I came across this sordid tale and hesitated to present it. It's disturbing without question. It riles me as little else can. There has been calls for the death penalty for people like the scum in the story. I can't say that I don't agree with that sentiment.
That such monsters exist in our world is not the issue. It is not the issue either that this particular monster is a homosexual. What is the issue is the fact that the media didn't see fit to cover this story as they did an earlier rape case referred to in the link, and likely familiar to everyone not living in a shack in the woods.
How can this be? How can such a horror not compel every news agency to report this? Is the mainstream media so in the bag for the homosexual movement that even stories as horrifying as this one won't be worthy of headlines?
Obviously this is so. I recall Rush Limbaugh once reporting on a homosexual rape by a member of the Navy that was never covered. And are we to assume that all those pedophile priests that are used to besmirch the Catholic Church are simply heteros who couldn't find little girls to abuse? Sure. If you believe that, I've got some magic beans I'm willing to sell ya.
Who cares what "orientation" a perpetrator is where the victims are kids? But why hide it? Unlike some, including some who visit here, I'm not willing to assume only the best about anyone, any more than I'm willing to assume the worst. Isn't the former every bit as judgemental as the latter? This is certainly the manner in which the media should be doing its investigations and reporting.
Does it mean anything that this scumbag is a homosexual? Who knows? It seems to matter when a lawbreaker is right wing or Evangelical. Perhaps, however, if the media wouldn't pretend it doesn't matter (as if they have the brains to know one way or the other), we might find out. Or we may find out about something we'd wish we'd have known a long time ago, for good or ill. But the point is that just like the media refuses to report when the latest shooter is a Muslim, they also refuse to report when a perpetrator is a homoseuxal. One can only surmise that the sad reality is that their support for the homosexual movement, and I think it's a fair suspicion that most of the media supports them, compels them to hide this little detail. Shameful.
163 comments:
The media is totally in the tank for the homosexual agenda. Do they seriously think that the public wouldn't be interested in the sexual preferences of the "parents" or the race of the kids?
Of course, heterosexuals can do sick things as well, but the media doesn't cover up pertinent details in those cases.
I'm wondering why 99.9% of serial killers, like the one currently being sought in South Carolina, are white men.
Among our options here, apparently, are either:
1. Race determines serial killers (like the inferences here, i.e. "sexual orientation determines sexual deviation");
or
2. It's a conspiratorial collaboration between law enforcement and the media to paint white men as depraved.
Damned if Neil knows.
Wow! You're right, Feodor, that's true.
And not only that, but the media NEVER points that FACT out!
Obviously, the media is totally in the tank for the white heterosexual agenda.
How can such a horror not compel every news agency to report this?
Marshall, just to be clear: Is your problem that the Media does not report the orientation in rape cases?
Are you equally upset when the media does not report if the offender was a heterosexual (I don't believe I've ever read a story reporting the orientation in either direction)?
OR, is it the case that, WHEN IT'S a homosexual, you want it reported, but not when it's a heterosexual?
Are you having fun Dan?
Dan and Feodope,
I think my point was pretty clear. What I'm looking for is what is known as "objective" reporting, something the media is supposed to be doing all the time.
You'll both notice, if you actually read the whole post, that I made the following comment:
"Does it mean anything that this scumbag is a homosexual? Who knows?"
and this one:
"Who cares what "orientation" a perpetrator is where the victims are kids? But why hide it?"
The first suggests that we can't begin to come to any honest conclusions if we lack all the facts. It isn't up to the media to decide which facts are pertinent and which aren't.
The second quote points to my concern for the kids and my lack of concern about the perpetrators personal peccidillos. But at the same time, one assumes heterosexuality of anyone who is being referenced. It isn't until their homosexuality is mentioned that we, as a society, can determine if such a thing matters. Don't forget how small a percentage of the population is homosexual. It isn't automatically judgemental or profiling or any of that crap just to note what other anomolies are present within that small percentage who are different. We can decide if it makes a difference as we go.
You, on the other hand, are willing to forgive them anything, to suspect that any scrutiny is a sign of bigotry or hate. If you're so keen on these people as regards their comparable nature with the rest of us, why are you so concerned with any scrutiny? It smacks of paranoia on your part. You insist they are just like us. Yet, you lament our scrutiny which might lead us to feel the same way. Apparently, we're just to take your word for it. Well. As you would demand from me, where is your certifications that I might know without question that I should take YOUR word for anything?
continued-
Furthermore, there has been many occasions where the media will report the right wing leanings of a perpetrator, but not do the same if the suspect is left leaning. This has been documented before. One ALWAYS hears the party affiliation of a rightwinger gone astray. The media always puts that (R) next to his name, but not necessarily when the perp is a Dem. The media has no trouble noting the religious affiliation of a Christian who breaks the law, but teeth have to be pulled to find out a perp is Muslim.
And who the hell reports of the debauchery on public streets and parks where so-called "Gay Pride" events take place? And to pretend pedophile priests don't have homosex tendencies when almost all of the victims are boys and not girls is a double whammy of protecting the homosex movement while also demonizing the Catholic Church.
Don't try to pretend there isn't any pro-homosex sentiment in a media that insists the Matthew Shepard case was an anti-homosex crime when there is doubt about that point, yet ignores the ignores the homosexual aspects of the rape/murder case referenced in my link.
So don't come here and accuse me of some bias when my point is clearly that there is bias in the other direction from an industry where objectivity should be the rule, but obviously isn't any longer.
"Furthermore, there has been many occasions where the media will report the right wing leanings of a perpetrator, but not do the same if the suspect is left leaning."
Yep. Stop The ACLU ( http://www.stoptheaclu.com/ ) often highlights "guess the political party" articles where the media fails to identify the "D" folks but always seems to remember to label the "R" folks.
Marshall, good points about the gay pride parades and the pedophile priests. There are so many example of the bias.
If Liberals would concede the gross media bias but still claim that Liberal views were correct I'd respect them for that. I wouldn't agree, but I'd respect them more.
But when they deny the obvious it just tips their hands to their disingenuousness.
Marshall said...
It isn't up to the media to decide which facts are pertinent and which aren't.
So, my question still is: What are you advocating? That the media print the sexual orientation of each abuse situation?
Marshall said...
You, on the other hand, are willing to forgive them anything, to suspect that any scrutiny is a sign of bigotry or hate.
Don't be ridiculous. This fella (if the story is correct) is clearly wrong. His orientation doesn't matter - if he's straight or gay, it's still wrong if he abused a child. I'm not overlooking anything.
Instead, I was just asking what you are advocating. If you're advocating ONLY pointing out when a perpetrator is gay, I would oppose that as a matter of justice. If you want to report the orientation regardless, I'd suggest it's rather irrelevant.
The problem is the assault on children, not orientation.
"The problem is the assault on children, not orientation."
Maybe yes, maybe no. If we have any concern whatsoever for that which drives an adult to so abuse a child, it seems to me that it would be irresponsible to assume that an orientation that constitutes only 2% of the whole couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
Keep in mind that though I consider homosexual behavior to clearly be a form of sexual dysfunction, I in no way pretend it's the only form. For example, though I think it's not a stretch to say that men generally feel compelled to spread their wild oats, I don't think that all men are beyond controlling that urge. In fact, I'd say that the percentage of men willing to risk their marriage, family and/or job in order to get laid by another woman to be a small minority as well. (This among those who claim to be civil, and at least marginally religious or upstanding men)
Sexual dysfunction manifests in various ways and to various degrees. I think this is true for any number of conditions, like neatness, for example. One extreme is Oscar Madison and the other Felix Unger. But there is something in the middle that represents the lion's share of the population.
With sex, the middle is always heterosexual. It's the norm. So anyone committing a crime, particularly a sex crime, orientation is definitely a notable detail. Whether it means anything in the long run can be determined at a later date when people like yourself stop treating homosexuals as a special protected class.
Once again, homosexuality affects only 2% or so of the total population. That fact makes it an anomoly at least, if not an actual disorder, which seems apparent to objective people.
(To that point, let just say that I have no problem with homosexuals in the psychiatric field. I do have a problem with them deciding whether or not homosexuality is a disorder, in the same way YOU had a problem with oil men being in on legislating the oil industry. I hope that is plain enough for you.)
Neil said,
"If Liberals would concede the gross media bias but still claim that Liberal views were correct I'd respect them for that."
Really. If they are so keen on their positions, what are they worried about? Why hide anything? As I say in my own case, I'm open to whatever is persuasive as much as I intend to persuade. I have no problem being shown that something I support or endorse is harmful. Indeed, I would like to know ASAP, in which case, my opponents now have another teammate. Perhaps it's because of all the money this 2% has generated for its cause. Money is so often the reason people do stupid things.
So, shall we report on the right/left-handedness of child abusers? Since clearly left-handedness is not the norm, we might have good reason to guess that MAYBE their hand use abnormality manifests itself in OTHER abnormalities, as well.
The thing is, there is no evidence to support your hypothesis. Find some actual research to back your guesses or you might expect most reasonable people to ignore your attempts at scapegoating.
The research I've looked at (sorry, but it's from actual scientists and experts in mental health, which I know apparently carries no weight with you) does not support your wild hypothesis.
Once again, I'd remind you of biblical (and just plain moral) commands against slander, against bearing false witness, against gossip. You may not think homosexuality is a good orientation, but that does not give you the right to spread false gossip to demonize them, any more than if you suggested that maybe, since Right Wing preachers have abused children, that most of them probably do or if I suggested that the news ought to report if child abusers were church members.
Thou shall not bear false witness.
Fartshall,
If you "really" don't think "orientation" is pertinent, then it's not "hiding" it.
Pea brain.
"Right wing leanings..."
You mean the white supremacist murderer at the Holocaust Museum?
Or the murderer showing up at church to gun down the abortion doctor; the one you and Neil "don't condone," behind half-hidden smirks?
If *leaning* right-wing means using a gun to kill, where does this put true right-wing nut jobs?
Dan,
Thanks for yet another link that proves itself unworthy, as it begins by trying to compare homosexuals to Jews and blacks. It also makes great pains to separate attraction to adult males from adolescent or child males. Yeah. I buy that. (sarcasm) Seems to me that any attraction to any member of the same sex is an indication of homosexuality, with atractions to to small boys being and example of an exteme to which I earlier referred. In short, a more serious manifestation of mental disorder.
I don't know who your source is, or how objective he is. You don't have a great track record of objectivity in your sources. So pardon me if I'm not persuaded.
I have made a cursory scan of the link, but I've seen nothing that refers to percentages that are significant. That is, of the 2-3% of the population who are homosexual, do we see the exact (or similar) percentages of child molesters as we do in the hetero community? IF molesters comprise, say, 5% of the entire hetero population, do we see ONLY around 5% of the homosex population molesting children. THAT would be a good indication that "orientation" has no bearing. If you can point to such a stat in your link, copy and paste it and give me an idea of where in the article I can find it quickly. Otherwise, I'll have to peruse the entire article later.
________________________
I must kick myself for not doing something I had originally intended, and that's to pre-emptively address what I knew you'd try to submit, that being the stupid "left-handed" argument. It's insulting to be thrown that brittle bone, or it indicates your own low intelligence to even think that argument has any merit here. Is left-handedness a behavior? Does it have any moral implications? No to both. Thus, the next time you feel like offering that argument, ram it back up the dark, smelly place whence you pulled it.
________________
Just to remind YOU. It is not slanderous to view a sinful behavior as either willful rebellion against God or an indication of mental illness. I've spread nothing about them one could view as false, unless one is so beholden to them as to no longer possess an open mind. I've got one and the proof is in my ongoing and standing request for validation of your wild claims about the condition. Particularly those that stem from what you think is Biblical support.
I would, at the same time, warn you against assuming malevolence on the part of anyone who does not drink of the pro-homo KoolAid as do you. That would be true bearing of false witness.
I'm really losing my desire to even acknowledge the presence of the false priest, but his rank stupidity cries out for my pity.
"If you "really" don't think "orientation" is pertinent, then it's not "hiding" it."
It's not pertinent as far as the suffering of the victim, but it might be pertinent in studying what drives scumbags to such horrible acts. If the homosex enablers would get the hell out of the way, we could get to a real bottom line on the issue.
Frankly, it would be a relief for me to know that child molestation is not a downside with which we need concern ourselves regarding homsexuality. Then I could focus on the other harmful effects to society in which cowtowing to them will result.
"it might be pertinent in studying what drives scumbags to such horrible acts..."
You can't follow the implications of your own thinking because you've really haven't been taught about thinking from any place other than the kitchen stool.
So NOW it IS pertinent? And if so, so is the fact that 99.9% of serial killers are white men... by your logic. If you ask "what drives scumbags" and you want to investigate sexual orientation, then you have to admit - if you could drag yourself up to reason - that that statistic on white male serial killers is rather more impressive than any other crime stats, and begs your same question.
By your scant reasoning, you've put yourself in with the "enablers" who wont "get the hell out of the way" so "we could get to a real bottom line on the issue" of white male serial killers.
However, I think you know that both trends of thinking are ridiculous. You don't exactly know why, and so you'll never find a way out of your contradiction. You'll just deny it is so, but again, never knowing why.
You'll carry on with your prejudicial propaganda, putting your soul deeper into jeopardy.
And go to your grave not knowing how to think, how to control what you think, and the whole role of reason in your cultural legacy, a big part of your cultural legacy that could save you, and cultural form of that part of the faculty of the human mind constructed by God.
You are a falsely motivated, and so shallow-minded and small-hearted, christian.
Marshall. It's been studied. You can let this one go, if that is truly your concern. There is no correlation between being gay and being a pedophile.
IF that is truly your only concern, then learn about the studies that have been done and quit bringing it up. It's just a red herring and it makes you look homophobic, as if that's just another thing you can pin on "the gays."
The problem is that you're commenting on two areas (mental health and journalism) here where you have not studied yourself and you're showing yourself ignorant in both fields.
In journalism, reporters are trained to report Pertinent Facts to the case. Relevant facts.
So, if Joe Shmoe has this theory that pedophiles are more likely to own Bibles and then Joe complains because the Media is not reporting on Bible ownership in reporting such cases, his complaints are not taken seriously because his theory is just pulled outta his ass and has no basis in reality.
A story about child abuse need not report the race of the abused or abuser or the orientation or the religious background or whether or not they own a Bible because they are not relevant to the story. Now, if the parent was a Klansman who deliberately adopted a black kid and then abused him, race becomes part of the story, but not his orientation or his religion.
Reporters in this story have appeared to report the salient facts. That you have a theory on your part does not make a compelling case on their part.
So now it comes back to me being homophobic, does it? I see. Then I suppose that it would be equally true to say of you boys and girls, that you are quite the opposite, and rather than "fear" homosexuals, you elevate them to great heights of saintliness and goodness, devoid of even the possibility of malevolent urges. People to which the rest of us should compare and aspire. It seems that my concern for mental illness is misdirected and should be aimed at you enablers. What is it about homosexuals that makes you worship them so? Do you have the desire to submit to and humble yourselves before other typse of people? Do you find yourselves spending the rent money on tickets for every Elton John concert within a hundred mile radius?
Yeah, Dan. It's been studied. And so much of what is still claimed by the movement has yet to be supported. But YOU believe every bit of it, where normal people, exposed to the truths about these claims, rightfully remain cautious when "facts" about homosexuality are presented to protect and promote the movement.
Sorry kids. I'm not so gullible as to believe everything I read. Particularly the questionable sources put forth by Dan, who has a history of standing behind biased sources, as has been demonstrated in recent posts. It appears, Dan, that you are willing to believe first until you are proven wrong, so as not to hurt the feelings of your dear Aunt Sadie and other unfortunate friends and co-congregants.
My love for my fellow man runs a tad deeper. I'm willing to suffer their negative feedback in order to get to the truth.
What I'm NOT willing to do, is to give my time to rebuke idiot false priests who build stupid arguments and expect me to take them, and him, seriously. Uh uh. Ain't gonna happen. Dan, despite a host of complaints against him, at least SEEMS to be sincere, even if he lacks the ability to persuade or the evidence that would help in doing so.
Oh, and Dan. Just so there's no confusion, I don't put a whole lot of faith in psychiatry in general. It is far from an exact science, and we know without a doubt regarding this issue, it is tainted by the opinions of homosexuals within the field. You think you sit pretty assuming my lack of background in the field, that is, no sheepskin. But that simply means that you yourself lack standing to speak on anything for which you lack the same degree of expertise. Keep that in mind for the future.
However, I don't hold with that qualification here. Where ever consensus is missing, and if ever there is a field where consensus is lacking it is psychiatry, reasonable people can make their own assumptions and come to their own conclusions. You only suck up because of your relationship to homosexuals.
A towel thrown from the kitchen stoolie.
But that simply means that you yourself lack standing to speak on anything for which you lack the same degree of expertise. Keep that in mind for the future.
Yes, please, anytime I hold forth on some topic with which I am wholly unfamiliar, by all means, remind me that I'm speaking from a position of ignorance or simply to consider the source.
For what it's worth, I don't know that I have offered many opinions on any topic with which I'm not familiar (I have rarely if ever discussed battle strategies, for instance, nor have I discussed brain surgery or even health care very much - although, having taken part in the health care system, I DO have some opinions).
Still, if you find me talking about a topic on which I'm wholly ignorant, by all means, point it out and consider the source. I shall do the same for you. We'll keep each other honest.
Glad you're owning up to your ignorance on these topics...
This isn't about being gay. The man accused in this case is a pedophile. Not gay, not straight, but a pedophile.
That's why the sexual orientation isn't an issue - it's about pedophilia.
Dear, dear Daniel,
Try to calm down, won't you? Are you now attempting to say that you DO have a doctorate in psychology? Is that what I'm to infer?
I also want to make clear that I do not claim ignorance on these subjects, even if my "expertise" is lacking in some way in your eyes. BUT! If you can make comments that you claim to be facts without being a member of the APA, why can't I? What more do you do than rely on the claims of those who see things your way, who have insisted on that which aligns with your distorted beliefs?
I, in the meantime, do as much. Is it that you think you have a greater amount of shrinks that back your position? Is that it? I'm greatly unimpressed. Is it numbers that determine truth? I don't think so. As you might like to remind, there was a time when blacks were considered less than persons. Did the numbers make that right and true?
So you can rely on your sources, as biased as they are, if you like. I don't really need a source to convince me that black is white. I know which is which. In the same way, it doesn't take a doctorate to understand normal sexual attraction vs abnormal sexual attraction. I have no doubt that you give no serious attention to any data that disputes what you want to hear.
Just to further question your last link, Danny boy, it made the suggestion (likely stated it as fact) that somehow there is a difference between a homosexual and a man who wants to have sex with small boys. Somehow, we're supposed to buy into the notion that because one guy likes 'em young that somehow the same sex attraction isn't meaningful? How does that work, exactly?
Most men prefer younger women, even as young as twenty or less. They merely control their desires and reason that such relationships wouldn't likely work or aren't fair to either the young chick or to any kids that might come later. But control himself or not, the guy is still a heterosexual. Yet somehow it's a different story if the situation is same sex attraction? What about those man/boy clubs the homosexuals no longer allow in their pride parades (the intolerant bastards)?
Uh uh. The perp has two problems as I see it: He's a homosexual and he likes to sexually abuse 5yr old boys.
It would be far more honest of your vaunted shrinks to say that homosexuality IS a sexual disorder, though perhaps not in and of itself the worst kind, and that subjects can live relatively normal lives. But to say it is not a disorder is rank bullshit. Men are supposed to be attracted to women.
HI Geoffrey,
I thought you might stop by. Welcome back. Best picture yet, dude. First one where it didn't look like you bit into something nasty.
Of course I disagree with your statemtent. As I said (if you haven't read all the comments), because same-sex attraction is such and anomoly, I think it matters in these cases. Of course, it could be said that most would assume homosexuality considering the victim is of the same sex. In fact, that would have been the best argument from any of you enablers regarding the criticism of the media. "Hey, the kid's the same sex, ain't he? Do you need it spelled out for ya?"
But, the main point of the post is still valid. The linked piece gives a good comparison between the extent of attention given to a definite homosexual rape/murder vs the Shepard case, where the victim's "orientation" is said to have played no real part in the crime.
In addition, they ran like hell with the first Duke rape case, where the allegations were false. But the alleged victim was a minority woman and the alleged perpetrators were rich white kids. Now, in the featured story, it doesn't appear that it is getting the same media scrutiny. Why? Did it really matter that the chick in the first case was black, or that the "attackers" were rich or white? These details were constantly rammed down our throats.
But in this case, if you even heard of the story, which I didn't until I got it in an email newsletter, the media isn't as wide open about the details.
And once more, to highlight the orientation of a heterosexual doesn't make any sense. Until otherwise told, it is assumed since it is the norm. It's like saying "the shooter was a human".
Marshall, I am so very sorry that you hold such pride in your ignorant positions.
Hope you won't mind terribly if the rest of us just write you off as a bit loopy at least in these regards and simply ignore you like we would a gnat?
Ta.
"Hope you won't mind terribly if the rest of us just write you off..."
Who's "us", Dan? You and your head lice?
What could be more prideful than regarding my opinions as "ignorant" when you can't support that any better than you can the rest of your opinions? All I've done is to state that we are both relying on our own sources. We've seen that yours are not objective, and you dare take issue with mine. As Bubba says repeatedly, you are guilty of holding other to standards to which you never hold yourself or other who agree with you.
So as usual, you take your ball and go home.
Unless I'm mistaken, Marshall, you have not provided ANY sources. Just your hunches. No studies, no experts, no evidence. Nothing.
Lacking ANY reason to accept your hunches, then, I shan't.
I would submit this is much more common than anyone suspects.
I have been saying it for a long time now. Many homosexuals want to adopt so they can recruit children into the lifestyle.
There has been report after report after report of gay magazines such as "The Blade" and others that have published articles that outline how to recruit children by molesting them.
NAMBLA has published articles even more blatant advocating this egregious practice.
But of course, that isn't the point of your post Art.
Fear of being vilified for reporting the truth about the homosexual agenda is why one doesn't hear more from the media in this and other cases.
What the media and the homosexual activists don't want us to know is that homosexuals are most often the perpetrators of sexual child abuse, especially when it's man on boy rape. It just doesn't make sense that a heterosexual man would want to have sex with a boy. It's illogical.
How can a man be attracted to a boy or even a man if he isn't homosexual?
The reason homosexual activists and their willing accomplices in the media don't report the truths in these matters is they know how devastating the implications are. It would set the homosexual agenda back 100 years, possibly never to regain any ground.
Your good friends that are gay would suddenly take on a whole new image. Instead of the funny guy with the effeminate posture, walk, and lisping voice who gets along so well with everybody, suddenly becomes a monster and is ostracized, and before you know it, it's "Back into the closet, sissy boy!"
Of course the gay lobby doesn't want this to happen.
They have become very successful at painting homosexuals as normal and homosexuality as natural.
But the fact of the matter is:
Allowing homosexuals to adopt is child abuse.
Dan,
I've provided no sources here, but have in past posts. I'm not big on sources for psychological matters because, as I've stated, I don't consider psychology an exact science, plus, regarding the area of homosexuality, it is tainted by homosexuals within the industry. Also as stated, I've exposed this using your own sources of a recent thread (though I can't seem to find which blog it was where it took place--no matter--I've no reason to lie about such things--perhaps you recall the discussion yourself).
I'm quite satisfied showing the flaws in the links YOU present to support YOUR side of the issue, sources that I'm not convinced you scrutinize for accuracy with the same vigor you seem to show in doing so with ours. I say this because you boldly present these links WITH their flaws, and likely would present anything, no matter how flimsy, if it should bolster your confidence in supporting this sinful behavior.
So, if you insist on calling my perspective a "hunch", I can deal easily. That's because my "hunch" is based on blatant reality, which clearly shows that there are two sexes and they are naturally created to go together. Anything else is abnormal and therefor a result of some mental or physical disorder. Credentials are hardly necessary to point out the obvious. But they ARE needed to circumvent it. Only highly educated people can construct the crap that is used to ignore these realities.
You know, I've seen Dan's picture, and watched his music video's (for which I respect his talent), but I didn't notice Dan had a hunch.
Maybe we should call him Quasimodo?
I awoke last night about 3 AM and I had some trouble getting back to sleep because something occurred to me about Dan's "argument from silence:"
If Same sex marriage is "blessed by God' simply because there is no specific mention of it in the Bible, than pedophilia is also blessed by God. It isn't mentioned in the Bible, either.
But that isn't all! If one can use the argument from silence to condone homosexuality, than one can more convincingly argue that pedophilia is approved by God, by virtue of Jesus' own words, to wit:
"Suffer the little children to come unto me"
Boy! If one wanted to show affirmation in the Bible that pedophilia is blessed by God, one couldn't find a better argument! Little children do suffer from pedophilia, and if one wanted to be especially crass, one could also misconstrue Jesus' choice to use the words, "come unto me".
What of it, Dan? Wouldn't you say there is more justification for pedophilia in the Bible than there is homosexuality?
You see? If you want to find justification for perversion in the Bible, you can. But only if you don't use common sense.
Marshall, in re your response to my comment.
Once again. Slowly.
The.
Man.
Is.
A.
Pedophile.
He isn't gay. He isn't straight. Technically, he is, like the men in Plato's Symposium, a pederast, someone who finds prepubescent boys sexually attractive. I agree with you calling him "scum", but that hardly deals with the issue at hand.
This has nothing to do with gayness, with some alleged gay agenda, or liberal media silencing the issue because it might hurt the gay rights movement. How a pederast raping a small boy can have any effect on the movement for LGBT rights is beyond me.
There is no explanation, no evidence, no nothing you could possibly provide me that would convince me otherwise. Not because my mind is closed, but quite simply because there isn't any.
Only people hopelessly confused about human sexuality equate the perfectly normal healthy love (yes, Marshall, love, not sex, LOVE) between two adults and sexual desire for children. One is normal. The other isn't.
Geoffrey,
Hopefully you've read all the comments before entering this discussion. Then I won't need to repeat my reasons for questioning psychiatric "experts" when dealing with homosexuality. I frankly don't need "experts" to explain everything I see in this world, as so much of it is so blatantly obvious. So, using your own definition, I will say the following slowly for you:
Pederasts.
Are.
Attracted.
To.
Members.
Of.
The.
Same.
Sex.
That makes them homosexuals. If the experts wanted to, and if they haven't already, they could come up with a label for everything. One label for those who like their women in their teens, another for those who like their women in their twenties, and another for those who like women in their fifties, and another for men who like their men in their seventies with a missing limb.
The guy in this story is deserving of some serious sentencing, but the fact remains that he is attracted to a male. As same sex attractions are abnormal, his attraction to toddlers of the same sex is an extreme form or variation of the same abnormality.
I believe I stated that his crime already shows he is a homosexual even before learning he lives with a male partner. A sharper point to consider is the notion that separating the two variations is done to distract from the disorder of adult same sex attractions. "Oh, the fact that he is after such young victims doesn't mean he's a homosexual, because we call those guys 'pederasts'". Fine. That's not much different than calling one a "man", and a younger version a "boy", and another version a "teen". Clearly, by virtue of what is obvious, a pederast is a homosexual who prefers small boys.
What's also clear to me is that you indeed HAVE closed your mind to anything that exposes the realities of human sexuality in a way that does not glorify, promote, protect, sanction, endorse or otherwise elevate homosexual behavior. The real confusion comes in believing that sexuality has anything to do with perfectly normal healthy love.
I have an extremely strong perfectly normal healthy love for each one of my close male friends. What makes it normal is that there is no sexual attraction or behavior between any of us. That also makes it healthy, and, most importantly, real and proper love for the arrangement.
I also have a perfectly normal healthy love love for my wife. Along with that, we have a perfectly normal healthy sexual desire for each other. The fact that we are married and of opposite sexes makes that so. It's what takes place between perfectly normal healthy adults. Right away, one has to remove the "perfectly normal" aspect from the equation when speaking of same-sex attraction because by virtue of their biology, it ain't normal, perfectly or otherwise.
To continue,
for all the sources upon which you would depend to support your perspective, they only work by starting from a false premise; that there is nothing abnormal or disordered about same sex attractions. As I stated to Dan earlier, I'd have far more respect if they'd admit the obvious even if they still concluded in their favor. That is, "homosexuality is a mental disorder, it's just not that serious a disorder" or words to that effect. Health and illness, mental or physical, is a matter of degrees. Just because some don't have any problems with it, and just because some believe themselves to be perfectly happy and fully functioning within it, doesn't mean it's normal or not a disorder.
When a person has a certain set of equipment, and they use it to have sex with others who have the same equipment, it is homosexuality, regardless of age.
If a an adult male molests a female child, it is child abuse. If an adult male molests a male child, it is child abuse, too.
I don't care how many "experts" Geoff and Dan can dredge up, any adult male who molests a male child is committing a homosexual act with a minor.
It's not really that difficult to understand.
Once any male, regardless of age commits a homosexual act with any other male, the act is what defines him as a homosexual. Same for females.
ergo, if an adult male molests an underage boy, he is a homosexual.
Part 1
Mark, you are right about the "argument from silence" and how flawed it is. Here are a few thoughts, which apply to the abortion debate as well.
Sadly, this is a common sound bite from people who should know better. Their reasoning goes like this:
- Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant.
- In the Bible, Jesus did not specifically condemn abortion or homosexual behavior.
- Therefore, abortion and homosexual behavior are morally permissible or unimportant.
There are many problems with this reasoning.
1. As you may have noticed, their logic goes off track in the first bullet. Direct quotes of Jesus also didn’t specifically mention gay-bashing, slavery, drunk driving, child sacrifice, and many other sins, but they are still sins. They are arguing from silence, and that is a logical fallacy.
Some insist that since Jesus didn’t specifically condemn oxymoronic “same sex marriages” that they must be permissable. Jesus also never talked about square circles, partly because they don’t exist either.
2. Jesus is God (Christians should know that), so He authored all the moral laws in the Bible – including the crystal-clear ones against homosexual behavior and murder. And He created the institution of marriage and desribed what parents should do, of which 100% of the verses refer to the ideal as a one man/one woman union.
3. Many of the “red letters” (direct quotes of Jesus) referred to the “black letters” (the rest of the Bible). Jesus noted in Matthew 5:17-19 that He supported all the law.
4. He may not have specifically mentioned abortion and homosexual behavior because they weren’t hot topics for his primarily Jewish audience. Homosexuals were a minority then just as they are now (less than 3% of the U.S. population) and the Jews had strict laws against such behavior.
Regarding abortion, Jews actually saw children as a blessing and not a curse, so they had no desire to destroy them. I am not aware of any Jewish movements at the time advancing these behaviors as not being sinful. Under no circumstances were these issues dividing the followers as they are today.
Having said that, Jesus was not silent on oxymoronic “same sex marriage.” He clearly stated what marriage was in Mark 10:6-9 and elsewhere, to the exclusion of other scenarios.
He describes exactly what the plan was, and doesn’t even hint at other possibilities. He didn’t say you couldn’t marry animals either, but I don’t see anyone saying bestiality must be acceptable because He didn’t specifically prohibit it. So there was no silence.
Regarding abortion, He reiterated that we shouldn’t murder and noted that the real meaning of the command was deeper than the physical act.
Think about this: It took almost 2,000 years and a several decades long perverted sexual revolution that repeatedly denies and mocks the Biblical worldview of human sexuality plus a massive, well funded pro-gay public relations campaign to convince some liberals that oxymoronic “same sex marriages” should have government recognition and that abortion should be legal. Yet liberal theologians think that it is something Jesus should have addressed in more detail back then? Even the pagan Hippocratic oath had prohibitions against abortions until just recently.
Most people would concede that U.S.-style slavery was a moral evil, but since it is now illegal you won’t hear about it as a campaign issue in the presidential election. But does that mean it isn’t important? Does that mean the candidates wouldn’t address it if large parts of the population were seeking to legalize it? Of course not.
Simply put, they were non-issues for the Jews.
Part 2 (I feel like bubba doing a multi-part comment)
5. If these liberal theologians are so keen on the direct quotes of Jesus and assume that they trump the rest of the Bible, why don’t they take them all as seriously as they do their pet verses or arguments from silence?
Jesus claimed to be the only way to salvation, but they not only ignore that but they teach the opposite. He claimed to be God, but they tend to ignore that. He spoke with a physically resurrected body but they often deny that. He said his primary purpose was to save lost sinners and He taught about Hell a lot. When was the last time you heard them preach on that truth? And so on.
6. Those who use these arguments from silence don’t apply them to the rest of their pet topics.
Jesus advocated caring for the poor, but he never brought government into it (apparently Jesus’ alleged silence only counts when it comes to abortion and homosexuality).
To summarize: Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews, and He did mention Sodom and Gomorrah.
For Christians to (mis)quote the red letters and to commit the logical fallacy of arguing from silence is negligent and foolish. They are distorting the Bible and hurting the church and its witness.
Neil made the following comment and failed to see the strawman in his reasoning...
- Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant.
- In the Bible, Jesus did not specifically condemn abortion or homosexual behavior.
- Therefore, abortion and homosexual behavior are morally permissible or unimportant.
The straw man is that NO ONE is arguing the first point. No one that I know has said, "Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
No one that I know of is arguing this. Certainly not me.
That being the building pin for Neil's case, it falls apart before he even gets started.
Gotta watch out for those strawmen arguments pals.
Neil said...
It took almost 2,000 years... [blah, blah, blah] ...to convince some liberals that oxymoronic “same sex marriages” should have government recognition...
That may be true in some case. I don't know and Neil has provided no support for the charge.
All I know is that all it took for me was a few months of prayerful Bible study.
Neil CORRECTLY stated...
Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy
And that is absolutely true. Whether one is arguing AGAINST gay marriage from the silence in scripture on the topic or FOR gay marriage.
Unfortunately, I know of no one that is arguing FOR gay marriage based upon the silence in Scripture on the topic.
On the other hand...
"Unfortunately, I know of no one that is arguing FOR gay marriage based upon the silence in Scripture on the topic."
You are, Dan. Do we have to go back through all these threads to find all the many times you did just that, or will you simply detract that stupid statement?
If not, let me start by reminding you that you have said many times, that God blesses same sex marriage, yet admitted there is no where in the Bible that says that.
But you have said the Bible doesn't say it isn't blessed, therefore it is ok.
Dan, about Neil's criticism of the left's endorsement of "same-sex marriage," you write:
"All I know is that all it took for me was a few months of prayerful Bible study." [emphasis mine]
That's a pretty clear indication of a causal relationship -- of even a DIRECT causal relationship, with no other causes -- between your Bible study and your current embrace of "gay marriage."
If your biblical case for your position were so strong, I can't see why you can't convey that case more clearly.
As it is, the most recent version of your argument for "gay marriage" is so absurd that I easily took the same methodology to argue that the Bible condones a practice as transparently immoral as "compulsory charity," and you still haven't explained how you would rebut the argument for the practice.
There's A LOT of issues that have not been addressed in a clear, coherent, and conclusive manner, and I believe you're not arguing in good faith when you continue to ignore those issues.
Nevertheless, on this topic, if you wish to assert that your position on homosexuality came from a careful study of the Bible, and you wish to make that assertion plausible, you should probably do more to present a more reasonable argument from Scripture.
As it stands, your argument's garbage.
Bubba said...
If your biblical case for your position were so strong, I can't see why you can't convey that case more clearly.
Once again, the fact that you don't understand my position or to find it clear does not mean that I don't hold the position or that I don't find it clear.
And yes, there WAS a causal relation between the Bible study and prayer and my change of heart. Before the Bible study, I was actively opposed to the notion of gay marriage. I prayerfully studied the matter, listened to what the "other" side had to say (the pro-gay marriage side), presented my problems with what they had to say, listened respectfully to their responses, continued to pray and study and, lo and behold, I switched teams.
It would have taken an act of God to change my mind, I was SO dead set against the notion. And yet, I did. The proof is that I'm right here telling you. I'm giving my testimony.
I once swung your way, now I swing another way.
That you don't find it clear or reasonable does not change the reality that I have found it clear and reasonable.
And speaking of garbage arguments, how about a little chastising of Neil for putting up a ridiculously goofy strawman argument? Or is the chastisement only go one way here?
I mean, even if you agree with his position, the argument was a non-starter, braindead, DOA.
It would help your side more if you rejected bad arguments when they came from your side, along with the hateful stuff that some put out there.
Let me try to help you understand my starting point. Where I said...
Before the Bible study, I was actively opposed to the notion of gay marriage. I prayerfully studied the matter, listened to what the "other" side...
What I prayed for most of all was wisdom and love to graciously show my teachers why they were wrong. I didn't want to be cruel, I wanted to help them see the light, but in a kind way because, even then, I realized the pro-gay marriage side got more abuse than they should from "the church."
Surprise. God works in mysterious ways.
Dan says, "Surprise. God works in mysterious ways."
Uh, Dan...if that still, small voice you're hearing is telling you God blesses homosexuality, that isn't God.
God of this world, maybe, but not God, the creator of the Universe.
Dan,
"What I prayed for most of all was wisdom..."
And I'm terribly sorry to see that He did not fulfill your request. Your teachers, if your Leveller friend Michael with the three names is any indication, used all the tired and lame arguments so firmly rebutted by more traditional and blessedly less progressive scholars (including one incredibly brilliant and highly regarded aeronautical engineer that understands Scripture far better than a particular false Anglican priest I know). I don't really think you've given these scholars the same scrutiny as you have your pro-homosex imposters. To get down to it, I don't really think you did your due dilligence regarding the pro-homosex guys, either.
I have to admit, until I put such nonsense to the test, it felt like it had some power. But it plainly never felt complete. It seemed like something was missing. How could 2000 years pass before someone 2000 years removed could understand what no one in all those 2000 years could ever even see? That was the most major of all the holes in the pro-homosex argument.
When I looked to the traditionalists, I found those holes plugged easily. None of the pro-homosex arguments had the same ring of logic and consistency and synergy with the bulk of the Book when confronted with the pro-God arguments. The pro-God side doesn't require one to ignore other parts of the Bible to have everything come together. So it does come together seamlessly.
So, Danielsan. To get to my point here, I am reviewing another source for you to peruse. I am thinking of linking to it in a dedicated blog-post just to focus on it and your response after studying it. And I sincerely hope that you will indeed study it closely (provided I find it to be as good as it so far seems and I actually post it) and tell me why you aren't persuaded if in fact you aren't. I should have it ready in a day or two. Just for you. Because I care.
Knock it off, Mark.
There's no need for that here.
(There... You happy Dan?)
Dan, first of all, Neils argument does not fall flat.
By your own admission, Gay Marriage is never mentioned in the Bible, not by Jesus or anyone else.
Marriage is mentioned, and homosexuality is mentioned, but the two are never connected in any way.
And, for that matter, homosexuality is never mentioned in a favorable light ever within the scriptures.
Not once.
So, since you cannot produce Biblical evidence that the practice is ever blessed by God, nor mentioned either favorably or unfavorably by Jesus, then the only argument you can possibly present on the subject must necessarily be from silence.
Just because you do not say "I am arguing from silence." does not mean that you aren't.
Your most recent tactic of repeatedly stating "I'm right because I say so, and you closed minded bigots just don't understand" may be the weakest thing I've ever seen you try.
Neil is not guilty of putting up any strawmen.
You are.
Your position on Gay Marriage is not Biblical, Dan.
No matter which of your "teachers" out-argued you way-back-when.
And if you were not any better at making your case back the than you are now, I'm not surprised that it happened.
It isn't that we don't, or can't understand your arguments, Dan...
It's that you cannot support your position.
We understand what you are saying just fine.
You're just wrong. Your position is just not Biblical, and you cannot prove that it is.
Sorry, but that's the way things are right now.
And it doesn't matter how much you personally believe you are right, it doesn't make you right.
It makes you misguided. Mistaken. Misled.
Decieved.
But, again, if you can provide Biblical evidence that Gay Marriage, or homosexual activity of any kind is condoned or blessed by God, I will stand corrected.
Tug said...
Your most recent tactic of repeatedly stating "I'm right because I say so, and you closed minded bigots just don't understand" may be the weakest thing I've ever seen you try.
Well, except that I did not say "I'm right because I say so.
Having come from where you are and having carefully and prayerfully studied the Bible and the context and the facts of the matter, I BELIEVE that gay marriage is a good and blessed thing. Could I be wrong?
I COULD ALWAYS BE WRONG. I am human, after all. I could be wrong, understand?
But, so could you.
I BELIEVE that you are wrong and I am right, and that is why I hold my position. I believe it is the position God would have me hold and, that being the case, I am obligated to follow God the best I can. If I'm mistaken, I'll pray for forgiveness and I'll thank God for grace.
Y'all can do the same.
And Neil's argument IS a lightweight strawman. Let me repeat and demonstrate. Neil said that our argument is, and I quote:
- Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant.
I HAVE NEVER SAID NOR HINTED THAT what Jesus does not specifically condemn is morally permissible or unimportant.
I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IT. What a ridiculous position to hold! Jesus never specifically condemned war, but I clearly think war is a wrong. Jesus never condemned polluting and yet I clearly think polluting is wrong.
I (nor anyone I've ever met) simply don't believe that statement or make that argument. It's ridiculous and a poor straw man.
BUT, if you actually think Neil is right, you can prove it easily enough. All you have to do is produce the line where I suggested what I don't believe.
In the meantime, Neil's argument is a pathetic strawman.
=====
(And I see that a post has been removed and, given Tug's response, I'm guessing Mark was up to his perversities or other ugliness again. Sorry about that. Not sorry I missed it, though.)
The phrases "switched teams" and "swing another way" are both well known colloquialisms for a decision to change sexual preferences. I only pointed out what seems to be obvious from the context.
Dan, on the subject of "pathetic strawmen," if you're really insisting that all of us thoroughly police each other, I'm going to have to ask why you haven't corrected friends like Marty who made two mistakes simultaneously, by wrongly claiming that we don't believe any homosexuals are saved, and then smearing us by calling us "homophobic" for a position we do not hold.
I do not think Neil's claim is a strawman. It isn't a precise description of your specific argument, Dan, but it was never presented as such, as we can see from the context that you haven't quoted.
"Mark, you are right about the 'argument from silence' and how flawed it is. Here are a few thoughts, which apply to the abortion debate as well.
"Sadly, this is a common sound bite from people who should know better. Their reasoning goes like this..."
You yourself seem to admit that Neil was summarizing a broader argument rather than focusing on yours in particular, but then you measure his summary against your argument and yours alone.
"Neil said that our argument is, and I quote:
"'Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant.'
"I HAVE NEVER SAID NOR HINTED THAT what Jesus does not specifically condemn is morally permissible or unimportant.
"I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IT." [emphasis mine]
You refer to the argument as "our" argument (are you using the royal or editorial "we"?) only to criticize Neil for writing things that YOU PERSONALLY haven't said.
Because Neil wasn't singling you out, it's not exactly fair to measure his statement only against what you and you alone have written.
I reiterate that it wasn't a precise summary of what you believe, but it was never presented as such. I also don't believe that Neil's statement invokes a strawman argument, because there does seem to be an attitude -- implied if not stated outright -- that, when it's convenient to say so, moral issues are unimportant if Jesus Christ didn't directly address them.
What else except that very notion could be implied in the phrase "red-letter Christians," a phrase I know you have encountered?
I'll say for the third time that what Neil wrote isn't a precise description of what you believe.
"Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
It's still worth noting that you do indeed put great weight on the fact that Jesus didn't specifically address the subject of "gay marriage," repeatedly making claims along the lines that we have "not one single word from Jesus the Lord on the topic."
I don't believe it's true that Christ taught nothing that has serious implications about the moral status of homosexual behavior: why were we created male and female? You might as well argue that, unless it specifically addresses the subject, a thorough math book contains "not one word" about four-sided triangles or even prime numbers greater than two.
Even though Neil's summary of a broader range of arguments isn't a precise match for what you write, it is absolutely true that you put a great emphasis on the fact that Jesus Christ didn't explicitly condemn "gay marriage."
[continued]
[continued]
So, Dan, I don't believe Neil is being unfair. More than that, I'm frankly skeptical about the sincerity in your claim of outrage, since your own behavior (once again) does not measure up to the standards that you demand for others.
I've repeatedly made absolutely clear that my position on the moral impermissibility of homosexual behavior rests primarily on Matthew 19 and, by extension, Genesis 2.
Nevertheless, in the last thread, you portrayed my position as being based on three passages in Leviticus and Romans in which homosexual behavior is condemned.
"Gay marriage is not mentioned in the Bible. I don't believe ALL gay behaviors is mentioned in the bible at all. Bubba DOES think ALL gay behaviors is referred to in one of the three places that seem to talk about some form of gay behavior. He is welcome to that hunch, but it IS a hunch, an opinion of what the Bible means in three passages with vague intentions. Bubba is free to respond, 'But, it is not vague at all!', but that, too is his opinion, his hunch. My opinion is that it IS vague." [emphasis mine]
I explained how your statement is "not as precise as I would have put it," and as such it ran the risk of doing precisely what you previously condemned: presuming to speak for others. I then made absolutely clear my problem with your comment.
"The foundation of my argument is Matthew 19 and Genesis 2, not Leviticus and Romans. The implication that my argument is founded on Leviticus and Romans, is where you were imprecise."
After I wrote this further explanation, you apologized for the lack of clarity, but you later summarized the arguments we have been making in a way that is NOT A PRECISE AND ACCURATE SUMMARY of what I have personally written.
"It is my contention that a loving, committed relationship (marriage) is the proper context for sexuality, gay or straight. The others here believe that those three passages are condemning any and all contexts, including marriage between gays (the context, Marshall, where it is the healthiest, least disease-prone, most mentally sound for people to express their sexuality).
"I think they are wrongly interpreting those three passages and wrongly applying verses about marriage to an exclusively straight club. They disagree with my opinion, and I, theirs." [emphasis mine]
I criticized the comment in passing, but a more thorough criticism is due.
I have NEVER built my argument on those three passages, Dan -- at least, not since I became convinced of the moral implications of Matthew 19, which long precedes any of our discussions online.
[continued]
You refer to the argument as "our" argument (are you using the royal or editorial "we"?) only to criticize Neil for writing things that YOU PERSONALLY haven't said.
I don't know one single person who makes the argument that Neil suggests my type of people make. IF you can produce EVEN ONE person who makes that argument - JUST ONE - go ahead. I don't believe you can.
So, until anyone can produce AT LEAST ONE argument of the sort that Neil suggests "we" make, I am calling it what it is: A ridiculously lightweight strawman.
Easy enough to disprove. Provide evidence.
(with the note that - especially in the blogosphere - some might write a sloppily written argument that might SOUND like what Neil is talking about. But I'm talking about someone who actually believes that "Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn is morally permissible or unimportant." I don't think such a person exists. Prove me wrong.)
And, by the way, thanks Tug and Marshall, for showing some credibility by standing up to apparently less-than-savory comments by some from your camp. That DOES give you some credibility to criticize others.
Bubba, as I've noted before, we've been talking about this for years. I'm tired of reading your repeats. Suffice to say, you're wrong. You're wrong about my position. You're wrong about what I've said. You're simply mistaken.
That's my response to you. If you have something fresh and direct to ask or say, by all means, try. But I'm tired of rehashing the hash.
[continued]
For one thing, Dan, Leviticus is Old-Testament law for the theocracy of ancient Israel, and it is clear that some OT commands have been fulfilled and therefore do not literally apply under the new covenant: sacrificial laws and kosher dietary regulations being the most obvious laws that are addressed directly in the New Testament (e.g., in Hebrews). Whether and how this particular law still applies, is a digression if there is a clearer passage.
Romans is clearer, but the logical progression goes from idolatry to sexual perversion, and it could be argued that Paul is condemning only that homosexual behavior that is found in debased pagan worship. I don't think that argument's very strong, but that's ALSO a digression if there is a passage that is still more clear.
I believe there is: Matthew 19.
There, Jesus teaches why we were created male and female, a principle that applies to all of us, since (with the VERY rare exception of genuine genetic X and XXY hermaphrodites) we are ALL either male or female.
That principle is, simply, that we were made male and female so that a man (male) will leave his family and become one flesh with his wife (female). The only alternative to conjugal relations is the mortification of sexual desires as a literal or figurative eunuch.
From this passage we see the unique commendation of both of the only two paths that have been traditionally embraced under the umbrella of chastity: marriage and celibacy, either lifelong, heterosexual monogamy or a lifelong mortification of sexual desire.
(Here, Christ didn't merely discuss heterosexual marriage as a possible form of marriage: He pointed back to the account of creation to teach that we were made male and female SPECIFICALLY for marriage involving a man and his wife, a claim which implicitly precludes other arrangements.)
I don't point to Leviticus and Romans because, frankly, I don't have to. But you portrayed the arguments of "the others" as doing just that.
Your criticism of Neil, I can mimic quite precisely in criticizing you. Observe.
Dan said that our argument is, and I quote:
"The others here believe that those three passages are condemning any and all contexts, including marriage between gays (the context, Marshall, where it is the healthiest, least disease-prone, most mentally sound for people to express their sexuality)."
I HAVE NEVER SAID NOR HINTED THAT my argument hinges on the claim that the prohibition of homosexual behavior in Leviticus and/or Romans must apply to such behavior in any and all contexts, because my argument doesn't hinge on those passages at all.
If your summary of our arguments (as a group) was precise enough and careful enough not to do any injustice to any one argument (held by an individual) then your supposed outrage at Neil would be a little more believable.
Dan:
"I don't know one single person who makes the argument that Neil suggests my type of people make. IF you can produce EVEN ONE person who makes that argument - JUST ONE - go ahead. I don't believe you can.
"So, until anyone can produce AT LEAST ONE argument of the sort that Neil suggests 'we' make, I am calling it what it is: A ridiculously lightweight strawman."
This is a more reasonable position to take. Since Neil's comment wasn't a summary of what you believe specifically, it need not match up precisely with what you believe in particular.
I leave it to Neil to point out comments that he thinks are applicable, and I won't wait for you to apologize for your previous (and now implicitly retracted) criticism.
To answer Dan's demand that we provide examples of people "on his side" who utilize the argument from silence:
One commenter, whose name I will not mention due to the fact that whenever his name is mentioned in any thread not on his own blog, somehow he finds out about it and then storms in to drop bombs of denial, insult the other commenters, and leave just as quickly as he entered...
has often stated that the only thing that matters is the words of Jesus "hisself" (intentionally incorrect grammar that he often uses to make himself appear common, though he considers himself far above us real common people), and categorically denies that Jesus and God are the same. Therefore, if Jesus didn't say it, it has no bearing on any discussion of biblical truths. (according to said commenter)
At any rate, he is one example of one who uses the argument from silence, as long as the silence is confined to Jesus only. If the Bible says it, he dismisses it, if Jesus hisself didn't also say it.
While the aforementioned unnamed commenter will always deny it, he certainly appears to make these leaps of the illogical.
Then there's Geoff and Feodor, who, although they don't always make use of the argument from silence, they often do so when they believe it proves their point. As Dan does.
Besides that, How often have we heard homosexual apologists say, "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality"? As if that gives approval to the perversion.
I will google the phrase and furnish proof forthwith.
Here's the first:
1. http://ldolphin.org/Homo.shtml
Now, the others:
2. "What Jesus says about homosexuality:
Nothing. That's right: not one thing." from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/13/gayrights.religion
3. "Christ said nothing about homosexuality. Nothing." From http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/gimme-that-oc-religion/what-mariners-church-teachers/
4. http://christiangays.com/articles/Jesus_said.shtml
Just go there. I don't have to reference a quote.
And that is only some of the websites gathered from the first page of google!
Now, Dan. You sure you want to say no one argues from silence?
"Neil is not guilty of putting up any strawmen."
Thanks, tugboatcapn. You are correct.
Here’s the thing: It isn’t a straw man argument. It may look like one because it seems so far fetched to put it that way, but it is the logical summary of the view that gay marriage is acceptable to God (or even “blessed” by God) because the Bible doesn’t expressly forbid it.
Many, many people use that argument just as Dan does. They'll carry signs that say, "Here's everything Jesus said about homosexuality" and the rest will be blank.
All I did was paraphrase their argument. They may not use those precise words, but that is most definitely their argument.
Again, it may look like a straw man because it sounds so ridiculous, but that is only because the view it is characterizing is ridiculous.
In short, yes, paraphrases of ridiculous arguments tend to sound ridiculous. But that ain’t my fault.
Good list of quotes, Mark. I didn't see those before commenting. That is precisely what I was thinking of. Their premise couldn't be more clear: "Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
They explicitly state that Jesus didn't mention homosexuality. Why would they make that claim? Did they follow it by pointing out, as I did, the many reasons why He either didn't mention it or why He mentioned it but it wasn't included in the Bible?
Of course not. Their point was that it must be OK (as pro-gay apologists claim) or no big deal.
The only other possibility I can think of is that the quotes came about as these folks were having an elaborate discourse on Jesus trivia and they just "happened" to mention that.
Anyone believe that scenario?
Of course not. My statement stands, as does my annihilation of that ridiculous pro-gay theology argument.
Your point stands, all right, Neil. On quick sand.
But a wise man builds his house on the rock...
~Jesus
Or, to paraphrase Jesus, Don't get stuck on goofy.
Oh, and just to be clear for anyone keeping track, that's...
1. Wild, unsubstantiated accusations and straw man argument: ONE
2. Actual evidence: ZERO
You know, it's so easy to prove an allegation. All you have to do is show evidence. You'd think that people lacking ANY evidence would be a bit more humble, but there's not much evidence for that either, unfortunately.
HA! I tend to leave Mark's comments untouched, but this is actually quite funny.
Mark's "evidence"??
1. The quote is from a ANTI-gay marriage site, not from someone supportive of gay folks!
Strike One (it was a wild swing before the ball ever left the pitcher's hand...)
2. He offers a quote that says, what? That Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality.
Yes? What of it? That is a simple fact and NOT what Neil said at all. Neil's straw man is (in case you can't recall) that my side often argues that... "Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
Once again, I no of no one who makes this argument. Don't mistake that we point out that Jesus had nothing to say about gay marriage as the reason for supporting gay marriage. You DO understand the difference, yes? It IS true that we often point out that Jesus had nothing to say about gay marriage, but that's understandable since Jesus is our Lord and God and we care about what Jesus has to say.
BUT it does not follow that because we point out that FACT, that this FACT alone means that we believe "Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
Strike Two.
3. Mark's THIRD reference points out, let's see, oh yes! It points out ONCE AGAIN the FACT that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality. And this is a fact.
But it does not follow that, therefore, we argue what Neil wrongly guesses wrongly that we argue.
Strike Three.
4. Although he totally struck out, we gave Mark his fourth swing of the bat and his "evidence" was that somebody pointed out (wait for it...) THAT JESUS SAID NOTHING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY!
Strike four.
Seriously fellas, it's time to return to debate camp for you. Or to get someone to help you out with logical concepts and in understanding the difference between...
Jesus said nothing about using Cocaine...
And
"Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
One is a simple fact. The second is a wildly goofy straw man.
Any other batters taking the plate?
(and thanks, Mark, for the laugh of the day. Citing one of YOUR guys as "evidence" that something my camp might say made me laugh out loud.)
Regardless of what Dan says, just go back to comments 63 and 64 of mine and they'll address his errors. They are doing double duty as rebuttals and pre-buttals. Quite the time saver for someone lacking the patience of Bubba et al.
"Don't mistake that we point out that Jesus had nothing to say about gay marriage as the reason for supporting gay marriage."
But minus this, what else have you offered but "prayerful meditations"? It seems that every other point made has been met with a counter that has a logical basis in Biblical support. You seem to say that you simply disagree, but offer nothing from Scripture to back up your disagreement. You bring up things such as "pagan ritual", but cannot show how the Bible actually points to such as the point of its prohibitions. So it seems that if we remove "Jesus never mentions 'gay marriage'" from the discussion, your argument is greatly weakened. Ours is totally unaffected. Indeed, it seems "Jesus never mentioned..." is vital to your argument, such as it is.
Marshall, how many times shall I answer your questions?
1. From careful and prayerful Bible study, I concluded the Bible is wholly silent on the issue of gay marriage and that the 2-3 passages that touch on some form of homosexual behavior are not a blanket condemnation of ALL gay behavior.
2. This neither proved gay marriage right or wrong, just that the Bible was silent on the topic.
3. From THAT point, I DID see positive biblical support for marriage in general. From there, I have used my God-given reasoning to reach my position on a topic on which the Bible is silent.
Neil, what ARE "comments 63 and 64"? I don't know the code...
Ahh, figured it out. So Neil's defense of his strawman is the same as Mark's: If someone mentions THE FACT that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, then they must believe that if Jesus said nothing about an action, it must be okay.
Strike Five.
For those keeping track, that's now about SEVEN Wild, unsubstantiated accusations and straw man arguments as compared to ZERO actual evidence.
Will you all keep providing more false straw man "evidence" to keep the score going up and up or shall you admit that you were mistaken?
To be credible/honorable or not to be credible/honorable? THAT is the question.
Or, you can attempt to begin to prove your false allegation by providing AT LEAST ONE example.
Thou shalt not make false allegations.
I'm sorry in advance, Art, for making this point, but it's the only way to describe Dan that I can think of.
Dan, you idiot! You asked ... nay ...demanded, "IF you can produce EVEN ONE person who makes that argument - JUST ONE - go ahead. I don't believe you can."
We were discussing using the argument from silence. You said you don't know anyone who does that, and I gave you one who does that regularly, although I couldn't link to him. Actually, I could, but if I did, but he would come sweeping into the discussion in full denial, and we don't need that here.
So, since you are so fond of demanding citation, although you don't necessarily follow that rule yourself, I then provided you with just 4 out of thousands of examples where people of "your team" do just exactly what you say you know of no one that does.
And right after that, you repeat you know of no one who makes the argument from silence.
And, since your memory seems to be faulty, let me remind you of what you said, after I offered you these proofs that many gays argue from silence: "If someone mentions THE FACT that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, then they must believe that if Jesus said nothing about an action, it must be okay."
My point is that you are either mistaken or a flat out liar when you say you know of no one who makes the argument from silence. I googled it and found 4 of thousands examples.
Everyone that I linked to was either responding to idiots like you who use the argument from silence, or directly from idiots like you who use the argument from silence, and that's the proof you demanded.
You, Dan are not only an idiot, but a fraud and a liar.
EIGHT poor strawman arguments.
ZERO actual evidence.
Keep 'em coming, boys.
Before you all offer up more of the same as "evidence," let me explain the problem you appear to be having with your reasoning.
* If I say, "Jesus never talks about homosexuality," and Jesus never talks about homosexuality, that is just a statement of fact.
* If I say, "Jesus never talked about homosexuality, therefore - for that reason alone - it's okay," that's a poorly reasoned argument. I don't know of anyone who makes that argument, other than perhaps in shorthand (ie, as in a sign at a rally or a bumper sticker - it's catchy and brief, but it does not represent someone's full argument).
* If I say, "Jesus never talked about homosexuality, therefore, I think that ANYTHING that Jesus is silent about must be okay," that's an even MORE poorly reasoned argument. Absolutely no one I know has made that argument or believes that argument.
Understand the difference?
Let me put it another way:
If I say...
"Marshall has never talked about how wrong it is to eat horse manure," I'm merely stating a fact (I'm relatively sure).
But it does not follow that I think that because Marshall has not stated that that I think Marshall thinks eating horse poo a good thing. And it sure doesn't follow that I'm suggesting that ANYTHING that Marshall hasn't talked about is okay.
Here's a clue: If you're suggesting that people are arguing an obviously goofy argument, it's probably a safe bet that you are wrong.
Neil is wrong on this point, as are his defenders. There's no shame in being mistaken fellas. It happens to me all the time.
The shame is in not being man enough to admit it when you've made a bad argument or to apologize when you've made an unsupportable allegation (ie, "bore false witness").
Dan, on the subject of "unsupportable allegations," you STILL have neither substantiated nor retracted your allegation that I have slandered you or the allegation that the reason I "hound" you is the mere fact that we hold different opinions.
You now write, to Neil and others, "If you're suggesting that people are arguing an obviously goofy argument, it's probably a safe bet that you are wrong."
But you're suggesting precisely what you think Neil is "probably" wrong for suggesting: you're suggesting that Neil's argument is goofy, are you not?
"Your point stands, all right, Neil. On quick sand.
"...to paraphrase Jesus, Don't get stuck on goofy."
You don't have a problem with disdain in the general case; just disdain for your own arguments.
On the subject of your arguments, you write, "If you have something fresh and direct to ask or say, by all means, try. But I'm tired of rehashing the hash."
The problem is, on quite a few issues you haven't been rehashing anything, because you've never addressed my questions clearly and coherently. Not only have you not substantiated your accusation of slander, you haven't explained how the historical Resurrection is "inherent" to Christianity but (somehow) not "indispensible;" you haven't explained how the belief is essential if one could deny it without abandoning the Christian faith; and you haven't explained how passages like I Peter 2 present alternative descriptions of the salvation process which prove the Atonement is mere imagery.
This isn't the first time I've listed these pieces of unfinished business.
About "gay marriage" in particular, I've ALREADY mentioned in this thread -- on July 8, at 6:12 PM -- a topic that you haven't addressed in detail: "compulsory charity," and the argument I created to justify support for the notion.
The only thing you wrote in reply -- before claiming, implausibly, that you just can't multitask -- is that "compulsory charity" isn't voluntary and "gay marriage" is.
That's true, but it's wholly beside the point. The two different activities aren't identical; if they were, I wouldn't be able to make the point I'm trying to make.
It's not that the behaviors are identical, but that the arguments for them are very nearly identical. I deliberately crafted my argument parallel to yours. If your argumentation can be used to justify behavior as absurd as "compulsory charity," your approach is fundamentally flawed.
I'll ask outright: is there a significant difference between the ARGUMENTS, between your argument for "gay marriage" and mine for "compulsory charity"? If not, would you have anything persuasive to say to rebut the argument for the latter, or must you conclude that "compulsory charity" is actually a behavior about which reasonable Christians can disagree?
[continued]
[continued]
Dan, the argument for "compulsory charity" can still be made using what you just posted, your most recent summary of your argument.
1. From careful and prayerful Bible study, I concluded the Bible is wholly silent on the issue of gay marriage and that the 2-3 passages that touch on some form of homosexual behavior are not a blanket condemnation of ALL gay behavior.
2. This neither proved gay marriage right or wrong, just that the Bible was silent on the topic.
3. From THAT point, I DID see positive biblical support for marriage in general. From there, I have used my God-given reasoning to reach my position on a topic on which the Bible is silent.
The Bible is "wholly silent" on compulsory charity, is it not? There is "positive biblical support" for charity in general, yes?
But comparing your argument for "gay marriage" to an argument for the equally ridiculous "compulsory charity" isn't the only response I have.
There is simply the observation that you're question begging.
Indeed, the Bible supports, condones, endorses, and blesses marriage, but the Bible DOES NOT present marriage as an infinitely malleable institution so that, as long as you can redefine a relationship by calling it "marriage," God will bless it.
More to the particular point you're trying to make, THE BIBLE DOES NOT TREAT MARRIAGE AS ANDROGYNOUS.
Instead, the Bible is clear that marriage is the union of man and woman as husband and wife.
This isn't just an example of what marriage CAN BE, it's a declaration of what marriage IS AND MUST BE.
The Bible is likewise clear -- and Jesus Christ Himself taught -- that we were made male and female for a marital relationship that is EMPHATICALLY not androgynous.
"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'?"
God made us male and female so that a man (male) will become one flesh with his wife (female).
There is nothing in the Bible justifying the view that marriage is (or even can be) androgynous, and a lot, starting with Genesis and including the words of Christ Himself, to teach against that view.
The Bible isn't a book of systematic theology, so you won't find a dictionary-style entry on the meaning of marriage, but that fact shouldn't prevent anyone from seeing that the Bible taught that marriage is intrinsically and essentially heterosexual, the union of man and woman, husband and wife.
You might as well argue that, because even a thorough math book doesn't explicitly exclude four-sided triangles, one can use one's God-given reasoning to reach any old position on that topic, despite the math book's defining of what a triangle IS and MUST BE.
Or you might as well argue that, because the Bible doesn't condemn "compulsory charity," one can use one's God-given reasoning to support that inherent contradiction.
Unless your God-given reasoning is deeply flawed, the only explanation for your ignoring the Bible's teachings on what marriage is, can only be willful rebellion against its text. You're looking for loopholes to exploit rather than God's will to obey.
Dan, You said, "IF you can produce EVEN ONE person who makes that argument - JUST ONE - go ahead. I don't believe you can."
I then proceeded to list 4 out of literally thousands of essays that did exactly that.
But, since you seem to be confused as to the point I was making, let's just throw out all the examples I listed but the one:
This site here.
It doesn't matter if you disagree with all other arguments from silence. It doesn't even matter if you disagree with this particular argument from silence. The point is, now you know of someone who makes the argument from silence.
That's the evidence you demanded, and I responded with facts.
Now, I know what you're going to say next:
Just because that web site states a fact, it doesn't mean he's arguing from silence, right?.
Well, Dan, ask yourself this:
What other possible reason would he have to post it on his web site if he isn't attempting to argue from silence? If that's not his point, why bring up what Jesus said or didn't say in the first place?
The intent is clear.
And so is yours. By the way, you have indeed attempted to argue that God blesses homosexuality by stating Jesus never said it, and in this thread no less:
Dan: "It IS true that we often point out that Jesus had nothing to say about gay marriage"
Again I say, why bring it up, if that isn't your point?
You and other homosexual apologists often use the argument from silence to bolster your perverted belief that God approves of homosexuality, specifically.
But, yes, the argument from silence doesn't make the point "Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
It is usually used only with homosexuality.
It is only used when the arguer doesn't have a valid point to bolster his arguments.
It is a default position.
Homosexuals and their apologists, such as Dan and Feodor, and that unnamed other blogger, use the argument from silence specifically to argue that God blesses homosexuality.
When it fails to help them in other moral absolute arguments, they conveniently insist the argument from silence is not a valid argument.
But then, they always return to it to bolster their perverse beliefs that God somehow blesses what He previously stated categorically, is an abomination.
Bottom line: You use it when you believe it helps you, but not when it doesn't.
Jesus didn't say don't pollute. He must approve.
I'm going to celebrate that fact by dumping nuclear waste into my neighbors back yard.
Stupid strawman arguments: NINE
Actual evidence: ZERO
I can do this all day, brothers.
Once more (and for the last time): The point you are STRIVING to provide evidence for is something - ANYTHING - to support this statement...
"If someone mentions THE FACT that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, then they must believe that if Jesus said nothing about an action, it must be okay."
The WHOLE statement, broken down...
"If someone mentions THE FACT that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality...
Well, that has certainly happened and no one is disputing that sometimes people point to THE FACT that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality. So far, so good...
"...then THEY MUST BELIEVE that if Jesus said nothing about an action, it must be okay." [emphasis mine]
THIS is what you have yet to prove. Understand? You can't prove it because no one believes it. It is a straw man.
No one believes that if Jesus said nothing about an action, it must be okay. No one I know of and no one you've cited.
You're helping prove that by providing source after source that DOES NOT say that. I'd say you've got about NINE sources that prove my point and disprove your argument. Only slightly under 7 billion to go.
Keep it up and you can wholly vindicate my position.
And, against my better judgment, I will address one of Mark's questions...
Dan: "It IS true that we often point out that Jesus had nothing to say about gay marriage"
Mark: Again I say, why bring it up, if that isn't your point?
I bring it up because I am a Christian.
I bring it up because Jesus is my Lord.
I bring it up because it is how most of we Christian types interpret the Bible.
(That is to say, we tend to
a. interpret the individual passage through the whole of the Bible,
b. interpret the individual and whole through the specific teachings of Jesus
c. interpret passages after striving to understand context and language...
etc.)
If a topic is addressed in the Bible and it SOUNDS like a passage is saying A, but Jesus says, "Not A," then as a Christian, I tend to lean towards Jesus' position as the clarifying position.
If a topic is not addressed elsewhere in the Bible, but Jesus has something to say about it, again, I lean towards Jesus' understanding.
If a topic is not addressed in the Bible AND Jesus has nothing to say about it, then the topic is not addressed in the Bible. But I want to especially know if Jesus addresses it.
If a topic APPEARS to be addressed once or twice although it's vague, I also want to know to know Jesus' position. If Jesus had nothing to say about it, that doesn't mean the topic is unimportant or that everything that Jesus did not mention is good and holy, but it does mean that Jesus had nothing to say about it. For what that's worth. And, as a Christian, that's worth a lot to me.
It's not an end all/be all to a topic, but it is important to me. It's important to a lot of Christians, I'd suggest.
What would Jesus do, and all that. It's a natural first question to ask on topics on which we aren't clear...
Nay, ye do wrong, Dan, and defraud, Dan, and that your brethren, Dan.
Know ye not, Dan, that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, Dan?
Be not deceived, Dan: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God, Dan.
There's nothing vague or unclear about that unless you are determined to be deliberately obtuse, Dan.
The activity, and the inclination toward it are placed without qualification into the same category as thievery, coveteousness, fornication, idolatry and adultery.
To try to make the point (repeatedly) that these issues are only vaguely mentioned is intellectually dishonest at best.
It's no wonder you will not accept clear evidence of any kind about anything when it is offered you by one of us...
You cannot accept the clear and direct words straight from the Holy Bible.
Silly strawman allegations: TEN
Actual evidence: ZERO
"What would Jesus do, and all that?"
Are you serious?
Jesus would tell us to "Go, and sin no more."
ALL of us.
No matter WHAT our favorite sin is.
That's a pretty lame tactic you got there Dan.
No matter what anyone says to debunk your unsupportable assertions, you just label everything a "silly strawman" and claim victory.
Lame.
Quit making lame straw man arguments and start offering actual proof of your positions or apologies for the misstatements and the problem is resolved.
Straw man arguments: TEN
Red Herring: ONE (or 2, maybe?)
Actual, supportive evidence: ZERO
[red herrings: Claiming that I'm merely defending a "favorite sin" - or that might be another straw man? - and calling my keeping track of the straw man arguments, neither of which provides evidence to the straw man claim of Neil's.]
Dan. You demanded evidence.
I obliged you. I found you a web site that uses the argument from silence.
You said, "that's not what I asked".
Yes, it is.
I win.
You lose.
NEXT!
For the record, here is what I asked, and I quote:
BUT, if you actually think Neil is right, you can prove it easily enough. All you have to do is produce the line where I suggested what I don't believe.
Which I intended (and later amended) to mean, All you have to do is produce the line where ANYONE ANYWHERE has made the argument that Neil offered. That argument, once again, is...
"'Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant.'
THAT is the argument you have to defend. You keep defending a different argument. It doesn't matter if you present one MILLION straw men answers, until you provide proof that someone actually believes Neil's quote above, that will only be one million wrong answers (or answers that support my side of the argument).
Straw man arguments: TEN (or eleven? I'm losing count)
Red herrings: 2-3
Actual evidence: STILL ZERO
"That's a pretty lame tactic you got there Dan.
No matter what anyone says to debunk your unsupportable assertions, you just label everything a "silly strawman" and claim victory."
Yep.
Dan, none of us will ever convince you you are wrong when you keep moving the goalposts.
You wanted proof that anyone uses the argument from silence, and I found it. Now, you want to add qualifications.
Anything to avoid admitting you are wrong.
That's OK, Dan. You can go on thinking you're right, and we will go on knowing you're wrong.
I wouldn't care that you are wrong if you would keep your perverted view of scripture to yourself. You will have to answer to God for your deliberate misinterpretation of God's Word.
But you are teaching this heresy to others and that is just wrong. That's why I keep hounding you. Not for you. You are beyond hope. But for the others you seek to deceive.
Furthermore, you still haven't provided Biblical support for your silly statement that God blesses homosexuality/same sex marriage.
If you can't, you'd better re-evaluate your beliefs, because your eternal soul, and those of everyone you come into contact with, is at stake.
Lame, Dan.
This is like the "Black Knight sceen from Monty Python's "Holy Grail".
You see, Dan wants to argue minutia, because he has lost the over-arching argument we have all been engaged in for months now.
SINCE Dan cannot defend his position on Gay Marriage on Biblical grounds, he is reduced to demanding never ending evidence that he, or someone who agrees with him, or someone who looks like him said these specific five words in this order, and if no one can produce the quote, he points and yells "STRAWMAN!!"...
...When the central position he has decided to take in the main argument is indefensible.
Even if you win the battle of the Strawman, Dan, (which you haven't), you have lost this war.
Guys, even if we were ever able to plant a tiny seed of doubt in Dan's feeble brain about this, it would be rooted out and burned as soon as he hit the church door on Sunday.
THAT'S who we are actually arguing with here. The false teachers who have misled Dan's congregation.
"Black Knight Scene" I should have said...
Dan claims his Dad is conservative. Does he attend Dan's church? Does Dan have these kind of discussions with his Dad? Just wondering.
As a mother, I know that if one of my children turns up with Dan's kind of reasoning I am going to spend a LOT of time in prayer asking God to remove the scales from the eyes and to soften the heart toward the leading of the Holy Spirit. Dan has been at this argument for so long, I fear for his eternal destiny. mom2
I wish to extend welcome to Tug's little sister, who posted a comment I now can't seem to find. I believe she calls herself Daffy, which is a bold thing to do, so I give her props for that. Any little sister of Tug's is a little sister of mine...or something like that. Thanks for reading and feel free to comment anytime.
As to the "strawman" argument:
The first problem is the assumption that...
"Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
...is something that needs to be spoken word for word by someone for it to be a true analysis of that person's belief. Also, it doesn't mean that it is the alpha and omega of that person's belief.
But in YOUR case, Dan, it IS an important part of your whole argument. That because Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality or homosex marriage is required for your argument to have any weight (not that it really gives it any in reality) in order to make the leap to a belief that homosex marriage is in any way blessed by God. Otherwise, all you have is three or so verses that you PRETEND leaves open the possiblitiy of "loving, committed" homosex relationships, though there is nothing in Scripture that in any way gives that suggestion. To be more specific, you haven't shown that if those who practiced some pagan ritual were being addressed, that it was ONLY those manifestations of homosexual behavior to which any verse was referring. In addition, the whole argument that pagan rituals was being addressed is greatly debatable. In other words, it's a stretch and your "teachers" have bought into the invention and passed it on to you. Your reasoning is horribly flawed and on some level, at some point, you've ignored what you know to be true. I suspect you felt guilty over being opposed in such a nonChristian way, that you now have gone totally in the other direction, under some weak psuedo-Christian argument taught by homosexuals and their enablers. Then, coming to know personally some of that persuasion, as you never had previous, you believe that you have now seen the light. You're comfortable now and that feeling of comfort in your new conviction won't allow for the real truth. That's NOT comfortable. In short, you've been totally duped.
Marshall, it's comment #203 on "I Love Who Truly?".
She's pretty cool.
Don't ever make the mistake of letting the name cause you to underestimate her in any way...
Not that you ever would...
Well, the count is still something like
Straw man arguments: TEN
Actual evidence: ZERO
But at least you have quit adding to my side.
Is it safe to assume then that there are going to be NO quotes offered to prove your point that people on "our side" of the question believe that...
"Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
No proof? None whatsoever?
All you had to do is come up with ONE SINGLE quote to at least begin to validate his point and you could not do it, is that what you're saying?
Tis a shame that you can't admit it, though. Humility, in all things, brothers. Humility, it's a good thing.
Marshall--it's a nickname I have carried all my life, so it didn't seem like a bold choice at the time. But thanks.
I was wondering if my comment got lost or something, because no one really responded where I left it. Glad to see I wasn't ignored.
Thanks for welcoming me to your forum too. I don't leave comments anywhere often and most certainly feel dwarfed by Bubba's intellect and debate skills in any discussion. If he's here I usually just observe. I like to watch a good smack-down.
Tug, thanks. That's the second time I've been called cool today. The first time it was a 15-year-old who said it, so I think it may really count.
I haven't had time to read all of this particular thread, but I'm sure alot of ground has been covered and re-covered. Let me speculate a summation, if you will allow me.
Feodor: "You're all stupid and should bow to my superior intellect and just give up."
Mark: "Show me chapter and verse!"
Tug: Quote scripture and show growing impatience. (He's a lot like my dad, who would argue quite the same way.)
Dan: "Strawman! Strawman!"
Bubba:Dan--Smack! Feodor--Smack, Smack!
Dan: But there are conservatives who uuunderstaannd me.
Marshall: Bringing us back around to the actual topic and raising good challenges to Dan & Feodor. Then will have to wait 14 comments before getting anything close to an answer.
Feodor: Big words to look like he knows what he's talking about.
Bubba: Feodor--Smack! Dan--Smack!
Feodor: More bigs words, etc., etc.
and on and on . . .
Have I missed anything? :)
Dan, the link I provided is proof that gays use the argument from silence to support their otherwise unsupportable argument that Homosexuality is approved by God.
How do you know he doesn't use the same technique to suggest everything Jesus didn't say is morally permissible and/or important?
It is clear he uses the argument from silence to justify his perversion. Why wouldn't he use it to support anything that's not Biblical, if he is so inclined? Once you start lying, you have to continue to lie to cover up your lies.
And you use the same argument for your support of that specific perversion.
You have to use it! You have no other argument! It is the only argument you have! Everything else is dishonest. No one can honestly say Jesus said something about Homosexuality because He didn't.
It is, however, specifically mentioned in the Bible as an abomination, but you just dismiss and ignore that point, don't you?
You just aren't intellectually honest enough to admit it.
Feodor IS Shakespeare's "poor player".
Besides, Dan, you're splitting hairs.
The original topic you are objecting to is Neil's (and my) observation that Homosexuals use the argument from silence to support their perversion, specifically, the argument that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.
You said you don't know of anyone who does that, but, so you wouldn't appear stupid, you added the caveat that the argument from silence necessarily has to include everything else Jesus didn't mention that is impermissible, which is impossible to verify, because even those who believe that wouldn't dare to admit it, knowing their argument would be destroyed quite easily.
But that caveat is and was not implied in the original introduction to the topic. You added it just to argue against the truth of the statement.
And you know it. Stop playing word games and just be honest.
In the end, you know homosexuals often use the argument from silence to defend their perverse lifestyle choice, (and that was the point) but you aren't intellectually honest enough to admit it.
But, you will continue to use it because it's the only argument (although considerably weak) you have.
Good grief, Dan's entire argument is an argument from silence. If I had the time and inclination, I would go back through the archives at Dan's (I'm thinking last December or so.) and paste the quotes. However, it wouldn't make any difference.
Daffy, you pretty much pegged it...
...And through night and day, and in and out of weeks, and almost over a year...
Dan may not want to hear what we say, but he will defend, to the death, his right to be wrong.
I am disappointed that this discussion has deteriorated into an endless exchange of "IS NOT!...IS TOO!!".
But that is what happens whenever Dan is backed into a corner, and is prevented from redirecting or changing the subject.
Mark's constant demand for Chapter and Verse keeps bringing the focus of the discussion back to the fact that Dan cannot produce any evidence that his position is Biblical.
So Dan accuses the opposition of bearing false witness or slander, declares that he is being treated unfairly, demands apologies, retractions, and evidence.
And no matter what evidence he is presented, he ignores it all and claims victory.
It's childish, really.
Ridiculous.
Does anyone reading this besides Feodor or maybe Marty who thinks Dan might be right about any of this?
That his tactics are honest?
That he has made any real, supportable points?
Has he won ONE SINGLE ROUND?
Really?
OK couldn't sleep. so we get one Dan quote.
"It nowhere in any of its passages talks about gay marriage one way or the other. So, in that regards, we are both arguing from silence."
But he's not actually arguing from silence, or is he?
And one Walter Wink quote.
"I have long insisted that the issue is one of hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it."
Enjoy
?
Do you all have trouble reading or understanding words?
HERE is the quote that Neil wrote, claiming this is what we argue...
"Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
WHERE in that quote is there ANYTHING about "arguing from silence"?
Do you understand the words that Neil wrote? He said that we believe that anything that Jesus did not specifically condemn is okay. THAT is what is wrong with his argument.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WHATEVER JESUS DID NOT TEACH IS OKAY.
NO ONE BELIEVES THAT WHATEVER JESUS DID NOT TEACH IS OKAY.
IF you wish to prove Neil correct, THEN YOUR TASK IS TO
FIND
SOMEONE
WHO
BELIEVES
THAT
WHAT
JESUS
DID
NOT
TEACH
IS
OKAY.
THAT is what you have to find.
Tell you what, bruddas and sisters. I'm going to go ahead and call the game and save you further embarrassment.
Final score...
straw man arguments: ~FIFTEEN
Actual evidence: ZERO
Better luck next time, and thanks for proving my point.
Tug, you left out one of Dan's tactics, that Craig's comment pointed out when he said:
"It nowhere in any of its passages talks about gay marriage one way or the other. So, in that regards, we are both arguing from silence."
But he's not actually arguing from silence, or is he?"
It's the way Dan agrees and disagrees with the same statement in the same comment, ie, Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination but the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is an abomination.
(That's the one I love!)
Or, Leviticus says homosexuality is wrong, but God blesses same sex marriage.
Or, God did order the slaughter of every first born son in Egypt, but God would never order the killing of innocent children!
By the way, I visited Craig's blog where he and Dan engaged in a lengthy discussion over homosexuality, and Dan repeatedly used the argument from silence. All through it!
So, in addition to the other things, Dan is a liar, but Dan is not a liar. Don't believe it? Just ask him!
Complete score (roughly, I lost count of some of the fallacies)
Straw man arguments: SIXTEEN
Red Herrings: SEVEN-EIGHT
Ad Hominem attacks: TWENTY or so
Actual evidence: ZERO.
Sorry, Dan. That doesn't wash. A fact isn't a lie just because you say it's a lie.
Straw man arguments: SEVENTEEN
Red Herrings: SEVEN-EIGHT
Ad Hominem attacks: TWENTY or so
Actual evidence: ZERO.
Are you having fun, Dan?
Daffy (and how appropriate that seems),
To which big words demonstrating a "superior intellect" are you referring?
But you are right about the smacking: all done with an empty hand, and empty argument... including by yourself.
A little a dis anna little a dat...
Dan prefers to focus on a specific statement worded in a specific way to make his bones in this sidebar argument. As Neil's statement is a more general version of the one to which Mark refers, that is, the argument from silence, Dan can score more points. I believe Neil's statement to be an "accurate generalization", but at this point, I'm willing to concede just to move on. Dan DOES argue from silence and on this issue of homosexual behavior, it allows him more ammo to support a belief that some form of the behavior is permissable and blessed. It's not that it is the ONLY point upon which he bases his argument, it is one of them. BUT, enough of this...
If Bubba and Dan are interested, Craig is still willing to host a debate between the two of you dedicated to the issues between you. He re-iterated this on the "Got Milk?" post, but I mention it here in case neither of the invitees go back that far to continue previous discussions.
Been very busy lately and have had far less time for blogging. Hard to keep up with all the commentary, but after a few more chores, I'll try to respond to a few comments, particularly at the "I Love Who Truly" post.
Good points and evidence, Mark and Dan.
Then again, Dan is using all caps and repeating his distractions ad nauseum so he must be right.
"Daffy (and how appropriate that seems)"
Always taking the high road, aren't ya, Father LowClass?
MA said...
Dan prefers to focus on a specific statement worded in a specific way to make his bones in this sidebar argument.
Brother Marshall,
I focused on Neil's bad logic (and the supporters of that bad logic) for a reason...
If we can't agree on some basics (DOES someone argue Neil's argument or do they NOT?), it is an indication to me that there is a lack of understanding of basic language concepts, logic and problems with the thinking process.
If some are unable to successfully process simple sentences, then how are we to move on to more complex theories and beliefs? The problems demonstrated here by several indicate a severe language/logic processing problem and suggests to me that there may not be much point in continuing conversations. It also goes a long way towards explaining so many of our conversations here.
I have responded to Craig, indicating that I'm not sure there is much point to his proposal (for exactly some of the problems above), but I am willing to give it a try. I have suggested that we break it down to little bits and bites at a time, though, to better ensure the discussion process is proceeding rationally.
Dan,
As I looked over the comments once again, and it's getting harder to find the beginning of a specific digression, it seems to me that Neil's statement is meant to be read as something that is stated categorically by anyone on you side of the issue, but rather, it is a conclusion drawn from the use of "arguments from silence" upon which your arguments so much rely. That is to say, the "argument from silence" came first, along with similar arguments in support of abortion, and from observations of such arguments, Neil has drawn the conclusion that
"- Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
is a broadly drawn description of "progressive" interpretation of Scripture. I think it's also a bit of a mockery in that if one can justify some behaviors with the "argument from silence" perspective, then it's a simple extra step to say
"- Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
to justify anything else, not that you specifically would. So to expect anyone to provide proof that anyone who believes as you do about specific behaviors has ever spoken those words is not really required for it to be a reasonable conclusion. Perhaps better than demanding proof for something never said, your own demand that clarification be sought might have been the better route for you to take.
Marshall said...
"- Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
is a broadly drawn description of "progressive" interpretation of Scripture.
No. No, it is not. Find a progressive who advocates that and provide proof.
And I'm not looking for these specific words. I'm looking for the IDEA. Find someone who believes that "whatever Jesus did not condemn is therefore okay."
The thing is, NO ONE believes that idea - however it is expressed. Certainly no progressives I've talked with or read. In fact, I've certainly never seen it suggested anywhere.
THAT is the idea I object to and THAT is what no one has provided proof for.
That you all can't understand the difference between "arguing from silence" to what Neil has said is staggering in its implications.
I respond with the tone given, in order not to assume that the writer is capable of others.
That's why I match your tone, too.
Nice try, Feo. As I said at "I Love Who Truly", where your comment belongs,
"your attitude and tone have been insulting and condescending from the first moment you've made yourself known to us"
I don't believe it was here that I first became aware of you. It's a lie to pretend that I "started it" and it's childish as well. In addition, it's hardly proper for a priest of any stripe to take an eye-for-an-eye approach, don't you think? Or does your living bible now say otherwise?
Don't bother responding to this comment here. Take it back to the other post if you must.
Feodor doesn't match anyone's tone but his own, which has been snide condescention tinged with hatred everywhere I have ever seen him comment on anything.
His weak attempt at an attack on Daffy shows that his assumer doen't work very well.
You will never in your life meet a more pure or innocent soul, or one more filled with love, than hers.
She serves God with her whole being, and without apology, and He blesses her for it.
As do I.
I have said before, and will say again now...
If I knew nothing of Christianity but the example set by Feodor, I would want nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Nice job, brother.
"snide condescension", I should have said...
Don't worry, Tug. Only jerks criticize typos.
Amen to the rest of your comment.
If I knew nothing of Christianity but the example set by Feodor, I would want nothing to do with it whatsoever.
You realize, of course, that this same thing can be said about many of us?
Unfortunately.
Perhaps that will inform at least the tone of our next comment or post.
For the liars and deniers and hypocritical examples of badly motivated Christians and withered Americans:
This is Daffy, with whom no previous exchange between us exists, her very first address to me:
"Feodor: "You're all stupid and should bow to my superior intellect and just give up....
Feodor: Big words to look like he knows what he's talking about....
Feodor: More bigs words, etc., etc."
Now no big words can be remembered, and the common sense that her attitude will simply draw the same can't be acknowledged?
Pathetic, neandethalic, and fairly patronizing of Daffy herself.
If Tug were the only thing I knew about being a human being, I'd be a polar bear... despite the dangers of global warming.
By analogy, I take my tone from St. Paul in his address to the church of the Galations... and for the same reason.
Again, Feodor, Daffy has read the entire discussion thread starting with "Got Milk" and ending up here...
It's not like the exchange happened in a vaccuum.
YOU ARE A FLAMING JERK to everyone you interact with all over the internet, and Daffy has seen it all.
SHE KNOWS what YOU are...
YOU don't know anything about her.
"She started it!!" don't fly here.
Why don't you at least try to grow up just a little?
And there's no such thing as Global Warming, Feodor, so you'd be perfectly safe being a polar bear.
I take my tone with you from the example set by the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter chapters 1 and 2.
And for the same reasons.
And Dan...
"You realize, of course, that this same thing can be said about many of us?"
Quit pitching me softballs.
That's a cheap trick, and you know it.
If Feodor was a polar bear, I'd take up hunting polar bears for fun and profit.
If Feodor was a polar bears, the other polar bears would kill him.
Human beings are the only species that tolerates and preserves weakness and stupidity...
Marshall-All,
Dan, thanks for your response, it can get set up however you guys want to, and I hope to establish those kinds of ground rules early.
Having said that, I'll be out of this dealing with the sudden death of my father, and all that entails. I'd appreciate your prayers, in this time.
Thanks,
Daffy, I assume, is woman enough to choose when and where she enters. And how.
It's the "how" I am responding to.
And the more you guys speak for her, the more patronizing you are and the weaker you portray her to be.
Feodor,
Daffy has not entered the fray more malevolently than have you when you first made yourself known to us. Rather, she has entered, as is her right, when she felt so compelled to do so, and sized you up fairly accurately, if not hit your nail squarely on the head. She has stated that she has been reading my blog for a while, but no one need read from the beginning of time to get fix on who and what you are. You broadcast loudly your unChristian tone.
And regarding that tone, you take it not from Paul, but from the spirit of a small spoiled child not used to having his arrogance so roundly rejected. The arrogance brought with you.
And BTW, Paul tells us in Galatians that we are to gently restore those caught in sin. I can recall no time where you have implied a desire to do so for those caught in the sin of homosexuality. Instead, you pretend such behavior is no longer sinful. No one who died for us and rose three days later ever talked to you if that's what you believe.
Here's a suggestion: back off and reintroduce yourself and pretend you never came here acting like the asshole you present yourself as and act like a nice guy, and I can pretty much promise you that you will feel a different tone from all of us who have been insulted by your personality. Continue being combative, and three possibilities are likely:
-Return fire
-Ignoring your presence
-Deleting your comments
I don't mind a feisty conversation. A little snark doesn't hurt anyone. But you're a jerk and you seem intent on making sure we all know it. OK. We've got it. All you get now is one of the three above.
My prayers are with you and your family, Craig, at this time of loss...
Dan,
Thanks, I appreciate it.
I did not respond to you, Feodor, first and foremost because I have a life and I did not have time to go back and copy enough comments to satisfy your insatiable desire for proof of something that anyone can clearly see.
Of course, I expected as much when I left the comment. You're way too predictable if you ask me.
And just so you know, insult and call names and speculate all you want, I'll not spend much time on you Feodor. What you have to say DOES NOT MATTER TO ME.
"I'll not spend much time on you Feodor. What you have to say DOES NOT MATTER TO ME."
Daffy, you have chosen wisely. Ignoring people like him is a great time-saver.
"Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant."
Once again, of course that is a fair summary of the argument from silent by liberals. If that wasn't their point, they would have no reason to mention Jesus' silence on the topic.
I repeat: If their point about referring to Jesus (alleged) silence on a topic wasn't to minimize or eliminate the topic as sinful, then why bring it up?
It is pretty obvious to anyone not wedded to opposing Jesus on the issue of marriage and human sexuality, and even to the many pro-gay theologians who concede that the Bible teaches the behavior is a sin (those folks just think the Bible is wrong or that God changed his mind later).
Marshall, regarding you point about Galatians, I understand the role of ministry for all us to gently point out in love when our brother or sister is doing wrongly or thinking badly and to ask the same. Would that the house of gentlemen on C Street had been more pointed with Governor Sanford and Steve McNair's friends with him.
But that is not why I raise Galatians.
In Galatians, Paul is defending his own ministry to a church --likely of Celtic peoples, thus the name for the region, Gellia -- comprised of some pretty unruly Christians who have veered from what Paul taught them to follow a later preachers, Judaizers, it seems. These Judaizers convinced them that Paul's Gospel was too soft and that the Mosaic law was completely in effect for Gentiles (ala Bubba, EL, and yourself, apparently, though you may not like to think it, it may be an undesired consequence of how you favor the law in the OT).
Paul rails at them for abandoning him and his message to follow Christ in the fruit of the Spirit and not the law.
He writes, as all students of the NT are told, with a Greek that bears the "white hot heat" of his anger. He is really pissed off at them, but in service of his love for them and his desire that they realized what liberation has come to them from Christ's gospel and how they have polluted it by falling backwards into the old covenant. They need not be circumcised. They need not follow the old laws.
They need to follow Christ by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty nervy living. Too nervy for many.
Are you Irish, too?
Feodor,
Notice your deleted comments. You seem to think you have any say in how this blog is run and how people can behave. As host, that's MY job. I also reserve the right to act in any way that I please. This is not a democracy here. It is my kingdom. I am king. I am a benevolent king as evidenced by the fact that you are even welcomed here at all. Daffy has indeed given an accurate synopsis of what she sees in this blog. That that synopsis does not critique you kindly is a result of YOUR attitude and tone and you have only yourself to blame for that. As the priest you claim to be, few would see you as having the right to play "eye for an eye". Expectations would naturally be much higher of any priest, just as some expect better of all of us who claim to be Christian. Daffy is just another on a growing list of visitors who have identified you as especially obnoxious. As has been mentioned by Tug, Mark, Bubba, Neil, and myself, to name just a few, you have been a jerk from the first and without provocation by any of us. If you think you can just drop in and be a creep because you found a blog where snark exists, you are wrong. Snark is something that develops between commenters with a history. You may recall Eric mentioning the same thing and defending our tone with Dan. Dan's a long time opponent. YOU are not. YOU came in swinging in a very unChristian, unpriestly manner. YOU have no standing or right to expect others to act first in any way. It is encumbent upon YOU to seek our respect by acting respectfully from here on. As I said earlier, you have three likely expectations should you insist on being a jerk.
In the meantime, you'll notice your last comment was left untouched. It represents a idea of what is acceptable from you. Yes. YOU are being singled out because YOUR behavior has demanded it.
Neil repeated the straw man, saying...
"If their point about referring to Jesus (alleged) silence on a topic wasn't to minimize or eliminate the topic as sinful, then why bring it up?..."
And I have already answered that, saying that, being Christians, asking What would Jesus do? is a very natural first question.
No one - "no one," as in ZERO human people in the whole real world in THIS dimension since the beginning of time until this very moment; you know, NO ONE - has EVER said that is our reason for supporting gay marriage and certainly no one has suggested (in any form whatsoever) that anything Jesus has not talked about is okay.
His argument remains a straw man, no matter how many times he repeats it's not. No matter how many times his comrades repeat that it's not.
No one believes what he said. No one.
Repeat it again, it will remain a straw man. As evidenced by your inability to offer EVEN ONE bit of proof.
Marshall, are you wanting me to stop pointing out the obvious? Glad to do so, but for consistency's sake, I'd ask that you ask "your team" to quit repeating the straw man assertion.
Feodor has behaved in an obnoxious way, but no one else?
Mote. Plank. Etc.
More fire for Dan's pretend straw:
From http://www.leaderu.org/jhs/dallas.html --
======
Religious Argument #1:
"Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality."
This argument is a favorite at gay parades. Invariably, when the "gay Christian" movement is represented, someone in their group will hold up a sign saying, "WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY: ________________." The idea, of course, is that if Jesus did not specifically forbid a behavior, then the behavior must not have been important to Him. Stretching the point further, this argument assumes if Jesus was not manifestly concerned about something, we should not be, either.
[Rev.] Troy Perry [The founder of the Metropolitan Community Churches -- all gay, all the time], (as most gay Christian leaders do) makes much of this argument based on silence:
As for the question, 'What did Jesus say about homosexuality?", the answer is simple. Jesus said nothing. Not one thing. Nothing! Jesus was more interested in love.[67]
So, according to the argument of silence, if Jesus did not talk about it, neither should we.
====
We could come up with example after example. Of course Blog Stalker Dan won't be swayed by this. He'll just think that by saying "straw man #X" that people will think, "Gee, Mark, Neil and the rest keep pointing out facts about people using the "silence" argument to imply that Jesus didn't care about homosexuality or that it is OK.
But gosh, Dan keeps calling it a straw man. He must be right."
Uh, probably not.
Prediction: 10 more fluffy comments from Blog Stalker Dan to try and bury the facts. It is his style.
"Feodor has behaved in an obnoxious way, but no one else?"
Dan. Are you going to join in the same game with Feodor? As I said, Feodor has been a jerk from the moment he first made himself known to us. The first time wasn't here. I don't recall where I first noticed him, but each of us on this side of the aisle have all said the same about him. I personally know of no one who started blogging with an attitude and personality as annoying and insulting as his (except for a few really troublesome trolls who just think saying crap on peoples' blogs is a fun time).
As I've said, I have no problem with snark. I have no problem with someone cracking wise. Generally, a history is developed before the typical visitor takes such liberties. (Unless one is truly clever---a huge gamble if one is not careful) But Feodor has been an arrogant, condescending and insulting jerk from day one. You have shown less patience on your own blog for any rightwingers who crack wise. I let people expose themselves and he has exposed himself as a jerk. It's just that simple.
Neil said...
Prediction: 10 more fluffy comments from Blog Stalker Dan to try and bury the facts. It is his style.
How about just one more? Reasonable people got the point a long time ago and, unfortunately, you and your associates are either incapable of understanding the English language and basic logic or you're just twisted.
Straw man arguments: EIGHTEEN
Red Herrings: SEVEN-EIGHT
Ad Hominem attacks: TWENTY-FIVE or so
Actual evidence: STILL ZERO
ha, you fellas just so KWAAAZY. Lord, help us all.
Fuck you and your hypocritical false Christian coat, Marshall.
You are afraid... and I can see it.
Daffy had snark, not a comment, and that you can't acknowledge that is due to your dishonorable practice, demonstrating your dishonorable practice of faith.
And why does it seem that whenever Neil gets smudged, you get all flagrant?
Like Alan, I sense a little homo-eroticism here.
Neil, with all due respect, I have to agree with Dan on this one.
See, you and I were addressing the argument from silence only as it pertains to homosexuality. Dan was addressing it as it pertains to all things Jesus didn't say.
Of course, Dan often used the old argument from silence to defend his acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle many times before we broached the subject, but when you added the words, "Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant", you inadvertently gave Dan a straw to grasp at so he could accuse us of painting all abhorrent behavior with a broad brush.
When, in fact, that wasn't your point and Dan knows that. Nevertheless, Dan chose to ignore the rest of your point to focus his debating tactics on the first part of your three part point, "In the Bible, Jesus did not specifically condemn abortion or homosexual behavior.
- Therefore, abortion and homosexual behavior are morally permissible or unimportant."
So, in that sense Dan is correct that no one argues that whatever Jesus didn't specifically condemn is morally permissible and unimportant.
However, Dan completely ignored the fact that we were specifically talking about homosexuality and the homosexual apologists use of the argument from silence, and instead, focused on your unfortunate misstatement.
So, to return this discussion onto the right track, let me rephrase Neil's point:
In the Bible, Jesus did not specifically condemn abortion or homosexual behavior.
- Therefore, abortion and homosexual behavior are morally permissible or unimportant.
(Continued)
That, Dan, is the argument from silence Neil and I were talking about.
I agree that no one (to our knowledge)has ever made the argument from silence to justify ALL sinful behavior.
But, they have indeed made use of the argument from silence to support their claims that God blesses homosexuality. I'm sure, since you have used that argument yourself on several occasions, that you will agree with me on that point.
OK? Now that we have that straightened out, let me ask you this question:
Dan, besides the fact that Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, do you have any other Biblical evidence that supports your claim that God blesses Same sex marriage? And if so, cite book, chapter and verse, so that we homophobes may be as enlightened as you.
You know, something that doesn't constitute a logical fallacy?
All this is a moot point, of course, unless you believe that God and Jesus are two separate entities, and that the Bible was 1. mistaken,
2. wrong,
3. lying, or
4. all of the above
When it says "all scripture is God breathed", and "I and My Father are One".
Which means, simply, that Jesus, in His manifestation as God, wrote all of the Bible, therefore, when God said, "You shall not lie with mankind as you lie with a woman. it is an abomination," Jesus in fact, was the One that wrote that particular law.
Or more simply put: God is Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, whatever God said, Jesus said.
But, Dan, ignore those two biblical facts (which I know you already do)and just answer the question.
Here is another Biblical fact that has no doubt escaped Dan:
God is Love, but Love is not God.
Try to wrap your mind around that, Dan!
It is my contention, so far non refuted, that Homosexuals make a God of their perversion, thus, when they hear or repeat the phrase,"God is Love", they misconstrue it to mean, in their twisted minds, "Love is God".
But the two terms are not interchangeable.
With that in mind, it is easy to see how they might come to believe God blesses their perversion.
But they are wrong. And so is Dan.
Marshall, I continue to have limited opportunities to comment for the time being, but I remain interested in discussing any issue with Dan Trabue in a fair forum, here, at Craig's, or elsewhere.
(Obviously Craig as more important things to focus on right now.)
If I don't respond to a comment quickly enough, you have my email address.
Now, Dan:
So far as I can tell, you haven't written ONE WORD in response to my most recent substantial comments to you.
You claim to be concerned about "unsupportable allegations," and I reminded you of your own thus-far unsubstantiated allegations about me. You suggest that Neil and others are "probably" wrong for treating others' arguments as goofy, when you have done precisely the same.
You asked for "something fresh and direct to ask or say," and I reminded you that there are several threads that you continue to ignore -- such as my point regarding "compulsory charity", which is most relevant to the subject at hand, and which I rephrased in response to your more recent arguments.
And I noted that your observation that the Bible is silent on "gay marriage" is question-begging, because it presumes that the Bible is unclear about what marriage is.
It seems you're more eager to keep childish and unsubstantiated tallies of our supposed offenses, than you are to actually respond to substance THAT YOU REQUESTED.
It seems that you're more interested in focusing on Neil's comment, than you are to responding to substance you requested. You now appear to be using that comment as some sort of proof that some of your opponents are "unable to successfully process simple sentences," with a likely goal of invoking this comment of Neil's as some sort of hurdle to ascertain the moral reasoning skills of everyone else -- JUST as you did with a comment of Mark's, not too many threads back.
I'll ask again: is there a significant difference between the ARGUMENTS, between your argument for "gay marriage" and mine for "compulsory charity"? If not, would you have anything persuasive to say to rebut the argument for the latter, or must you conclude that "compulsory charity" is actually a behavior about which reasonable Christians can disagree?
An answer would be appreciated, sooner rather than later.
I've answered before and I've answered again, over at Craig's (or will, as soon as I look it up and post my answer that I've already given).
Dan, I'll continue the discussion in Craig's thread, here, as I have time.
For the moment I'll note that I've already addressed the response that you now reiterate.
"The only thing you wrote in reply -- before claiming, implausibly, that you just can't multitask -- is that 'compulsory charity' isn't voluntary and 'gay marriage' is.
"That's true, but it's wholly beside the point. The two different activities aren't identical; if they were, I wouldn't be able to make the point I'm trying to make.
"It's not that the behaviors are identical, but that the arguments for them are very nearly identical. I deliberately crafted my argument parallel to yours. If your argumentation can be used to justify behavior as absurd as 'compulsory charity,' your approach is fundamentally flawed." [emphasis added]
You act as if I never made this point the first time around.
You now write:
"You DO make the point that it is fairly easy to argue just about anything using the Bible, even arguing points that aren't in the Bible (such as gay marriage or compulsory charity)."
But that's not the point I'm making.
I'm not simply saying that it's easy to argue just about anything using the Bible; I'm saying it's easy to argue just about anything USING YOUR QUESTION-BEGGING APPROACH TO THE BIBLE. The problem isn't that the Bible's unclear -- it's not -- but rather that your approach is flawed.
If YOUR APPROACH can be used to prove anything from the Bible, then YOUR APPROACH isn't trustworthy.
FWIW, this is actually probably not the best timing for our dialogue to begin at earnest at Craig's, in part because I've had to reformat my hard drive at home, and because I have family over.
I **WILL** respond to that thread as soon as I can, but that may take 'til this time next week.
I do appreciate everyone's patience in the meantime.
MA, Bubba, Dan,
Great Idea. I'll be back at it nest week.
A personal comment, The last two days have been an amazing tribute to an amazing man. I will not soon forget all of the wonderful words, stories etc. Christian community is such an amazing thing. Seeing it at it's best should be enough to convince anyone that something out of the ordinary is happening. Thanks again for your condolences.
Post a Comment