This article discusses one Frank Kameny, one of the first to push for special rights for homosexuals. He apparently was a gov't worker who was fired for "simply being a homosexual". I don't know how I could find the original documents describing the circumstances surrounding his termination, or if such even exist today. I will say that if he was indeed fired for "simply being a homosexual", then indeed his firing was unjust. Somehow, I can't help but feel that there must be more to it, though considering the times, perhaps not. But I also can't help but feel that all pro-homo elements would prefer that the story be no more than is advertised as it helps them maintain their phoney victimhood status.
Now, let me elaborate for just a minute on my last statement. The homo-as-victim ploy is a favored one by the activist. Indeed, Kameny states,
“Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot. He should repent of his sinful homophobia. He should atone for that sin, And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4000 years.”
I guess God should also atone for all suffering endured by thieves over that same time period. What a mean guy that God Almighty is!
Franky also insists bigotry is a sin. Funny how atheists have no trouble defining behaviors as "sinful", but aside from that, I'm kinda bigoted against thieves. Is that sinful? But though thieves can resist the urge to steal, so of course can homos resist the urge to have sex with members of the same sex. So bigotry against bad behaviors and the people who engage in them is not sinful in the least, but actually beneficial to society. Indeed, it enhances the character of our culture to have citizens holding each other accountable through our laws and customs. Keeps us all on our best behavior.
Frank and his friends want us to allow one particular bad behavior continue and worse, insist that we all ackowledge it as "good". Imagine that. Taking from the REAL civil rights movement the expression, "Black is Beautiful" and changing it to, "Gay is Good", he is one of the first to take this perversion and insist on this moral absolute. But again, it's like saying "Kleptomania is good". What nonsense. Imagine someone saying "Straight is good". The best we can say is that straight is normal, that straight is how we were born to be. But one cannot qualify it morally as "good".
Later in the article, we get to the point where it speaks of Barry Obama's lauding of this guy as a true civil rights pioneer. Please. All those who think Barry really supports traditional marriage must find a way to resolve such a statement and other words of encouragement to the homo community. Personally, I doubt Barry would even care to think about homo issues. I'm sure he finds it all a big pain in the neck. I would wager that in reality he doesn't care about them at all, but that wouldn't help in the polls for it to be known. (I'd also wager that this is true for damned near every hetero person alive. But reading hearts and minds is so hard.)
Anyway, I find it very difficult to give kudos to someone who can be described as one of the first to push for all this homo stuff that has caused so much trouble in our society. Some will see that as hateful. Heck, they think it's hateful to use the abbreviation "homo", but I've come to accept that from those who really don't care about homosexuals enough to do what's right by them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
Being a pioneer in advancing sin is nothing to reward or be proud of.
And good catch about the inconsistency of an atheist making moral claims. If he godless worldview is correct then there are no absolute morals, just whatever society comes up with. Gay-promoting societies would be no better or worse than gay-bashing societies.
But of course he is an atheist. He's a Romans 1 poster boy. God lists many sins symptomatic of those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but abandoning one's natural function and having sex with the same gender is used as exhibit A. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.
Name one absolute moral that Christianity brought new to the table.
Feodor returns after a long absence only to leave a goofy and irrelevant question in his typically cryptic and arrogant manner. That's too bad. I so much hoped to welcome him back, but if he's only gonna act in his typical manner, I'd rather he not return at all. There's room for everyone and every thought here at Marshall Art's. Very little for jerks. That's MY job.
Feodor's post is EXTREMELY relevant. It has been suggested here numerous times as 4simpsons does that there are no morals without belief in God. So answer the question.
Jim,
You're making demands now, Jimmy-boy? Who do you think you are? Feodor?
His question is totally irrelevant and quite stupid. What does Christianity have to do with morals being absolute since morals were already in place before Christ walked the earth? And I don't know that anyone's ever said that there is no morals without belief in God, but that atheists can't claim a source of morals since other than God.
Feodor's question does not relate to the article or my post OR Neil's comment, so how is it relevant in any way? The point being made has to do with an atheist homo dictating what is or isn't a sin. If you're still missing that, let me know. I'll try again.
I'm with Jim and Feodor. Neil is making the argument that "godless worldviews" have "no absolute morals." It's a preposterous position, not borne out by reality, but more of political and cultural hunches/biases.
"Feodor's question does not relate to the article or my post OR Neil's comment, so how is it relevant in any way?"
Most of the comments on this entire blog are irrelevant to the posted topic.
Straw man city. No one light a match! And yes, completely off topic as well, driven as usual by pettiness and bitterness.
No God (whether the God of the Bible or not) = no true morality. Yes, there would be a thing we call morality, but it would really just be dictated by whoever is in power or majority rule, which is to say it isn't absolute.
It would mean that slavery used to be moral until it was illegal. It would mean abortion used to be immoral but now it is moral.
Real laws require a real lawgiver. Chemical reactions do not create transcendent morality. Even though atheists can't go 3 sentences without making moral claims they have no logical grounding to do so.
People who read carefully will know that I've never claimed that atheists don't have any morals. I know they have some and I know where they got them. Their worldview just can't explain their grounding.
Now, how about addressing Marshall's post?
BTW, my response was a courtesy to Jim, who I am not familiar with. I am familiar with Feodor and Dan and will not waste my time with them. Their logical fallacies and petty and bitter foolishness are encouraging in the sense that they demonstrate how we are opposites, spiritually speaking, so I do appreciate that clarity. I hold to orthodox, Biblical Christianity and am glad when fakes are transparent in revealing that they do not. I'm glad to have the proper enemies reveal themselves with their follow up comments.
You misunderstand, Neil. There was no bitterness in my short post. Just agreement that it is a legitimate question.
For my part, I agree that the best morality comes from God - the best understanding of what is right and wrong comes when we begin with a Creator.
The thing is, I think even atheists can and do have absolute morals, which is what you claimed. No pettiness or bitterness. Just disagreement. Understand?
"Now, how about addressing Marshall's post?"
Why? It's no use.
Because it always comes down to this:
"I hold to orthodox, Biblical Christianity and am glad when fakes are transparent in revealing that they do not. I'm glad to have the proper enemies reveal themselves with their follow up comments."
"If [t]he godless worldview is correct then there are no absolute morals, just whatever society comes up with."
"Real laws require a real lawgiver."
Name one absolute moral that the Christian God brought new to the table.
I don't know what's more full of "logical fallacies and petty and bitter foolishness" than Neil's pseudo-intellectualism and blind faith.
By the way, it's the pseudo-intellectualism and blind faith that has so worn away trust in letting "Christians" have an influential say in the ethics and morals of the marketplace.
You've done more than fail the faith - you've done in the rest of us.
As for Dan's, "For my part, I agree that the best morality comes from God - the best understanding of what is right and wrong comes when we begin with a Creator."...
I'm not sure what evidence he can point to. History only tells us that executive governments started investing individuals with protected rights AFTER the Renaissance.
No Christian nation, no Christian government made anything of an improvement until Enlightenment ideas (from deists, agnostics and atheists) entered out body politic.
Rather than decrying atheism, Neil should celebrate the best of atheist moralists, for without their awakening insights, Christianity would still be sleeping while slavery churned on.
"Name one absolute moral that Christianity brought new to the table."
Here's why this question is incredibly stupid to be asked by a guy who calls himself trained for Christian ministry: Christ is God. God always was. God created everything including morality since everything is dependent upon Him. So, from the first of all things, God's morality existed and was laid upon the table of all things. Christianity is the logical and God-ordained continuation of what had gone before. It was not a new religion but the same religion that had been practiced by God's chosen people. All moral law is based on God's concept of right/wrong and it is so obvious (that is, what is moral is so obvious)that even non-believers cannot help but be compelled to adhere to most of it. A better question to ask would be what great moral absolute did atheism bring to the table?
But hey, false priests have a hard time with the concept of morality.
Okay, Mr. Magoo, I'll play but you're not going to see reason since that's not in your skill set. Atheists who brought new absolute morals to the world's table:
The extension of rights to a universal basis, abolishing descending order of rights based on social role: The Declaration of the Rights of Man, France 1789 - precedes the Bill of Rights - and is itself based on the writings of John Locke and the godless Jean Jacques Rousseau, two men you'd never let play in your sandbox - and yet they are hugely responsible for the your having a sandbox to play in at all.
Tadaa!
You mean this John Locke?
"Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.1"
But even before your beloved godless Rousseau, there was the Magna Carta, which also influenced our founders.
More importantly, your offering does not show any sign of including morals that did not already exist. The point Neil was making, and that I was seconding, was that all morality existed before mankind. Thus, no atheist can claim that they don't need God to decide what is moral since most of what they call moral was moral already. The rest is fluid and based on their personal whims. Just like you think your attitude and demeanor is morally acceptable, when in fact it is repugnant and unChristian despite your inability and/or unwillingness to amend it. So as to who I might let play in my sandbox, YOU'RE here, aren't you? If I let YOU in, I'm likely to let anyone in.
So, bottom line, you once again prove you're not all that. And that's as plain as the point atop your head.
Yes, the John Locke who did not believe Christ was divine, and who said all revelation should be evaluated by reason before being accepted:
"Traditional revelation can never produce as much certainty as the contemplation of the agreement or disagreement of our own ideas. Similarly revelations about matters of fact do not produce as much certainty as having the experience one self. Revelation, then cannot contradict what we know to be true. If it could, it would undermine the trustworthiness of all of our faculties."
And the Magna Carta did not conceive of universalizing human rights. In fact, nowhere in all the history of peoples or God's "chosen peoples" did anyone come up with the notion of universal human rights until 1789.
But with your hocus pocus, monte card game of shuffling hidden things, you say it already existed but wasn't doing anybody any good. Exactly the kind of stupid nonsense making that John Locke couldn't stand and blamed for Europe's religious wars.
"You know the care wasn't invented until the twentieth century. But my faith tells me me that God was driving around in one from the dawn of creation. Electric, of course, and definitely not an SUV. After all, God is good."
If one makes such a statement, what is one really saying? Is this what faith is truly for? Defending against things that are in the world? If Christ really is incarnate... then nothing in the world should truly frighten me. Everything's safe. Maybe not certain [which is the part that so disturbs weak ones in the faith] but everything is safe. (C.S. Lewis said this, by the way.)
This is faith.
_____________
And when I slap around angry, destructive Christians like you, Marshall, I am not being un-Christian. I am being Pauline.
You flatter yourself. You're nothing like Paul. He wasn't an arrogant asshole, joining in debates with an air of superiority he had no right background to claim. Even with authority granted by Christ he took care not be prideful or boastful. Even in correcting the misunderstandings of those he taught, he did so like a brother rather than as an elitist know-it-all. What's more, very much unlike yourself, he knew what was poor understanding and what wasn't and how to correct it. Being wrong as often as you are might be hard for you to see in yourself since you're such a prideful bastard. I take that into account when responding to your bloviating. Thus, you may THINK you're slapping me around, but you have yet to lay a hand on me. (You likely hit like a girl anyway.) And there's absolutely nothing angry or destructive about me or my positions. Idiot libs always make that mistake. I take that into account as well.
BTW, did you go to the same school of bad analogies that Dan Trabue attended? That true morality is of God is nothing like the laughable "God drives a car" crap. I would think someone so vastly superior in education as yourself could come up with something better than that. But thanks for the laugh, as angry and destructive as it was.
The Magna Carta indeed began to hint at the concept of equality even between kings and subjects, that all are subject to law. Truly educated people, along with the rest of us who simply aren't complete idiots like yourself, can easily see this development.
But what is more to the point, something so easily missed by my opponents and missed worse by the more arrogant and self-satisfied of those, like yourself, is that it is complete nonsense to suggest that the concept of all people being God's children (you know, the Paulian notion that there are no Jew or gentile, etc) was unknown until your beloved and godless philosophers said otherwise.
Certainty isn't the issue. The source of morals is. Whether or not we are certain of a moral truth or absolute has not bearing on the existence of that absolute. Whether or not it's accepted as a moral absolute by "x" number of people is equally irrelevant to its existence.
As for what is safe or not, examples would help to clarify this point. Surely playing with matches in a room filled with explosives and a leaky gas pipe isn't safe, so you'll need to elaborate on this if you're in any way capable.
But I don't defend against things of the world, I defend against those who would suggest that those wordly things are morally acceptable or not by Scriptural standards. So many, such as people like yourself, in their arrogance have decided that they know better than what God has plainly revealed to us in Scripture, so that some are lead astray. It is for their sake and God's that I am willing to expose myself as defending, in my own humble way, His truth and how it applies to our earthly existence. For those like yourself, who wish to continue believing and supporting bullshit, you're more than free to do so, though I pray you'll sooner than later see the light. I'm just not about to let you do so without a counterpoint.
I now await your next arrogant rejoinder.
Let's see, looking for an acknowledgement that Marshall totally whiffed on John Locke...
Nope, he can't see it.
Let's see, Marshall thinks Magna Carta referred to universal rights... (note to self: remind him that Magna Carta removed Divine Right of Kings, but no whisper of universal rights for man.) Conclusion: Marshall once again proves he is a complete idiot.
Let's see... Marshall confuses Paulian with Pauline... what is he thinking... physics? (note to self: remind Marshall that he's woefully under equipped to talk about biblical criticism and theology; much less that plenty of people found Paul rubbed them the wrong way, like James, the brother of Jesus, Peter, etc.)
Further, Paul did not free slaves (only spiritual freedom) so that is a clear miss on a concept of universal rights, so Marshall misapplies there...
Man, looking for something Marshall got right... matches? playing with matches? Well, I guess he got that right. Marshall's old enough to drive isn't he?
Let's see... "but I don't defend against things of this world..." (note to self: suggest to Marshall that this may not be the best motto for a truck driver).
"And if your lordship has brought in the mention of my book in a chapter, intitled, “Objections against the Trinity, in Point of Reason, answered;” when, in my whole Essay, I think there is not to be found any thing like an objection against the Trinity: I have the more to acknowledge to your lordship, who would not let the foreignness of the subject hinder your lordship from endeavouring to set me right, as to some errours your lordship apprehends in my book; when other writers using some notions like mine, gave you that which was occasion enough for you to do me the favour to take notice of what you dislike in my Essay...If your lordship had showed me any thing in my book, that contained or implied any opposition in it to any thing revealed in holy writ concerning the Trinity, or any other doctrine contained in the bible, I should have been thereby obliged to your lordship for freeing me from that mistake, and for affording me an opportunity to own to the world that obligation, by publicly retracting my errour."
Locke believed inerrancy of the Bible, which no doubt teaches The Trinity:
"The holy scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing infallible truth, relating to things of the highest concernment. And I wish I could say, there were no mysteries in it: I acknowledge there are to me, and I fear always will be. But where I want the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it: and I shall presently condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture. But I must confess to your lordship, that I do not perceive any such contrariety in any thing in my Essay of Human Understanding."
~Postscript to "A Letter to the Right Rev. Edward ... concerning some passages relating to Mr. Locke's 'Essay on Human Understanding.'"
Whiff? More like hit it out of the park.
Further, I think I was pretty plain in saying that the Magna Carta hinted at such, not that it was the source of the notion. To say that it did nothing toward demonstrating equality between all men, even if not fully establishing or intending it is either willful denial or, most likely in your case, rank stupidity. Certainly shows no idiocy on my part. Can't say as much for you, false priest.
Confusing Paulian with Pauline!! Oh the horror! Well, little man with the smaller mind, dance your happy dance over this minor and insignificant gaffe if it makes you feel superior. I know feeling superior is important to you. You just go ahead and pleasure yourself with that little victory, you lucky guy.
"Further, Paul did not free slaves..."
and as we all know, Paul had the ultimate and supreme power to free all slaves and what a jerk he was for not doing so. BA-A-AD Paul!
I got playing with matches right? Oh goody for me. Still waiting on those examples, though. Got any?
"Let's see... "but I don't defend against things of this world..." (note to self: suggest to Marshall that this may not be the best motto for a truck driver)."
Perhaps you could explain why a small segment of my entire statement would be used as a motto, and further how it in any way relates to truck driving.
Man, you're easy.
C'MON, LES!!! REJOIN THE DEBATES!!! AT LEAST YOU PRESENT REAL CHALLENGES!!
Feodor only offers drollery and the distinct stench of unsupported conceit and arrogance.
Well, Marshall, I’ve come back home after celebrating MLK weekend – and reconfirming the pulp fiction that is the Dallas Cowboys (a personal sadness) – to find I have to open the full can of whoop ass on you. Typical of you that you cannot quote the real thing, but an offhand correlate, where Mr. Locke is covering his ass from the Bishop of Worcester.
If you want to take the time – and challenge yourself intellectually much less acknowledging that the flight you watched over the wall was a pigeon and not the ball that passed you by – you can read the real deal, An Essay concerning Human Understanding, IV. xviii:
“§ 3. First, then, I say, That no Man inspired by God, can by any Revelation communicate to others any new simple Ideas which they had not before from Sensation or Reflection. For whatsoever Impressions he himself may have from the immediate hand of God, this Revelation, if it be of new simple Ideas, cannot be conveyed to another, either by Words, or any other signs. Because Words, by their immediate Operation on us, cause no other Ideas, but of their natural Sounds: and ‘tis by the Custom of using them for Signs, that they excite, and revive in our Minds latent Ideas; but yet only such Ideas, as were there before. For our simple Ideas then, which are the Foundation, and sole Matter of all our Notions, and Knowledge, we must depend wholly on our Reason, I mean, our natural Faculties; and can by no means receive them, or any of them, from Traditional Revelation. I say, Traditional Revelation, in distinction to Original Revelation. By the one, I mean that first Impression, which is made immediately by God, on the Mind of any Man, to which we cannot set any Bounds; and by the other, those Impressions delivered over to others in Words, and the ordinary ways of conveying our Conceptions one to another.
§ 4. Secondly, I say, that the same Truths may be discovered, and conveyed down from Revelation, which are discoverable to us by Reason, and by those Ideas we naturally may have. So God might, by Revelation, discover the Truth of any Proposition in Euclid; as well as Men, by the natural use of their Faculties, come to make the discovery themselves. In all Things of this Kind, there is little need or sue of Revelation, God having furnished us with natural, and surer means to arrive at the Knowledge of them. For whatsoever Truth we come to the clear discovery of, from the Knowledge and Contemplation of our own Ideas, will always be certainer to us, than those which are conveyed to us by Traditional Revelation. For the Knowledge, we have, that this Revelation came at first from God, can never be so sure, as the Knowledge we have from the clear and distinct Perception of the Agreement, or Disagreement of our own Ideas…”
I’ll not quote anymore, in hopes of giving Marshall enough room to hang himself further. For Locke does indeed go on, presenting heresy after heresy - where Marshall comes from at any rate.
[I trust, Marshall that you’ve at least intuited, if not fully grasped, how the above makes your venture into philosophy laughable. But, then, you’ve never filled any trust before, so I don’t know what I’m thinking. Perhaps I’m blinded by my tears for the lost Cowboy legacy. No doubt you will, instead, reaffirm your commitment to live in the irrational (God endowed us with reason, Marshall, but you spit on it.).]
____________
"Further, I think I was pretty plain in saying that the Magna Carta hinted at such, not that it was the source of the notion."
Thank you for the admission of your error.
Jeez! I forgot to put up my MLK decorations! Thanks, Feo!
So happy to see the Cowboys lose. That you find it a sadness brings yet more joy from their loss.
So you think Locke is just covering his ass, do you? Some evidence for that is forthcoming, I'm sure.
As to that can of "whup ass", when ya gonna open it? Your quotes don't do that in the least. In fact, by his own words, Locke supports my contention that morality always was even before mankind knew what it was. Thanks for that. Indeed, He even confirms it comes from God. How it was revealed to us was not even at issue here. Only that it was, that it came from God, and in that way, was brought to the table by the God of Chrisians and Jews as new as it possibly could be. In the meantime, no new moral absolutes have been brought by atheists as you like to believe.
As for the Magna Carta, I only stated that it also influenced the founders. There was also a Great Awakening that some would contend has as much, if not more, influence than did the Enlightenment, which is mostly given extra importance by lefties like yourself, so as not to be confined by the Truth, which is so cumbersome to those that want make God in their own image. Like false priests do.
I'm enjoying the look at the words of Locke and learning quite a bit. What I've intuited and grasped so far is that you are still every bit the fool I've believed you to be, well educated perhaps, but lacking intelligence, wisdom and common sense, things a lofty degree will not provide. You are indeed a fraudulent poser, a false priest, pretentious in your posturing and arrogant and condescending without basis. How very irrational, but typical of your pathetic character. As I've said before:
All that education. All those books. How pathetically sad they've done you no good.
For Marshall, who cannot read:
Locke is arguing that human faculties can and do and are designed to make discoveries (he uses that word, Marshall, how do you miss that?), and that when human Ideas are discovered by our own faculties, even God's own Revelation takes a back seat.
From § 5: And, therefore, no Proposition can be received for Divine Revelation, or obtain the Assent due to all such, if it be contradictory to our clear intuitive Knowledge. Because this would be to subvert the Principles, and Foundations of all Knowledge, Evidence, and Assent whatsoever... IN Propositions therefore contrary to the clear Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of any of our Ideas, 'twill be in vain to urge them as Matters of Faith. They cannot move move our Assent under that, or any other Title whatsoever. For Faith can never convince us of any Thing, that contradicts our Knowledge.
From § 6 In all Things therefore, where we have clear Evidence from our Ideas, and those Principles of Knowledge, I have above mentioned, Reason is the proper Judge; and Revelation, though it may in consenting with it, confirm its Dictates, yet cannot in such Cases, invalidate its Decrees. Nor can we be obliged, where we have clear and evident Sentence of Reason, to quit it, for the contrary Opinion, under a Pretence that it is Matter of Faith; which we have not Authority against the plain and clear Dictates of Reason.
From § 8 But yet, it still belongs to Reason, to judge of the Truth of its being a Revelation, and of the signification of the Words, wherein it is delivered.
__________
Do I hear strike three, Marshall, in your consistently
"strange Opinions, and extravagant practices in Religion, [such] that a considerate Man cannot but stand amazed at [your] Follies, and judge them so far from being acceptable to the great and wise God, that he cannot avoid thinking them ridiculous, and offensive to a sober, good Man"?
Or do you want to try to continue to make your bed with a Deist, influential and co-religionist with so many of our deist founding politicians.
What has existed already that man might have discovered by reason or anything else that trumps any revelation of God, either through Scripture or that impressed on the mind of man by Him? What has existed already that wasn't already revealed by God in some manner or other? I assume we're still talking moral absolutes here, are we not? If man "discovers", then what he discovered already existed. From where did it then come? I believe you were trying to make the case that somehow men somewhere "created" a moral absolute that did not already exist. Which would that be? We've already seen that the rights of man were NOT invented in the 1700's by atheist philosophers, but already expressed in the epistles of Paul. And we've also not received any proof of Locke being a deist or an atheist, nothing that counters his own words which I have presented here. All we've gotten on that score is Feodor telling us that Locke was covering his ass, as if Feodor's word is worth anything here.
You haven't heard strike one yet, you putz. You have to prove you've won to win. You have to provide uncontrovertable proofs, such as they do in sports by scoring points. You've not done that, especially considering you haven't shown an understanding of the game. Once again, the point made was that moral absolutes come from God, and thus that which atheists believe to be understood to be the result of reason are simply God's morals that already existed.
I also don't see how quotes from Locke speaking on how men find certainty in their beliefs truly answers this one way or the other. This is particularly true considering how the ability of men to reason isn't infallible, as you so kindly demonstrate routinely for all to see and laugh.
It's fun to read you as you try to read philosophy and think, Marshall. It's like an alternate Disney reversal world where sense is nonsense and nonsense is religious conviction.
All those questions you ask, you have to ask them of Locke. And now that you are asking them, it appears that you are at least silently relenting that Locke's writings are running the in opposite direction than your porcelain seat thinking.
Much less Holy Scripture: Paul instructed slaves to obey their masters, he did not "express" any notion of human rights; only that God loved them. And so it went among Christians through antiquity, through the Middle Ages, on past the Reformation until Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke, Hume, and Kant began to describe a new thing which, somehow, God's own people had not comprehended in a little more than two thousand years.
If you want to battle historical reality with what you, on the basis of faith claims that even the Church does not make, then at least have the guts that you are dealing in with reality, nor human faculties of observation, reason, and creation of partial truths. For, Marshall, in the end, the best of human reason comes up with partial truths. Human rights, of all kinds, are only partial truths built out of experience and human moral vision. So, how could partial truths ever exist from the beginning in God's mind? No mortal can contain an absolute truth. We cannot see that well. This is the trick you did not get. All truths are partial, all morals partial. We cannot reach perfection. So no person, atheist or Christian comes up with Absolute Morals.
And neither does God, for that matter. For morals are a category that obtains only in this life. In Heaven, life is perfect - no need for rules, laws, morals. Everything and everyone is perfect, unfallen. No absolutes left and no partialities either - from which absolutes gain their definition.
You are not up to this, Marshall. But your crazy, uneducated pride together with your slavish commitment to a small-hearted, anxious and defensive Christian faith and worldview are the chemistry of your buffoonery.
I say this, of course, in tough love. Like Paul to the Galations.
"It's fun to read you as you try to read philosophy and think, Marshall."
I guess it might be if I was trying to read philosophy. What I'm doing is pointing out your poor understanding of what you present here. My questions, which are going unanswered by the fraud who poses as a wise man (now THAT'S funny!), show you don't know the philosophy you think gives me trouble. YOU think the philosophy is relevant here. YOU answer the questions or stop pretending you have a point other than the one on the top of your head. And if you can't support the charge that Locke was trying to cover his ass to Edwards, you should at least pretend to be honorable and withdraw the charge.
Paul's teaching to slaves has nothing to do with his teaching about all of us being the same under God. But thanks for trying. And you'll need to look a little further than just left-wing teaching to understand how much or little any Enlightenment figures played in our nation's founding. I know that's hard for you as a false priest to truly seek out truth. It goes against your nature.
And now you back peddle with your statements regarding partial truths. What a tap dancer you are! Too bad you can't man up as well. The question again, on which your addled brain cannot focus, is the source of morality. That would be God. Is it a partial truth that murder is wrong? That theft is wrong? That deceit is wrong? (This is one YOU need to study more) In what way are these "partial truths"? It's pretty obvious this notion of "partial truths" is just another lefty ploy to allow for that which is sinful. "If we can't know with certain EXACTLY what the truth is, then who's to say homosex behavior is wrong?" Insert the sin of your choice. Yours would obviously be pride and arrogance as well as deceitfulness.
And whether or not there are rules in heaven is also irrelevant to the existence of moral absolutes. Do you think God just dispenses with that side of His nature after the end times?
I'm not up to this? Up to what? Dealing with the wackiness of your positions? You've got to be kidding! What do you think is so tough about dealing with the likes of YOU? You can't even stay on point. I've got news for you, false priest. You ain't all that. Not by a longshot. I sit here wondering if your next comment will be the proof of this overwhelming wisdom you claim you possess, only to be greatly disappointed again and again. Get over yourself. You're an idiot, not a scholar.
There's nothing small-hearted, anxious or defensive about my faith and worldview. I simply see the fraudulence of the left, particularly as put forth by people like yourself, and point it out. Your job, though you fail at it consistently, is to show why there's anything of value in YOUR worldview. That you fail so routinely demonstrates that you have no conviction are just a pathetic follower of that which you don't understand.
1. "I'm enjoying the look at the words of Locke and learning quite a bit."
2. "I guess it might be if I was trying to read philosophy. What I'm doing is pointing out your poor understanding of what you present here."
3. John Locke: Philosopher.
...
So, which is it Marshall, are your reading Locke or not? Jesus, the depth of "poor understanding" is sheer elemental on your part. You leak imbecilic logic and think you can continue to speak to anything,
...
Locke is saying, to boil it down to where you may have a ghost of a chance of understanding, is that Revelation cannot be more trustworthy than Reason and must always be evaluated by Reason. He takes this stand because, as he says in the earlier sections I quote, any Revelation of truth aside from the one person receiving the direct Revelation must be communicated in words. And words are signs of things that work only in the human world that is limited. The human world of Ideas, Concepts, Morals.
Locke is saying that by virtue of the fact that we are humans, Revelation cannot be shared, it is not helpful to society because it cannot be contained in words and so cannot be communicated and still be kept perfect.
The words of one person must be evaluated and even judged by the reasoning of society. When society comes to know truths through the use of its reasoning/reflecting upon experience, there is no greater source of certain knowledge than that.
Not even Revelation.
....
No doubt, Marshall, you will further elide how Locke must be considered a heretic even in just the few paragraphs I've given you. The difficulty of reading Locke, though, is not faced just by you. Various clergy and power holders wanted to find him blasphemous, but he was smarty and shrewd and proved too slippery in how he demarcated this world as the only one where his system applied.
He said this for he was convinced that humankind is too limited to know heaven and the mind of God even if God wanted us to know. Words as signs simply cannot bear the burden. I'd guess that Locke would laugh if you suggested that English was in the mind of God from the foundations of creation.
But that wont stop you, will it?
"So, which is it Marshall, are your reading Locke or not?"
I'm reading what Locke is presented here and one or two other places that have shown the opposite of your conclusion regarding his personal beliefs of Christ. Again, you say he was covering his ass and yet have shown no proof of that. Thus, I doubt your understanding of his philosophy. That answers point one and elaborates on point two.
"Jesus, the depth of "poor understanding" is sheer elemental on your part."
Are you calling me Jesus here, using His name in vain (bad form, false priest), or questioning Christ's undestanding?
Your explanation of Locke's words is unnecessary as it is all besides the point, which is, I'll state yet again, the source of moral absolutes.
But to your explanation, which isn't heretical in the least as far as I'm concerned, but only an opinion on the state of man's ability to understand revelation, it says nothing new. Never did. The Bible itself teaches that we cannot know the mind of God. Even a false priest such as yourself must have come upon that at some point.
Further, I would greatly disagree that we are falling so woefully short, assuming I don't include you when I say "we", in understanding what HAS been revealed through Scripture. It ain't rocket science. The teachings of Scripture were not designed to be cryptic, that only psuedo-intellectual progressive frauds like yourself could decipher or not depending upon which works best at a given time. They were designed for all and as such are revealing to the extent they were meant to be. I know some, like yourself, aren't capable of even a simple understanding because of your arrogance developed over the course of expensive education which now replaces real reason with the blatherings of those liberal professors who never spent time in the real world. With too much time on their hands, they suppose themselves to be great thinkers, divining that which mere mortals are incapable of seeing. They are fools and you even more so for having swallowed it like carp devouring the waste of other fish.
But I understand why you place so much importance on people such as Locke. His words provide more openings for believing what you want to believe rather than what you should. It justifies all sorts of perversions of the truth, all deviations from righteousness and any abnormal pursuit that strikes your fancy.
But clearly what it doesn't do is speak to the source of moral absolutes. If you weren't so busy trying to impress with what for you passes as knowledge, you wouldn't have posed that stupid challenge: "Name one absolute moral that Christianity brought new to the table."
But you just can't help yourself, can you? All that education...
I don't recall you naming one absolute moral that Christianity has brought to the table.
Apparently, you are not even up to the stupid challenge test.
______________
From the mind of Marshall:
"All moral law is based on God's concept of right/wrong..."
"The Bible itself teaches that we cannot know the mind of God."
How do resolve the seeming contradiction, if I may ask?
And then (I'm trying to get my full entertainment reward, here) what exactly, Marshall, do you mean by "God's concept of right/wrong"?
Does God have a morality of his own? Or is this, rather, what God has given to humankind?
Just some further Stupid Challenges. I have more advanced ones I like to call, Dull Challenges. After that, Simpleton Challenges. Then Showing Promise Challenges. Etc., etc.
"I don't recall you naming one absolute moral that Christianity has brought to the table."
Yet you reprinted part of my response right after your snark. Apparently you're a freakin' lunatic. Here it is again, try to keep up:
"All moral law is based on God's concept of right/wrong..."
And are your seriously trying to suppose that that statement, together with this one:
"The Bible itself teaches that we cannot know the mind of God."
...are somehow irreconcilable? You really are stupid, aren't you? No wonder you find this entertaining! Lunatics find humor where none exists as well as see monsters and fairies where none exist.
That the Bible teaches we can't know the mind of God in no way cancels out the truth of the first statement. We know what He has chosen to reveal to us, which He has done through Scripture. Through Scripture we learn moral absolutes, even if some details of God's plan is withheld. Only a moron would fail to see and understand this. Thanks for identifying yourself.
"Does God have a morality of his own? Or is this, rather, what God has given to humankind?"
Not "rather", but His morality is what is given to us. Where do you see a difference? Why don't you just get on with what you think are challenges beyond my ability. I mean, c'mon. Give me a laugh, too, you freakin' nutjob. I dare you. You got nothin' but an overinflated sense of your own intelligence, which, yeah, is funny all by itself based on your comments over the years, but even the best jokes lose something after repeated telling.
Your best value to my readers, as few as they may be, is to demonstrate just how twisted a false priest can be. Bring it.
"That the Bible teaches we can't know the mind of God in no way cancels out the truth of the first statement. We know what He has chosen to reveal to us, which He has done through Scripture. Through Scripture we learn moral absolutes, even if some details of God's plan is withheld."
Together with this bon mot:
"His morality is what is given to us."
____________
Okay, Queen of Hearts, let's gut this chicken.
(We will bypass, I guess, the truth I mentioned earlier that the Bible does not give us any original moral absolutes that did not preexist Hebraic and Christian canons.)
You say Holy Scripture gives us moral absolutes, none more primary, I presume, than what constitutes God's own morality.
What do we find out about God's morality:
1. He loves to send people into exile. Cain, Ishmael and his mother. Israel as a whole.
2. For the sins of the many, he destroys even the innocent by flooding the whole world. He then changes his mind and says he will not do that again.
2. He protects philanderers, tricksters, and rapist/criminals. Abram, Jacob, David.
3. He murders the innocent children of criminals in order to bring them back to him. David's son by Bathsheba.
4. He allows his chosen people to murder and plunder the inhabitants of an entire land.
5. For the sins of the many, God sends even the innocent into Babylonian exile.
6. Against the faithful and innocent he allows Satan to wage war that destroys all the he has built up, his wife and children, and his health.
7. He allows his prophets to marry prostitutes.
Is this "the morality of God that is given to us", Marshall? Is this the kind of morality that you have in mind for us to emulate? Or have you miss-placed your Bible and have something else in mind?
Surely you don't mean that we should be following this god's morality?
______
Or is the partial list of moral absolutes which you're thinking of the kind of thing that God does in other texts:
1. Paying the worker who worked a half hour the same as the worker who worked eight hours. (Socialism!)
2. Forgiving the prostitute out of hand and condemning those who would judge. (Liberalism!)
3. Forgiving right out of hand the woman who's had a series of empty relationships and is living in sin. (Secular moral laxity!)
4. Welcoming back the son who turned his back on his old man for girls, drugs, and rock-n-roll, giving him everything that he has just like he would for the son who stayed and worked hard for the family. (Prodigal irresponsibility!)
5. Giving the poor everything while saying it is very hard for the rich to get into heaven. (Marxism!)
Would that this would be your laundry list of real divine moral behavior.
But wait, miracles happen... Are you giving your approval to this kind of moral behavior? Isn't this what scripture gives us of the mind of God?
Marshall! Are you falling into grace and love and warmth and light?!
IS THIS God's way?
________
I'd love to know, Marshall, what moral absolutes you have in mind. Of course there are the ten commandments. But as we've seen, a few of them God has broken and allowed to be broken by his faithful. Can we break them, too, Marshall, since Holy Scripture gives us a a clear and simple picture of that part of God's morality we are allowed to know?
How do you prescribe these absolute morals? Because right now, it seems that they are coming out your ass.
I don't have the opportunity of responding to each point of your last lame attempt to stump me, but trust me, I will in time. Exposing your foolishness brings me such joy and is at the same time a worthy task for the sake of anyone who reads my blog. I'll start with this:
"(We will bypass, I guess, the truth I mentioned earlier that the Bible does not give us any original moral absolutes that did not preexist Hebraic and Christian canons.)"
I looked over every comment you made in this thread and saw nothing like this. And as the Hebraic canon starts at the beginning of all things, you make a big statement that has no support. Other cultures make their own claims, but I don't see as how I must be forced to accept their claims as legitimate. In any event, it would still not trump the original premise of the origin of all morality. Nice try. For a loser.
OK, lover of queens. Let's have a look at a few of your "challenges".
"1. He loves to send people into exile. Cain, Ishmael and his mother. Israel as a whole."
He loves to? Really? Can you show me anywhere where He states that He loves to punish sinners? As far as Ishmael and his mother, God provided well for them. He allowed and encouraged Abe to send them away, likely due to the fact that polygamy is not a part of His plan for marriage, but made Ishmael into a great nation. Oh, that He should be so "cruel" and "immoral" to me!
"2. For the sins of the many, he destroys even the innocent by flooding the whole world. He then changes his mind and says he will not do that again."
First of all, how is proclaiming He will never again flood the world constitute "changing His mind"? I don't recall any verses wherein He states that He will continue to create and destroy, create and destroy..."No wait! I change My Mind! I'll not do that again!"
Secondly, you assume it is immoral for God to take away what is His. He has total ownership of everything, including our lives. We are His creation to do with as He sees fit, and to judge Him on human terms, that somehow destroying large numbers of people might be immoral for Him, is incredible hubris on your part. In addition, it in no way justifies the destruction of the world by any human being, so there is no moral quandary here.
"2. He protects philanderers, tricksters, and rapist/criminals. Abram, Jacob, David."
You're still here, too. See how forgiving He is? As to those you've listed, God often worked through flawed humans. How is this a statement on His holiness? Perhaps He should've waited until he found a perfect human being. Has there been any? I mean really perfect, not phoney perfect as how you see yourself. And what would be the result had He done so? Losers like yourself would point to the perfect person as one beyond our abilities to emulate perfectly. (This is easy. I wish I could spend more time, but it's running out for this evening.)
"3. He murders the innocent children of criminals in order to bring them back to him. David's son by Bathsheba."
Again you misunderstand. First of all, God can take any life as He sees fit since all lives belong to Him. Therefor, He cannot murder. Secondly, David was not a criminal. Thirdly, David did not abandon God or reject Him. He simply acted like most people in great positions of power and allowed himself to be corrupted. Yet he did not reject God by this misstep anymore than I do by calling you an asshole. Like me, David was simply wrong in his actions regarding Bathsheba. Finally, God is free to punish as He sees fit. You are again forcing God to act like a human who has to abide by laws made for humans.
"4. He allows his chosen people to murder and plunder the inhabitants of an entire land."
Unless you have a specific battle in mind, God commanded his chosen to destroy thy inhabitants of towns, inhabitants He considered wicked. In His sovereignty, He can exact punishment in any manner He chooses. In this case, He chose to use the Hebrews as the instrument of His wrath. Thus, they were not "murdering" anymore than our gov't is when executing criminals found guilty of capital crimes.
Well, that's all the fun I can enjoy for now. I'd prefer you hold your spiteful tongue until I can refute the poor logic of each of your many points. And then from there you can pretend to show how you've bested me, even though you haven't.
Marshall, before you go on, I'll only point out that you are making the usual claims that because God is God, God cannot be made to follow any moral order. A moral order can only be used to frame human behavior. Since we cannot "know" all things like God, it is inappropriate to try to evaluate God's behavior by some standard that we can grasp.
Thus, God, being a deity, is "exceptional", outside of the judgment of our understanding of "moral absolutes."
In other words, you are now completely undermining your earlier position that "his morality is what is given to us" and that we can know that morality via Holy Scripture.
________
And you're right, I completely forgot you believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch on a Smith & Corona, using the third person to talk about himself in order to prepare the reader for his death, after which he kept writing.
"...I'll only point out that you are making the usual claims that because God is God, God cannot be made to follow any moral order."
Not quite, but thanks for trying. I would put it this way: God IS moral order, therefor nothing He does can be immoral. The laws or rules of behavior He has created for us are based on His morality even if they are not a complete representation of His entire moral nature. And one thing I do NOT do, is pretend I can judge His actions in terms of moral law intended for humans, or in human terms of any kind. This is something you seem to be doing in questioning actions of His, as well as what Dan Trabue does in deciding that stories of God destroying the entire populations of towns and villages are some kind of metaphor he can't explain.
Therefor, there is no "judging" God, except by arrogant progressives and atheists.
So I'm not undermining anything. My position still stands solidly. His morality IS given to us in Scripture, it existed before Scripture as well as before Adam and what is revealed to us does not necessarily constitute the entirety of His morality as we cannot know the mind of God. We have no way of knowing everything of what He thinks, but we can know what He expects of us. We DO know what He expects of us. There's no inconsistency there at all.
"And you're right, I completely forgot you believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch on a Smith & Corona, using the third person to talk about himself in order to prepare the reader for his death, after which he kept writing."
The above comment of yours is why it took me awhile to respond. I've been laughing non-stop since I first read it about two hours after you wrote it. My sides are absolutely killing me for the deep gut spasms of laughter. Oh ho. You are a cut up. Do you tour?
Of course everyone knows that Moses used an Adler-Royal to record those books and coincidentally put out a joke book of his own. No where near as funny as you, though.
But here's the thing. As those books he wrote describe (of course he was lying through his teeth, I'm sure), he as direct a relationship with the Almighty one could have without having to die first. In fact, anyone who got as close as he was permitted to be would die. So he had heart-to-hearts and a few games of canasta regularly. I would suppose that for one so privileged, he would likely be able to write about his death and events following it through revelations about it from his all-knowing Best Friend. He could do so easily, without any trace of fear or trepidation due to his full knowledge of what awaited him, confident and trusting in God and therefor looking forward to the end of his earthly existence. Heck, he could have had the whole five books written decades before his death. We humble and uneducated peasants believe in the power of God so that such a feat would be no difficult undertaking whatsoever. Only progressives doubt the miraculous because they're smarter than God.
You know what's a shame? Well, two things, really.
It's such a shame - and really impossible to explain - that Israel, having the advantage of Moses' writing or late night talk with old Moses himself, heard about what about a possible future with the ten commandments, the golden calf, the forty years in the wilderness, AND STILL, STILL! went ahead and did exactly the destructive behaviors that they had heard/read about from their fearless leader with that GBFF.
(Throwing in a surprise middle shame, it's also inexplicable that Moses, knowing what the cost would be for striking that rock, would go ahead and do it, anyway. How stupid, imbecilic, utterly senseless act that was, knowing, as he did from his GBFF, that he would then never make into the promised land. Senility, you think?)
And, lastly, the crying shame that Moses, having hours to blog with his GBFF, could not? would not? focus on the coming of the Son of Man, the Messiah, the Son of God who would save the world. Why would not include the Gospel story, thereby saving Israel from the catastrophe of exile, the ugly death of the elderly and children on the road east, famine, disease of the forced march, etc.
I did not know, until now as you point out how Moses and his GBFF had such long, transparent sharing, the necessary inference that Moses so turned his back on the next thousand years and consigned his people to the deepest of sufferings.
Your faithful understanding reveals all that.
Or, what is worse, God and Moses colluded in the cover up to withhold the truth from Israel.
This kind of morality I just can't understand. But the right understanding of the Christian Bible demands just such a moral view, apparently.
You've really opened my eyes, Marshall. Christianity is such a tough faith. God's morality is incomprehensibly cold and angry. God condemns whole peoples for what his own servants could have warned them about but did not.
And, to be a follower, my morality should be the same, right? Right, Marshall?
You model it so well.
From such a wise understanding of just how to read biblical narrative.
Go ahead and wonder, Feodor. I don't see that there's anything wrong with wondering why God did things one way when, in our superior wisdom as inferior beings, something else would seem more sensible. But again, we cannot know the mind of God so His plan can possibly make little sense to us. I didn't present my own wonderings as likely, but only as a possibility for that which seems illogical based on several thousand years of hindsight. I, too, have wondered at the apparent stupidity of the tribes for their incessant stupidity whilst in the daily presence of the One True God who delivered them in a most miraculous way from their Egyptian oppressors.
But unlike you, I trust He has His good reasons, reasons to which I may be privileged to have explained to me once I am in His holy presence. That is if I even care at that point.
But you? You just go ahead and continue to measure Scripture against your infallible and highly educated mind. I'm sure that will work out well for you.
Yeah, those stiff-necked Jews. They deserved it.
__________
As for me, I would agree with the unconscious subtexts that exist in the way you've written your piecemeal thoughts about God's holiness: it spools out over time due to the limitedness of human understanding. That humankind grows and develops in its relationship with divinity, the cosmos, and itself seems to me an indication that God has not abandoned us but rather educates, nurtures us over the long run all while we live out our fates in free will with divinely created faculties but faulty hearts. Moral vision comes slow for we like most to protect ourselves.
So it is was with the long road to an understanding of universal human rights. A long road that included Hammurabi's code, the Ten Commandments, the Cyrus Cylinder, the Roman law codes, Andalusian interfaith government, and the Magna Carta, to the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the UN Human Rights Charter.
And so it now is blossoming with gay rights and spiritual acceptance of gay and lesbian faith.
A long road of growing closer to the divine nature... faulty hearts delay, but God-given faculties of reason, specifically moral reasoning bring us around to that perfect home.
When will holy reason welcome you home, Marshall?
How long will it be? What will be the open-mouthed wonder be like, so new to your face, the dawning of genuine grace?
Let me ask you this, Marshall: if you believed God commanded you to gather an army and march around Paris for three days and God promised that then the city would become yours in order to proclaim the truth of God's will and activity in the world - that you and your group would then be responsible for a thoroughly Christian government as a continuing witness...
would you do it?
I'd be more than happy to answer your hypothetical upon greater clarification. When you say, "If you believed God commanded you..." is this assuming He DID command me as opposed to no such thing actually happening, yet I believe He did anyway? It's an important distinction since such hypotheticals have been posed before. However, it usually begins, "If God commanded you..." which suggests that there is no doubt that it IS God doing the commanding, that it is not a figment of my imagination, that if God were to make any direct command to a man, as He did with Moses for example, that there would be no doubts that it is indeed God speaking and that He would make sure there was no doubt in the mind of the person to whom He spoke. Do you see what I'm getting at here? I don't want to play games with later questions such as, "How do you know it's God talking?" That question changes everything. So, once again, is it God actually commanding, or do I only believe it for reasons other than direct contact by Him? For the record, if it is actually God talking to me, I believe there can't be any doubt and as such I would anything He asked to the best of my ability to do so. ANYTHING. How could I not? How could I refuse a direct request? I feel guilty when I don't follow every command of His through Scripture as it is, but a direct command? I'm doing it. And with no apologies to the likes of you or anyone else.
"And so it now is blossoming with gay rights and spiritual acceptance of gay and lesbian faith."
You have left that road and gone your own way without thought of God's will. I already know how to treat homos properly. It's the same as I treat every other sinner I've ever met, which would be every person I've ever met. I treat them like people. That doesn't require that I acquiesce to their every desire and demand without regard to morality and propriety. When a married buddy cheats on his wife, I don't care how much they say they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. I tell them that adultery is both sinful and immature behavior based on lust and selfishness, not love. The same is true for homos. If you base your opinion on "God-given faculties of reason, specifically moral reasoning", then that same reasoning must provide the same openess to not only other sexual sinfulness, but sinfulness in general.
The fact is that though you might think you're wading in the pool of moral reasoning, you're actually drifting into the deep end where you will be swept away. You insist that homos are today's blacks and/or women striving for equal rights. They are most definitely not. Behavior doesn't equal skin color or gender. Not even slightly. They put their sexual desires and urges above moral judgement as if it is skin color. This is akin to thieves putting there desires for your money outside of moral judgement, as if you have no right to deny how THEY want to live.
They can change. They can heal their mental deviancy. Any routine priest or student of Scripture understands this. You, however, and those like you, would prefer to enable the thief in his desires to take what belongs to others. You would enable the liar to live in fantasy. You would enable the sinner to believe that their sin is goodness.
I'll stick with REAL faith and REAL morality regarding human sexuality as clearly described in Scripture and pray that the fallen will mirror the prodigal son and enjoy the happiness of the Father that you view as somehow unfair to the rest His children.
"When you say, "If you believed God commanded you..." is this assuming He DID command me as opposed to no such thing actually happening, yet I believe He did anyway?"
ummm... it's not called "faith" for nothin'.
How would you propose to test what you believe, Marshall?
You've offered faith in God's morality as exhibited in both testaments as a the foundation for human moral behavior. So, if you believed - just as strongly as you believe Moses wrote texts vastly differently in syntax, style and theology - that God is asking you to take Paris in God's name just like Israel took Paris, would you?
Faith is not required when direct contact is present. I don't need to have faith that my wife exists because I can plainly see that she does.
If God actually makes contact with me, be he in the guise of George Burns, a burning bush or whatever, I can't see as how there'd be any doubt that I'd be in His presence. Why would He take the time to command me to action and at the same time leave doubt in my mind that the command did indeed come from Him. Aside from Muhammed, what other prophet spoke of doubts about who was speaking? I don't recall that any in the OT did, though they may have questioned His choice.
With this being said, to ask "If you believe God commanded you..." is distinctly different from asking me "If God commanded you..." I'm saying that IF GOD COMMANDED ME, there would be no doubt that it was God, because it would be, and thus I would do whatever was asked to the best of my ability to comply.
BTW, I don't believe documentary theory is as strong as you apparently do. This is typical of the liberal/progressive/so-called Christian who seeks to force into the faith that which does not fit. Those like yourself are all too willing to believe anything that allows for what you'd prefer to believe rather than what you should. Why bother believing at all? More accurately, why continue with the pretense of belief when clearly worldly concerns are more important to you than the Word of God? I have to assume it's all a sham in order to present darkness as light.
What is "documentary theory"? Something about cameras, by the name, but what?
As for learning what faith is and what evidence a believer has, you'd be aided by reading Hebrews 11. (Your daddy, Neil, would be ashamed to see you so so biblically thin on faith. "By faith the walls of Jericho fell.")
All you really have, Marshall, is faith... good or bad.
Documentary theory, and I may have the exact term incorrectly, refers to those hung up on what they believe to be different authors of the Pentateuch due to "vastly differently in syntax, style and theology" they perceive within it.
As to faith, what faith do you think would be required in the presence of the Almighty? What faith is necessary when there is no doubt? Do you really think Joshua struggled with faith having had direct contact with the Lord? After having experienced and witnessed His power? Such faith is rather easy, don't you think? Could it be any stronger in such a situation? I really don't see how with God so routinely involving Himself in Josh's life.
That's a rather far cry, however, from simply believing one hears the voice of God in this day and age. So if you want to ask me hypotheticals about what I would do in such and such a situation, be specific about the details or don't waste my time.
As for what faith I do have, it includes the faith that you are out of step with Biblical teaching and could learn much from Neil, Eric, Bubba, Stan and others that comment from a traditional and orthodox perspective. Progressives are typically delusional.
Your "tradition" and your "orthodoxy" are only five hundred years old. That's only a third of the larger trunk and branch of Christianity.
As for your biblical theology and narrative approach, that's only one hundred and fifty years old.
So, one, you don't know tradition or how "the deposit of faith" handed down from the early church has been both retained and re-formed through two millenia.
And, two, you are clueless at how far outside orthodoxy radical protestantism is.
No wonder you confuse faith with certainty. Seriously, man, read Hebrews 11. Then again, you cant' (not wont, can't) read it straight up. Your filters are too entrenched, too in front of your eyes. Even dying cultures have traditions and orthodoxies. It was the refusal to ree-nliven them that lead to their death.
"Your "tradition" and your "orthodoxy" are only five hundred years old."
Not true, but feel free to try and prove it. It's always fun to watch you make an ass of yourself.
"As for your biblical theology and narrative approach, that's only one hundred and fifty years old."
See my response above.
As far as Hebrews 11, I never consider it a waste of time to peruse Scripture, but in this case, waste my time you did if you sought to correct my understanding of faith and belief. Hebrews 11 only confirmed my understanding. Look how it opens:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
I am as certain of what I don't see as any human being can be. I am certain of the existence of God and I'm certain you're a false priest. So to your hypothetical, I would be certain God was speaking to me because it IS God speaking to me, He made Himself known to me and like all in the Bible who were contacted by Him, there'd be no doubt in my mind about it. Why don't you just move on to whatever lame point you were attempting to make by even posing the question? You neither know me well enough to judge the quality and extent of my faith, nor do you have the smarts to do so.
As to my understanding of Christianity, I leave it to you to pretend to explain how old it is (I'd say almost 55 years old), but I have one source for my Christian education upon which I rely. That would be the Bible. THAT source goes back a bit further than 500 years. I don't rely on the interpretations of progressive assholes who aren't as concerned about the truth as they are in what they'd like the truth to be. I often wonder if I'd have ever looked elsewhere if not for the sorry attempts of progressives to recreate God in their own image. Then I read of those more scholarly people that skillfully and completely obliterate those stupid arguments and find that I was on the right track the whole time.
"Even dying cultures have traditions and orthodoxies. It was the refusal to ree-nliven them that lead to their death."
It's not merely having traditions and orthodoxies, it's having the correct ones that matter. What you call "re-enliven" is to recreate, to put meaning to that which doesn't carry the meaning you prefer. Have some balls, boy. Don't pretend you're clarifying Scripture. Be honest and admit you find Scripture to be complete crap. You think you're right, anyway, so what's the worst that could happen? I mean, really. You haven't proven any of your positions yet and with all that education and all that reading, one would think you could be more convincing. In fact if you're right, it should be easy, yet you fail miserably with graduate level skill.
Keep trying, though. I'm more than happy to help.
"I would be certain God was speaking to me because it IS God speaking to me, He made Himself known to me and like all in the Bible who were contacted by Him, there'd be no doubt in my mind about it."
So... you'd raise and army and attempt to take over Paris by marching around it several times a day until God said the next day the walls would fall, and then you would slaughter Parisians, move in and declare the city for God as testimony and witness.
I believe I've answered the question at least twice. What possible reason would you have for denying God anything? Oh, I forgot. You're smarter than He.
You haven't answered the question, Marshall. It's a "yes" or "no" question, whether you would try to take Paris for Christ. What you have done is to take a long time to answer only the premise of belief. This is part of your problem: you don't pay strict attention to what you write. This is what so often makes your arguments spurious; you are a repeat offender in escaping your own line of reasoning.
I've answered the question far more directly than it was asked. This is part of your problem: you don't pay strict attention to what I write. This is what makes your comments so asinine, that you lack the intelligence and understanding you believe yourself to have. A yes/no response was NOT appropriate without having your question clarified more sharply. Since you asked, "If you believed...", understanding what you mean by that is essential. Nonetheless, I stated, and pay close attention here, idiot, that if I believed God asked me to do anything, it's likely because He DID ask me, that He left no doubt that it WAS Him who asked. From this I gave my answer. YOU go back and find it.
God, Marshall, what a juvenile, avoidant, wimp-assed response!
Can you hear yourself? How old are you, really?
You haven't answered the question because you're scared to? Scared!? You're just becoming a grander and more useless parody of a blogger all the time.
"God, Marshall, what a juvenile, avoidant, wimp-assed response!"
I don't go by the name "God", fool. Or are you once again using His name in vain? Of course you are, false priest. How typical.
As to my response, it could not be more straightforward based on the manner in which the question was structured. I know this is beyond your incredibly vast and expensive education to understand, so I'll go find it for you and then you can try to tell me what's wrong with it. You stupid, stupid boy.
And by the way:
"You haven't answered the question because you're scared to? Scared!?"
is that supposed to be a question or a statement. I certainly made no expression of fear in any response I made to you. Why would I? You don't intimidate. Stupid people don't as dangerous as they may be. If it's a statement, it's clearly false since I did answer the question directly. Here it is:
"I'm saying that IF GOD COMMANDED ME, there would be no doubt that it was God, because it would be, and thus I would do whatever was asked to the best of my ability to comply."
I couldn't be more direct. As to why it's not a simple "yes", you're apparently too simple to understand, though I'll try once again. Here is your original question:
"Let me ask you this, Marshall: if you believed God commanded you to gather an army and march around Paris for three days and God promised that then the city would become yours in order to proclaim the truth of God's will and activity in the world - that you and your group would then be responsible for a thoroughly Christian government as a continuing witness...
would you do it?"
Note the emboldened words (that means look at the really, really black words). David Berkowitz believed a demon dog told him to murder. Obviously there wasn't such a dog. (Really, Feodor. There wasn't.) So for me to insist that you explain what you mean by that wording is logical and appropriate, especially considering what an insufferable idiot you are.
So I answered the question based on the possibility that you meant to imply the One True God actually commanding me rather than my simply "believing" He spoke to me when He likely didn't.
This isn't even an example of nuance, so I don't see where you're having a problem with my direct reply. If you insist that I answer your question as originally asked, you'll have to explain your meaning specifically.
So why not pull your head from your ass and get on with it so we can get to what you undoubtedly are confident is the game winning point of asking the question in the first place.
Still can't say it, huh? Even if you had faith, even if you had certainty (which I don't see available to anyone outside of having faith), you still can't say you'd raise an army and try to take Paris by marching around it, blowing trumpets, and then entering the city in slaughter, exiling Parisians and claiming the city for God and Christ.
This, after all, is the morality you find to be inherent in divine nature, prescribed by scripture, and necessary for human beings to follow.
And, yet, you cannot answer the question except to fudge and use generalizing language and say you have indeed answered the question.
The cowardice of your convictions. I'll say this, you sure are consistent.
How have I avoided saying it, you incredibly stupid excuse for an example of higher education? In what manner have I failed to respond directly given the ambiguous nature of your question, ambiguity I've repeatedly asked you to clarify? If there's any evasiveness going on here, it's by you as you refuse to provide that clarification. I'm here waiting for it, eager to give you an answer. But I've got to know what the question is and my request is a legitimate and logical one considering how you worded your question. Apparently you are too stupid to understand this very valid and salient point. So answer the question, "What do you mean by 'If you believed...'"?
The distinction should be easy for even such as you to understand: Is God actually making a command, or, is God NOT actually making a command but I believe He is?
As I said more than once, if God is actually making a direct command to me, there would be no doubt possible that it is indeed God talking to me. I can't see as how anyone could possibly NOT be certain it is God talking if indeed God is talking. So if God is ACTUALLY talking to me, I would do whatever He commands me to do to the best of my ability. How can I possibly be more clear in my answer? More to the point, how can you be so stupid as to not understand that I HAVE answered? Is there some point to your wording the question as you have, saying, "If you believed God commanded you...?"
There is no cowardice in my convictions, and you certainly couldn't discover any if there was by asking such questions. There is quite a bit in you if you won't answer my far more direct question to you.
As to morality, if you think you've made some kind of point that refutes what I've said about the origin of morality by asking your wacky hypothetical, I'd love to hear how you explain it.
In the meantime, why don't YOU answer your hypothetical now and try to explain why you WOULDN'T obey He whom you claim to worship. This should be rich.
"Is God actually making a command, or, is God NOT actually making a command but I believe He is?"
All we have is our faith, Marshall. It's all we ever have.
It is because we are fallible, living in a fallen cosmos. We only see through a glass darkly, and have only our common faith in the promises of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit by which to live and to interpret how to live. All you have, on this side of Paradise, Marshall, is your faith - no certainty - even when God speaks, it is still a matter of believing. This is why Hebrews credits Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua.
They did not have certainty. You really don't know your Bible, do you?
But you know how to skate around a lot.
Hebrews credits those guys, those who had direct commands from God, for trusting what God had in mind, not that He was speaking. There was no doubt in their minds who was speaking.
Take Noah for example. To be told to build an ark? He had to trust God knew what He was doing in commanding Him to build the ark and that He knew what He was doing when He said He was going to flood the earth.
Abraham trusted that God knew what He was doing when He commanded Abe to kill his son. There was no question in his mind who was telling him to do this.
THAT'S where their faith played out, in what God was telling them to do, not in wondering who was talking to them.
So speaking of skating, you still have not clarified your question, nor have you answered it yourself. In the meantime, I've answered it several times without equivocation. And I say yet again, I'm willing to do whatever God tells me to do should He directly command me in the manner He did the ancients. They had no certainty about who was talking to them? Prove it.
I should qualify that a bit. I'm not as willing to treat you, with your arrogance, condescension, psuedo-intellectualism and poor understanding of the faith with any respect whatsoever.
"Hebrews credits those guys, those who had direct commands from God..."
Your conditions are alien to scripture, here, Marshall:
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command.." NOT from a direct command from God.
"By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did." NOT from a direct command from God.
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." NOT, notice, "anyone who comes to him comes because he 'directly commands' him." And NOT 'he rewards those who simply does what he directly commands.' The faithful have to earnestly seek him because he is not easy to find; even his direct commands come out of burning bushes, whirlwinds, etc.
"By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future." Funny, Marshall, it was NOT because God directly commanded Jacob to put on a monkey suit.
___________
Your inability to read simple passages of scripture gives evidence that you and I will always be talking past each other. You read things into scripture, Marshall, not out of it. You have to do that in order to get scripture to conform to your theology, in the partial, partially conscious shape that that's in.
How in the world can I expect you get a Locke, let alone a gospel? How can we expect you to follow moral reasoning? Or the life of the Holy Spirit, guiding the faithful ever more deeply into the heart of God where spiritual truths are unexhaustable and new discoveries are born.
But maybe - and I wouldn't put this past you - our real problem is that you're listening to a black dog.
You're acting like an idiot on purpose aren't you? Naw, I really don't believe that. You're idiotic far too often to be acting. Let's look at your latest idiocy. Pay attention.
""Hebrews credits those guys, those who had direct commands from God..."
Your conditions are alien to scripture, here, Marshall:"
Not at all. Show me where, in any of your examples, where there was some question in the mind of the OT characters as to Who it was that spoke to them. Go ahead. I'll wait here. But only for so long because you won't find it. THAT is the issue with the question you posed to me, whether or not it really is God speaking to me or if I only believed it is. Why would I doubt it if it was indeed God speaking to me? When I'm face to face with anyone, I don't "believe" I'm speaking with them, I KNOW I'm speaking with them. If my wife, or a close friend, asks of me something that for them is out of character, I do not then question who it is who is asking me for I KNOW it is my wife. As to the strange request, I would then have faith that she had a good reason for the request.
This is the same as Abraham, for example. When he was preparing to sacrifice his son, there's nothing in Scripture that suggests at all that he was losing faith in Who it was commanding him to do so. He KNEW it was God. His faith was in carrying out the strange command to sacrifice his son. And he did so without regard to the Feodors of his time.
""By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command.." NOT from a direct command from God."
What a stupid thing to say since it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand. What really makes it stupid is that your hypothetical is based on whether or not I respond to a direct command from God.
""By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did." NOT from a direct command from God."
How nice. Equally irrelevant as the last for the same reason. You're questioning me about a direct command from God. MAN, are you an idiot.
""And without faith it is impossible...etc"
How pathetic you are! All that education and you can't come up with something that is in anyway related to what's being discussed here. Clearly I believe God exists. My faith in that is extremely strong. In fact, I have faith that somehow, though I may not understand it, the fact that such as you walks and breeds can somehow serve His purpose.
""By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future." Funny, Marshall, it was NOT because God directly commanded Jacob to put on a monkey suit."
What's funny is that you actually think you've made some kind of point that works against me.
continued---
continuing---
"Your inability to read simple passages of scripture gives evidence that you and I will always be talking past each other."
Not once at any time have you proven any inability on my part to understand Scripture, nor have you shown any ability of your own. You don't even understand MY words which are plainly spoken so that simpletons like even yourself should have no trouble. This is proven by the three times you've asked for an answer I've already given directly, without hestitation and without the cryptic pseudo-intellectual double-talk so common in your comments.
"You read things into scripture, Marshall, not out of it. You have to do that in order to get scripture to conform to your theology, in the partial, partially conscious shape that that's in."
This is not only untrue, but you haven't even come anywhere near showing how it MIGHT be. Saying so, particularly and specifically YOUR saying so, doesn't make it so. You're welcome to try if you ever have the spine to do so.
"How in the world can I expect you get a Locke, let alone a gospel?"
First you'd have to "get" either yourself. With my brief intro to Locke, it already seems clear you don't know what the hell you're talking about regarding him. I already know you don't understand Scripture.
"How can we expect you to follow moral reasoning?"
As above, your ability to reason at all is suspect, and your understanding of morality is equally questionable.
"Or the life of the Holy Spirit, guiding the faithful ever more deeply into the heart of God where spiritual truths are unexhaustable and new discoveries are born."
What kind of progressive psuedo-faith is this crap? Oh, wait. I know. This is where you found that a sin considered worthy of death is now something that God embraces and blesses. Yeah. You've got a great handle on morality.
Listening to a black dog, Feodor you joke of a false priest? The problem is that you listen to the world and lie about it saying it comes from God. You are thus the epitomy of the false priest.
But tell me, you stench of entrails, was your hypothetical question, answered at least thrice despite your inability to read and fathom, meant to imply that you believe God wants you to now treat homo behavior as equal to intercourse between a man and his wife? I'm really itching to get beyond this question and on to the point of your asking it. The boredom I'm experiencing by your inanity is almost too much to bear. Let's move it along. Then perhaps we'll get to the place where you demonstrate your superior intellect.
"This is where you found that a sin considered worthy of death is now something that God embraces and blesses."
Exactly: playing with pigskin. Embraced and blessed in good ol' American style this past Sunday. Previously worth death.
"you stench of entrails"???? Marshall, you think Jesus would really go for this kind of arch, faux reserve sham language?
Personally, I think he'd just go ahead and call you a piece of shit... or smile slightly while I do it.
Beginning with your last, I'm confident Jesus would NOT smile while you call me anything negative, but He would likely refer to you as a hypocrite and one among the brood of vipers he called the Pharisees. Surely He would prefer I not bear you any malice, and in fact I do pray for your repentance hope you receive the epiphany you so desperately need. But I have never held myself up to any standard of perfection as a Christian, only one who does not bend Christianity to suit my personal desires and wishes. Were I trained as a priest, as you allege of yourself, I would hold to a higher standard as a priest should.
As to your pigskin reference, Amercian footballs were never made of pigskin you poor example of higher education. Furthermore, I am unaware of any capital punishment proscribed for the touching of an animal carcass. Perhaps you can provide that verse for me, since you are a trained priest. And of course, you can also try to explain why there is no difference between laws of ritual, diet, and behavior. I could use a good laugh.
Post a Comment