in Leviticus or even Romans.
The key passage is in Genesis 2, which Jesus Christ cites in Matthew 19.
""Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" - Mt 19:4-5
Here, we have the assertion that God made us male and female (at the beginning, no less) for the purpose of each male leaving his original family to become one flesh with his wife.
The only moral alternative to this arrangement that Christ Himself gives, is given later in the chapter: celibacy, being a eunuch in either a literal or a figurative sense.
This divine plan for human sexuality -- i.e., our being made male and female, as opposed to being asexual organisms -- was specifically applied to the question of divorce, but there are several other applications.
Is divorce part of the divine plan? No, because God intended one man and one woman to become one flesh, and -- though Christ even allows for VERY exceptional circumstances -- what God joins together, should not be torn asunder.
Is polygamy part of the divine plan? Again, no, because each man (singular) is meant to become one flesh with his wife (singular).
Is incest part of the divine plan? Once again, the answer is no, because each man is to leave his family of birth to start his family of marriage.
Finally, is homosexuality part of the divine plan? The clear answer is an unambiguous no, because God made us male and female so that each man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female).
Notice that we're not talking about genuine genetic hermaphrodites -- X and XXY hermaphrodites. Straight, gay, bi-curious or bilingual, we're still talking about men and women.
A gay man is still a man; why was he made male? Matthew 19 provides the answer, an explanation that is without exception -- except, again, celibacy, the mortification of sexual desire -- and that is timeless.
If Christ believed that the story of man's creation had relevance to the first century regarding the matter of divorce, there's no reason to think it has no relevance now regarding the matter of homosexuality.
You ask, "Does Genesis mandate monogamy as Marshall says or is it concerned with the 'man' not being alone as my Bible has it?"
It's both: out of concern for the first man's loneliness, God provided a partner, but notice that He provided only one partner, a partner of the opposite sex. This is not only descriptive of what God did, but prescriptive regarding what mankind should continue to do.
"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh." - Gen 2:24
Jesus Christ applied this teaching to His day, and because it concerns the very creation of man, and our being made male and female, there's no reason to think the principle has become irrelevant at any point between the first century and the twenty-first.
[continued]
I notice also that the woman he provided Adam was made from his rib. I further note that, after expulsion from the garden, his experience of his fallen nature is hard work and hers is pain in childbirth.
So, since, in your words, "this is not only descriptive of what God did, but prescriptive regarding what mankind should continue to do," I hope you choose or chose biblically and would not become one flesh with a woman born of a womb or one, though formed from your rib, who works.
That you are only literal just so far is a big logical problem for the literal reading.
I further note that Adam did not leave his family to cleave to his partner. So, if one reads literally, this story of the beginning can give no exemplary "description" or "prescription" for marriage between womb born people.
Notice, Bubba, I am using only your method of biblical reading and biblical reasoning.
However, if one reads these stories as etymological stories from a faith perspective, one doesn't collude with silliness, one makes easy sense and spiritual use of the first book of the biblical canon, and does not stretch the literal truth into a twisted, partial and ulterior reading.
And you still have a problem in 2 Samuel 12: 7 and 8, which, oddly still, you have not proposed to resolve to the light of your reading.
Which is the questions I asked, oh slippery one.
If you want to find the earlier thread, look it up yourself.
[continued]
Feodor, on the subject of II Samuel 12, you write:
"Now Marshall has made some kind of distinction between what God accepts and what God tolerates."
He has done no such thing. Jesus Christ did, and I refer you again to Matthew 19.
"They said to him, 'Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?'
"He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.'" - Mt 19:7-9
Jesus made a distinction between what God's will has been "from the beginning" and what God permitted because of the hardness of men's hearts.
On the one hand, there isn't a passage that condemns polygamy the way divorce is condemned here.
But on the other, what is commended and even commanded as normative is lifelong monogamy: a man (singular male) becoming one flesh with his wife (singular female).
There's nothing similar to that about polygamy, either.
Instead, it appears to me that the law of Moses treats polygamy as it does divorce: something that happens, that God permits (quite possibly, as I believe, because of our hard-heartedness) but which God never commands or commends but instead only regulates for the sake of the weaker party -- so that the disadvantaged is in better shape in Israel than in any of its contemporaries.
About the passage you bring up, I don't think it does the passage any damage to consider the possibility that the many wives God gave David were a concession to his own hard-heartedness.
Consider the context: Nathan was reminding David that he really had no reason to sin before God, because God had given him so much.
It's not necessarily the case that all that was fully in God's will; it could have been the case, instead, that God only permitted this polygamy.
"The Lord commended/encouraged David's polygamy, and yet those many wives weren't enough."
"The Lord permitted/tolerated David's polygamy, and yet those many wives weren't enough."
The latter interpretation isn't an offense to the text.
You ask if I can deal "with the divine plan of monogamy only from Genesis till now despite the assumptions in Leviticus, despite all the polygamous Patriarchs, despite the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel, and despite God naming His own Chosen People, His beloved, after a known polygamist."
The "assumptions" of Leviticus regarding polygamy, were also there regarding divorce. In Matthew 19, Jesus Christ Himself is quite clear that the law contains concessions.
Nathan, I addressed above.
Other than Jesus Christ Himself, NO ONE lived a sinless life. As Paul writes repeatedly in Romans and Galatians, Abraham was justified by his faith, not perfect behavior on his part (which he didn't do).
What was written about Abraham, applies to everyone from the Bible that was described or could be described as men or women after God's own heart -- they were heroes of faith, as Hebrews describes them, not heroes of perfect obedience.
Abraham deceived people about his marriage, out of a cowardly fear for his own life: shall we now argue that God condones deception and cowardice?
Jacob was also deceptive in getting a blessing from his father Isaac: if (as you seem determined to argue) the naming of God's chosen people after Jacob/Israel implies a blessing on his polygamy, does it not also apply to his dishonesty and deceptive behavior?
Moses was a murderer, and yet God chose him to bring Israel out of Egypt; David became an adulterer and a murderer and yet God promised to establish his throne forever (I Chr 17:12-13): shall we conclude that God condones adultery and murder?
Feodor, you might notice that little [continued] tag connecting my last two comments. It means I wasn't done with that particular train of thought, so you really should be more patient than to berate me for not addressing II Samuel in the first part of that two-part comment.
And if you cannot find the thread where I supposedly didn't answer your questions, I think it would be better if you didn't accuse me of ignoring your questions during that conversation.
The way these things go, is that the accuser -- that's you, in this case -- has the burden of proof.
I'm beginning to wonder if you revere the Bible as a "living" document and worship the "living" Christ in the same way that American leftists revere a "living" Constitution: they don't give a rip what the text actually says, as they work quite hard to ignore what's there and hallucinate what isn't there.
What's quite clear is that Jesus and His Apostles DID NOT treat the Bible with the contempt that you do.
For instance, when Christ answered the question of divorce, He appealed to Genesis without giving any indication that it portrays an "ancient, almost pre-cultic God."
It's quite clear that they saw a progressive revelation, but one that remained accurate and authoritative throughout.
You do not treat the books of the Bible with the respect that the text itself demands.
You've written, "reasoning in the presence of the Holy Spirit has to happen in the communal setting, i.e., church, because -- I'm adding the rationale here -- that is where Christ is present in the Spirit."
There's some biblical grounds for that, but not totally, as Paul asserts in Galatians that the gospel he preached was revealed independently from the other Apostles.
But I wonder if you will ground this assertion in what the Bible teaches. After all, you think the New Testament doesn't describe anything eternal about God, only what it would recognize in its Roman milieu.
Or, let me guess that you hold to what Neil Simpson has described as a dalmatian theology: the Bible is inspired only in spots, but you're inspired to detect those spots.
In part ii, you begin to split my words like you do biblical ones.
I agree with you that Jesus fully presents God as on a slow burn about some kind of practice regarding particular motives for some kinds of divorce and Jesus is saying that such cold-hearted times should end.
But what I said was that Marshall could not treat 2 Samuel 12 like he treats Leviticus, namely, that God tolerated but did not accept polygamy.
And yet here you have done that very thing? And how did you do it? By misplacing - maybe even unconsciously - the motivations in the relationship between God and David.
You say that it was because of David's hard heartedness that God stooped to polygamy. That is not the sequence. Nathan says that God gave David all these things and would have given him even more. But nonetheless, AFTER this, David despised the word of the Lord.
The initial act of God to give David all those things and all those women was not to motivate his hard hearted chosen one back onto the path. Otherwise, God would be a pimp.
You're reading stretches credulity to the breaking point.
Again, if one reads literally, one cannot read partially. You are doing both.
And nothing in Genesis dictates that a man has to stop at one wife. You've imported that bit into the story. God did not want the man to be alone. That is God's motivation, according to Genesis.
Again, you're not reading by your own rules.
And if polygamy was to be avoided, though not a cardinal sin, then why did Jesus not speak on it as he does divorce? Why would he leave silence to reign in a barely tolerated situation?
__________
I absolutely agree that God seems to use tricksters, connivers, and natural born leaders who don't play by polite standards to advance his kingdom, and then God praised them. The last hired get equal pay. The father kills the fatted calf for the prodigal son. It is a mystery that, in some way or other, aggressive people lay hold of the Gospel.
God's love sure is crazy and more wondrous than I can make polite sense of.
Welcome your gay brother and sister, then: it is the mystery of the Gospel.
I always knew you thought you were in a law court.
Word to the wise: we're not.
Look it up yourself if you think you've been slandered.
"as Paul asserts in Galatians that the gospel he preached was revealed independently from the other Apostles."
That is exactly what makes an apostle and is the very ground for Paul asserting his apostolicity.
And you and I are not. Precisely why we must do our reasoning in the community of faith.
_________
"After all, you think the New Testament doesn't describe anything eternal about God..."
Wrong and presumptive and indicative that you have not been reading me very closely.
A Dalmation still runs better than any dog with only two legs and no sight.
"A Dalmation still runs better than any dog with only two legs and no sight."
Whoa! That's just so clever, dude. And deep, too. And the practical value alone is worth, well, nothing, but whoa! How deep! Is that insight typical of your faith community?
By the by, Feodor, you unknown gunk stuck to the sole of my shoe, is there anything else that comes so easily to you as does lying? Tug never accused you, or even suggested, of being the only one with the bad attitude. He only acknowledged, and rightfully so, that you have brought trash talking upon yourself. Lies like this is another reason for that.
Back to your unfortunate understanding of 2 Sam:
You like to assume that which doesn't follow. You put words in God's mouth (and after YOU'VE touched them, that's very disrespectful). So, goatboy, I'll explain it to you again. Pay attention.
Nathan (speaking for God) ran down a brief list of all that David aquired upon getting the keys to the castle. When God gave David Saul's gig, He also gave him everything Saul had. This just happened to include his multiple wives. However, as a package deal, it doesn't automatically go without saying that God finds that to be acceptable. In other words, and pay attention here, Sally, there's no explanation at all for WHY God included, or didn't exclude the wives. Nathan's statement was only a factual one stating that it happened. For all we know, perhaps God was concerned about the women's future if cast out after the regime change. Perhaps he had expectations that David would merely care for these women until an acceptable suitor turned up for each. There's certainly nothing to suggest that God handed them over and said, "Hey, dude. Don't do anything I wouldn't do"
So mine is a far more reasonable "guess" at the WHY behind the transfer of babes that is far more in line with the whole of Scripture. What it dosen't do is provide another argument for the likes of you so that you can eventually dismiss Lev 18:22 and be the hopes and dreams of your wayward friends in your community of faith that God won't care about ignoring His Will.
As far as your faith community, if you're an example or in any way typical, then your faith community is merely a large gathering of buffoonish Feodors unable to accept Scripture that prohibits what they want to do.
You see, rather than bending God's Will to comform to our selfish sexual desires (or any other selfish desires for that matter), my faith community tries to comform our lives to God's Will as plainly revealed in Scripture. We don't take parts of Scripture, such as you 2 Sam piece, and pretend it means something it doesn't, just so we can pleasure ourselves any way we like.
So you strike out once again, unless you can explain how that 2 Sam piece translates into God allowing, accepting or providing for the concept of polygamy. Good luck with that. Without speaking for God, it just isn't possible. You're merely hoping it does.
Still waiting for reasons why Oliff and Hodges are wrong. Kick it around with your faith community and bring back another laugher. Still waiting for an explanation why Hodges' job or hobby (you haven't proven which is which) makes any freakin' difference regarding his very sound and easily understood (by non-educated Christians) explanation. Still waiting for you to demonstrate the slightest proof that your vast education can provide an example of intelligence or at least some clear explanations.
Feodor, a quick googling of a few keywords -- such as "Samuel," your name, and my own name -- reveals nothing. I'm not going to search further to find the context of a conversation that may well be completely imagined. If you're so concerned that I address what you asked in this conversation, you should provide a link.
About II Samuel, those of us who believe the entire Bible is authoritative and inerrant -- because its ultimate authorship is divine -- work to reconcile Scripture: to find plausible interpretations for passages that seem contradictory, in order to find an interpretation for the entire book that is internally consistent.
The way we do so is to seek to understand the difficult passages in light of the clear passages.
"Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
A husband and wife become one flesh -- or one organism.
The two become one organism in at least one real sense: while each human being has an complete and functional nervous system and digestive system, all humans are born with incomplete reproductive systems, and it is only when a man and woman are joined do we have a union with a complete and often functional reproductive system.
God's will as revealed in Genesis and confirmed in Matthew precludes a married couple that is already one flesh to try to join with a third person: the couple is already whole. And it also precludes a married man to try to find a second wife: he is already one flesh, whole and complete, in the woman he has already married.
Accepting all this and the unity and inerrancy of Scripture, and our conclusions about II Samuel follow.
For all you gripe about our not following the living Christ, Feodor, it certainly appears that -- when it comes to both marriage and the authority of Scripture -- we're taking His words far more seriously than you are.
You're not the only theological liberal who has joined this discussion, who pays lip service to Christ's teachings while downplaying those teachings that you don't like; the behavior is as reprehensible coming from you as it is from Dan.
You ask:
"And if polygamy was to be avoided, though not a cardinal sin, then why did Jesus not speak on it as he does divorce? Why would he leave silence to reign in a barely tolerated situation?"
It appears that what Christ addressed, and what the Evangelists recorded as being addressed, was often the contentious issues of the day. Polygamy wasn't commonplace in the lives of first-century Jews; as often as they were guilty of bending God's rules, to minimize what is forbidden and maximize what is permitted, this actually provides a strong indication that even they didn't see polygamy as God's intended will for man.
Nevertheless, Jesus Christ did teach principles that apply to the question of polygamy, and that logically preclude polygamy: God made us male and female so that a man (singular) would become one flesh with his wife (singular).
What Christ invoked to answer the question of divorce in Matthew 19, Paul also invoked in an argument against prostitution and in commanding that husbands sacrificially love their wives (I Cor 6:16, Eph 5:31).
It's foolish to think that these are the only possible applications.
Let's turn your question around.
"And if polygamy was to be avoided, though not a cardinal sin, then why did Jesus not speak on it as he does divorce?"
Jesus didn't specifically condemn bestiality. Are you going to now argue that there is ANY question at all about the moral propriety of sheep-bothering? Or is it not clear that, when God made us humans "at the beginning", He made us male and female for each other, and not for our livestock?
[continued]
[continued]
Feodor, on that subject, I wonder...
If you believe the case is strong that polygamy is biblically permissible, why aren't you pushing for Christian acceptance of polygamy before stumping for homosexuality?
You seem to think that we're free to push the boundaries of sexual morality, invoking the Holy Spirit as we go: it seems to me that the logical thing is to restore what we've neglected (the Bible's enthusiasm for polygamy, if such a thing exists) before pushing out into new territory.
And if you believe the Bible's repeated condemnation of homosexual behavior doesn't mean anything, do you also reach the same conclusion regarding its prohibition of bestiality?
After all, there are far fewer passages denouncing sheep-bothering.
You write:
"I absolutely agree that God seems to use tricksters, connivers, and natural born leaders who don't play by polite standards to advance his kingdom, and then God praised them...
"God's love sure is crazy and more wondrous than I can make polite sense of."
It's a lovely sentiment, but it doesn't address my point: God didn't just recruiter rough-and-tumble leaders, He recruited a murderer named Moses.
You're arguing that, because God recruited polygamists into His plan, that He approves of polygamy.
He also recruited murderers and adulterers: do you believe that God therefore condones murder and adultery? If we can't conclude that God commends these behaviors, we also cannot conclude that God commends their polygamous behavior.
Finally, you write, "Welcome your gay brother and sister, then: it is the mystery of the Gospel."
I certainly don't have any problem accepting into the church men and women who experience unnatural sexual desires for members of their own sex.
I also believe that Christians should reach out to adulterers.
I even believe that Christians should visit prisons, reach out to murderers on death row, and fellowship with Christians who have murdererd.
But just the church should never condone adultery or murder -- and, for the sake of the body of Christ, make a clear stand against those who do -- we should not condone homosexual relations.
I think that the thing that bothers me the most about Feodor's position on this is that it denies the power of Christ to change people's lives, their hearts, their very nature.
God forgives Sin if we ask forgiveness.
He takes away the burden of Sin if we will but turn that burden over to him.
But in order to avail ourselves of the opportunity to experience the freedom from the bondage of our sinful nature, we must turn our lives, our hearts, our whole selves over to Him. (This includes our sexuality, by the way, whichever way we happen to swing.)
And when we do that, He removes the urges that define us, or gives us the grace to overcome them.
He washes away the old sinful man, and creates a new man in his place.
He has done it in my own life.
So, in order to avoid putting God into a box, Feodor denies the life changing power of Salvation.
And we are left debating whether God blesses poligamy or bestiality.
I believe there are people that absolutely are sincere in their support for homosexuals. Likely, one or two are among those with whom we conservatives debate. That is, they are sincere in their belief that they are doing the right and noble thing, and sometimes, the Christian thing. But to take that position requires denying the simple truth of Lev 18:22, and all the other verses discussed that speaks to God's plan for one man/one woman arrangements. But I also believe many of them support the homosexual agenda in order to dilute every prohibition on human sexuality, of course including that which is special to each of them. Though it would be more honest to admit that, despite Biblical prohibitions, they have decided to partake anyway, they know on some level that such an attitude won't really work. The alternative is to get behind every movement that removes those behaviors from any list of sinful activities, and that includes pretending that "God is still speaking" in a manner that contradicts the teachings we are supposed to follow, which are found in the Bible.
Post a Comment