If you'll only read above, you'd know that I take the whole cosmos as sacred and holy. If you'll only read above, you'd know that I cannot find everything equally sacred and holy and you'd find that scripture says this very thing first. "Leviathan... it ranks first among the works of God... Nothing on earth is its equal." Creation is a hierarchy of work, with humankind at the apex. We will have nature serve us as it can and we ask ourselves to care for it to the extent we can: tend, till, eat of it. The zygote, the embryo, the un-viable fetus is a work of natural creation - holy and sacred - but does not yet have the Spirit in its nostrils. "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
If you'll read above, Mark, you'd have gotten this and not needed to ask for it yet again. The zygote is sacred and holy like the blade of grass is sacred and holy. And more so. But not as sacred and holy as the human being with "the spirit of life in the nostrils."
It's simply there in scripture, children.
If you'll read above, you'd know that Marshall thinks Creation is cursed rather than sacred and holy - or at least the ground is - and that the original curse still stands. This despite the promise God makes in Genesis 8 to never AGAIN curse the ground as God had just done with the flood.
If you'll read above, you'd know that Marshall relies on the absolute unity and agreement of something called The Bible to claim that the zygote is more important than anything else in creation right along with full human beings. Even more, that the zygote is a human being. But you wont find that in The Bible. And you will not find in Holy Scripture anything that says it has a unity of agreement... nor that it itself is "holy."
To communicate with Mars, converse with spirits, To report the behaviour of the sea monster, Describe the horoscope, haruspicate or scry, Observe disease in signatures, evoke Biography from the wrinkles of the palm And tragedy from fingers; release omens By sortilege, or tea leaves, riddle the inevitable With playing cards, fiddle with pentagrams Or barbituric acids, or dissect The recurrent image into pre-conscious terrors— To explore the womb, or tomb, or dreams; all these are usual Pastimes and drugs, and features of the press: And always will be, some of them especially When there is distress of nations and perplexity Whether on the shores of Asia, or in the Edgware Road. Men's curiosity searches past and future And clings to that dimension. But to apprehend The point of intersection of the timeless With time, is an occupation for the saint— No occupation either, but something given And taken, in a lifetime's death in love, Ardour and selflessness and self-surrender. For most of us, there is only the unattended Moment, the moment in and out of time, The distraction fit, lost in a shaft of sunlight, The wild thyme unseen, or the winter lightning Or the waterfall, or music heard so deeply That it is not heard at all, but you are the music While the music lasts. These are only hints and guesses, Hints followed by guesses; and the rest Is prayer, observance, discipline, thought and action. The hint half guessed, the gift half understood, is Incarnation. Here the impossible union Of spheres of existence is actual, Here the past and future Are conquered, and reconciled, Where action were otherwise movement Of that which is only moved And has in it no source of movement— Driven by daemonic, chthonic Powers. And right action is freedom From past and future also. For most of us, this is the aim Never here to be realised; Who are only undefeated Because we have gone on trying; We, content at the last If our temporal reversion nourish (Not too far from the yew-tree) The life of significant soil.
"If you'll only read above, you'd know that I take the whole cosmos as sacred and holy."
Good for you. But aside from the fact that you haven't proven that it is, you don't show that you really feel that way, as you don't treat opponents on blogs as if they are made in God's image and likeness and have acted like and arrogant and condescending asshole from the first.
"If you'll only read above, you'd know that I cannot find everything equally sacred and holy and you'd find that scripture says this very thing first."
No it doesn't. You simply have chosen to read it that way. The verse speaks of the the beast's size and strength, that nothing is its equal in that regard, not that God favors it or considers it a creature more worthy of His favor.
"Creation is a hierarchy of work, with humankind at the apex."
Creation is creation and given to mankind for his use.
"The zygote, the embryo, the un-viable fetus is a work of natural creation - holy and sacred - but does not yet have the Spirit in its nostrils."
This is you own twisted opinion and is not supported in any way by Scripture, despite your lame attempts to make it say otherwise. No one was created in the same manner as Adam. There's no mention of God breathing life ito Eve's nostrils. A far better and far more logical assumption is that God breathed life into Adam, and Adam then passed that life (note that the verse does not say "Spirit") onto subsequent generations, his descendants, through the reproductive process. Thus, the zygote is blessed with the very same God-given breath of life that sustains us all, whether he actually "breathes" like a fully formed human being or not. It inherits its humanity that stretches all the way back to Adam and is passed from one generation to the next.
"It's simply there in scripture, children."
Only for the childish, the self-serving and the false priest, but it isn't there in reality. Your argument in favor of that opinion is incredibly lacking and less than what I would expect a supposedly well trained and ordained "priest" would adopt.
"If you'll read above, you'd know that Marshall thinks Creation is cursed rather than sacred and holy - or at least the ground is - and that the original curse still stands. This despite the promise God makes in Genesis 8 to never AGAIN curse the ground as God had just done with the flood."
I don't think it, false one, I KNOW it because I understand the words and what they mean when arranged as they are. I have already explained for you what "again" means and how you it supports my position, but you don't like being shown up by someone like me, so you cling frantically to your laughable interpretation.
"If you'll read above, you'd know that Marshall relies on the absolute unity and agreement of something called The Bible to claim that the zygote is more important than anything else in creation right along with full human beings. Even more, that the zygote is a human being."
First of all, that "something" called the Bible is synonymous with something called "Scripture" and I use the terms interchangably, as do probably 99% of the Christian world. The HUMAN zygote IS more important than anything else in creation because the HUMAN zygote IS a full human being. Nothing in Scripture even remotely suggests otherwise, as you have so successfully helped me show. To demand support from me from Scripture for something so incredibly obvious is to expect the Bible to dwell on the obvious for the sake of stupid people like yourself.
"And you will not find in Holy Scripture anything that says it has a unity of agreement... nor that it itself is "holy.""
Really? Who's arguing for that? The holy part, that is. As for unity of agreement, are you suggesting the Scripture is at odds with itself, saying multiply things about an issue with multiple meanings all of which conflict with each other so that we cannot know the truth (unless we are false priests)? Go back to seminary, but this time, find a good one.
And BTW, what was your last entry for? Which Book of that something called "the Bible" contains it? And how many more words will you produce for us that doesn't support your case?
My last comment would be from T.S. Eliot. It serves to convey my sense of the eternal mystery of God and the sacred mystery of the divinely created/ self and community fallen/ jointly and temporally redeeming life of the Christian.
How beautiful are your works, O Lord.
Even still, in the midst of mad, bad, and dangerous faith like Marshall's.
""What I take note of is how your troll your own blog."
Really.. its amazing."
What's not so amazing is troll-boys amazement at Feodor's goofy remark. Troll-boy not only makes stupid and substance-free comments, but he finds the stupid and substance free comments of others to be amazing. Speaking of which, the troll says this:
"An interesting comment from somebody that gave up on using the bible in support."
This is interesting given the troll's complete lack of knowledge regarding the Bible and its contents. The comment also fails to provide any example of my "giving up on using the Bible for support". If the troll is referring to this exhausted conversation, the onus is on Feodor, and others like him, to provide the support they say the Bible has for believing as they do. It was Feo that proclaimed what God has said on the subject of the humanity of the unborn. If I've made any proclamations on the subject, it is that the humanity of the unborn is so obvious as to be moot. It's a given, given how the unborn come into existence. Trolls and false priests might need Biblical support for the humanity and equality of the unborn, but normal people do not. The Bible is written for all to understand. One cannot hold it to blame because trolls and false priests cannot understand it.
The Eliot piece was entirely unnecessary. For one thing, it doesn't do anything to help your case. For another, I am quite aware by now what your position is. Thus, no lengthy copy and pasting is required to illustrate it.
"Even still, in the midst of mad, bad, and dangerous faith like Marshall's."
A curious comment given your ongoing inability to show in any way what is wrong with my faith or understanding of it. The truth is that you can't handle how I've shown how badly you understand it despite my lack of formal education. And just on this subject, you have shown how dangerous YOUR faith is as you infer, somehow without providing adequate support, the same type of disregard for the unborn that the Klan had done regarding blacks. Worse, when I point out how foolish your inferences are, you insist on clinging to them, just as Klansmen do. You can't even see how denying personhood and humanity to another based on size is no different than denying them because of their color. If that ain't mad, bad and dangerous, then Parkie's a freakin' Apostle. (St. Troll?)
"This is interesting given the troll's complete lack of knowledge regarding the Bible and its contents."
Really, ma.. you shouldnt call yourself names. This is really getting out of hand. And referencing yourself in the third person.. what a 90s Republican thing to do.
"the onus is on Feodor"
Sadly.. its also on you. Nobody is actually trying to change your mind. Just like nobody will cure you of your homophobia.
Many posts ago you conceded that he knew more about the Bible than you. You have actually written this. And, it warms my soul that we agree on something. Then you gave up and decided to stop quoting from it.
No. I haven't. Not that have any value. Not that they'd be missed. I enjoy letting you make an ass of yourself. It's the one thing at which you are unsurpassed. Case in point:
"Really, ma.. you shouldnt call yourself names. This is really getting out of hand. And referencing yourself in the third person.. what a 90s Republican thing to do."
Exhibit two:
"Just like nobody will cure you of your homophobia."
No one can cure what I don't have. You've accused me of this mythical condition in the past. You've yet to provide any evidence that either I am irrationally afraid of homos or that I hate them. What YOU have is a nasty desire to find fault in those with whom you disagree. You cannot deal with the logic of my arguments (indeed, you've never tried to counter any of my arguments---you only mock from afar as if I'm actually in error), so instead, like the troll you are, you label.
"Many posts ago you conceded that he knew more about the Bible than you. You have actually written this."
Well, I've written something like this. But the actual message was that despite what his education has provided him in terms of academic knowledge of the faith, he has shown little understanding of it. It doesn't matter what you know St. Augustine said, or what you know Martin Luther wrote if what you believe is inane. As shown by Feo's poor attempts to use Scripture to support his opinions he's expressed here, he has a very poor understanding indeed. None of his offerings have withstood basic scrutiny.
And it has been his inane positions on the humanity of the unborn, the condition of creation, that he has claimed are Biblically supported. Thus, the onus IS on him to find such support to offer as proof. It is not I who must provide Biblical support for that which I have not claimed IS supported. I've only shown that HIS "support" is not support at all but poor interpretations. In fact, they've not been interpretations at all, but rather, Feodor's own preferred meanings laid upon the verses he used, meanings the verses themselves do not possess. He likes to pretend, as so many "progressive" so-called Christains do, that they have found deeper meanings in Scripture.
"Then you gave up and decided to stop quoting from it."
Now you're just saying crap, aren't you? Kinda hard up to really catch me at fault somehow, aren't ya? Though you're willfully stupid, I regard you as a clinical idiot, so I must help the handicapped like yourself. Thus, I'll correct you yet again: Just because I haven't quoted Scripture lately, doesn't mean I've "given up" anything. I was never big on quoting Scripture anyway, but I have my moments when it is appropriate. Here, however, you fool, I haven't needed to as Feodor's quoting has given enough to do correcting his poor understanding.
Now...getting back to this:
"Removing my comments?
Tisk.. tisk.."
This is not far from likely as you continually fail to post any comments that adds to any discussion. If you feel there is nothing noteworthy here at my blog, then you prove what an incredible idiot you are for spending any time visiting. Since you haven't the spine for serious discussion, and what clinical idiot troll would, you might prefer to spend your time looking at those cute cat pictures that are all the rage.
No, troll. You stand corrupted. You're a sick and pathetic little worm with not a wit of sense, cleverness or substance.
I'm going to respond to this supposed "gotcha" before I delete your other, worthless and stupid comments. After that, if you have nothing worthy of responding to, according to my standards, I will delete any further comments, because you bore me to tears and I no longer have the time or inclination to provide a forum for your incredible stupidity.
Are you suggesting, like so many other twisted lefties lacking a real argument in support of perversion, that the use of the contraction "homo" is an indication of an irrational fear of...homos? Is that really the best your 8 year old mind can muster? Are you truly that incredibly pathetic (he asks knowing full well the answer)? Try again, troll. Prove I have either an irrational fear of or hatred for homosexuals. I dare you to try, coward.
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215If you'll only read above, you'd know that I take the whole cosmos as sacred and holy. If you'll only read above, you'd know that I cannot find everything equally sacred and holy and you'd find that scripture says this very thing first. "Leviathan... it ranks first among the works of God... Nothing on earth is its equal." Creation is a hierarchy of work, with humankind at the apex. We will have nature serve us as it can and we ask ourselves to care for it to the extent we can: tend, till, eat of it. The zygote, the embryo, the un-viable fetus is a work of natural creation - holy and sacred - but does not yet have the Spirit in its nostrils. "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
If you'll read above, Mark, you'd have gotten this and not needed to ask for it yet again. The zygote is sacred and holy like the blade of grass is sacred and holy. And more so. But not as sacred and holy as the human being with "the spirit of life in the nostrils."
It's simply there in scripture, children.
If you'll read above, you'd know that Marshall thinks Creation is cursed rather than sacred and holy - or at least the ground is - and that the original curse still stands. This despite the promise God makes in Genesis 8 to never AGAIN curse the ground as God had just done with the flood.
If you'll read above, you'd know that Marshall relies on the absolute unity and agreement of something called The Bible to claim that the zygote is more important than anything else in creation right along with full human beings. Even more, that the zygote is a human being. But you wont find that in The Bible. And you will not find in Holy Scripture anything that says it has a unity of agreement... nor that it itself is "holy."
To communicate with Mars, converse with spirits,
To report the behaviour of the sea monster,
Describe the horoscope, haruspicate or scry,
Observe disease in signatures, evoke
Biography from the wrinkles of the palm
And tragedy from fingers; release omens
By sortilege, or tea leaves, riddle the inevitable
With playing cards, fiddle with pentagrams
Or barbituric acids, or dissect
The recurrent image into pre-conscious terrors—
To explore the womb, or tomb, or dreams; all these are usual
Pastimes and drugs, and features of the press:
And always will be, some of them especially
When there is distress of nations and perplexity
Whether on the shores of Asia, or in the Edgware Road.
Men's curiosity searches past and future
And clings to that dimension. But to apprehend
The point of intersection of the timeless
With time, is an occupation for the saint—
No occupation either, but something given
And taken, in a lifetime's death in love,
Ardour and selflessness and self-surrender.
For most of us, there is only the unattended
Moment, the moment in and out of time,
The distraction fit, lost in a shaft of sunlight,
The wild thyme unseen, or the winter lightning
Or the waterfall, or music heard so deeply
That it is not heard at all, but you are the music
While the music lasts. These are only hints and guesses,
Hints followed by guesses; and the rest
Is prayer, observance, discipline, thought and action.
The hint half guessed, the gift half understood, is Incarnation.
Here the impossible union
Of spheres of existence is actual,
Here the past and future
Are conquered, and reconciled,
Where action were otherwise movement
Of that which is only moved
And has in it no source of movement—
Driven by daemonic, chthonic
Powers. And right action is freedom
From past and future also.
For most of us, this is the aim
Never here to be realised;
Who are only undefeated
Because we have gone on trying;
We, content at the last
If our temporal reversion nourish
(Not too far from the yew-tree)
The life of significant soil.
"If you'll only read above, you'd know that I take the whole cosmos as sacred and holy."
Good for you. But aside from the fact that you haven't proven that it is, you don't show that you really feel that way, as you don't treat opponents on blogs as if they are made in God's image and likeness and have acted like and arrogant and condescending asshole from the first.
"If you'll only read above, you'd know that I cannot find everything equally sacred and holy and you'd find that scripture says this very thing first."
No it doesn't. You simply have chosen to read it that way. The verse speaks of the the beast's size and strength, that nothing is its equal in that regard, not that God favors it or considers it a creature more worthy of His favor.
"Creation is a hierarchy of work, with humankind at the apex."
Creation is creation and given to mankind for his use.
"The zygote, the embryo, the un-viable fetus is a work of natural creation - holy and sacred - but does not yet have the Spirit in its nostrils."
This is you own twisted opinion and is not supported in any way by Scripture, despite your lame attempts to make it say otherwise. No one was created in the same manner as Adam. There's no mention of God breathing life ito Eve's nostrils. A far better and far more logical assumption is that God breathed life into Adam, and Adam then passed that life (note that the verse does not say "Spirit") onto subsequent generations, his descendants, through the reproductive process. Thus, the zygote is blessed with the very same God-given breath of life that sustains us all, whether he actually "breathes" like a fully formed human being or not. It inherits its humanity that stretches all the way back to Adam and is passed from one generation to the next.
"It's simply there in scripture, children."
Only for the childish, the self-serving and the false priest, but it isn't there in reality. Your argument in favor of that opinion is incredibly lacking and less than what I would expect a supposedly well trained and ordained "priest" would adopt.
"If you'll read above, you'd know that Marshall thinks Creation is cursed rather than sacred and holy - or at least the ground is - and that the original curse still stands. This despite the promise God makes in Genesis 8 to never AGAIN curse the ground as God had just done with the flood."
I don't think it, false one, I KNOW it because I understand the words and what they mean when arranged as they are. I have already explained for you what "again" means and how you it supports my position, but you don't like being shown up by someone like me, so you cling frantically to your laughable interpretation.
furthermore....
"If you'll read above, you'd know that Marshall relies on the absolute unity and agreement of something called The Bible to claim that the zygote is more important than anything else in creation right along with full human beings. Even more, that the zygote is a human being."
First of all, that "something" called the Bible is synonymous with something called "Scripture" and I use the terms interchangably, as do probably 99% of the Christian world. The HUMAN zygote IS more important than anything else in creation because the HUMAN zygote IS a full human being. Nothing in Scripture even remotely suggests otherwise, as you have so successfully helped me show. To demand support from me from Scripture for something so incredibly obvious is to expect the Bible to dwell on the obvious for the sake of stupid people like yourself.
"And you will not find in Holy Scripture anything that says it has a unity of agreement... nor that it itself is "holy.""
Really? Who's arguing for that? The holy part, that is. As for unity of agreement, are you suggesting the Scripture is at odds with itself, saying multiply things about an issue with multiple meanings all of which conflict with each other so that we cannot know the truth (unless we are false priests)? Go back to seminary, but this time, find a good one.
And BTW, what was your last entry for? Which Book of that something called "the Bible" contains it? And how many more words will you produce for us that doesn't support your case?
"What I take note of is how your troll your own blog."
Really.. its amazing.
"And how many more words will you produce for us that doesn't support your case?"
An interesting comment from somebody that gave up on using the bible in support.
My last comment would be from T.S. Eliot. It serves to convey my sense of the eternal mystery of God and the sacred mystery of the divinely created/ self and community fallen/ jointly and temporally redeeming life of the Christian.
How beautiful are your works, O Lord.
Even still, in the midst of mad, bad, and dangerous faith like Marshall's.
Parkie commented:
""What I take note of is how your troll your own blog."
Really.. its amazing."
What's not so amazing is troll-boys amazement at Feodor's goofy remark. Troll-boy not only makes stupid and substance-free comments, but he finds the stupid and substance free comments of others to be amazing. Speaking of which, the troll says this:
"An interesting comment from somebody that gave up on using the bible in support."
This is interesting given the troll's complete lack of knowledge regarding the Bible and its contents. The comment also fails to provide any example of my "giving up on using the Bible for support". If the troll is referring to this exhausted conversation, the onus is on Feodor, and others like him, to provide the support they say the Bible has for believing as they do. It was Feo that proclaimed what God has said on the subject of the humanity of the unborn. If I've made any proclamations on the subject, it is that the humanity of the unborn is so obvious as to be moot. It's a given, given how the unborn come into existence. Trolls and false priests might need
Biblical support for the humanity and equality of the unborn, but normal people do not. The Bible is written for all to understand. One cannot hold it to blame because trolls and false priests cannot understand it.
Feodor,
The Eliot piece was entirely unnecessary. For one thing, it doesn't do anything to help your case. For another, I am quite aware by now what your position is. Thus, no lengthy copy and pasting is required to illustrate it.
"Even still, in the midst of mad, bad, and dangerous faith like Marshall's."
A curious comment given your ongoing inability to show in any way what is wrong with my faith or understanding of it. The truth is that you can't handle how I've shown how badly you understand it despite my lack of formal education. And just on this subject, you have shown how dangerous YOUR faith is as you infer, somehow without providing adequate support, the same type of disregard for the unborn that the Klan had done regarding blacks. Worse, when I point out how foolish your inferences are, you insist on clinging to them, just as Klansmen do. You can't even see how denying personhood and humanity to another based on size is no different than denying them because of their color. If that ain't mad, bad and dangerous, then Parkie's a freakin' Apostle. (St. Troll?)
Removing my comments?
Tisk.. tisk..
"This is interesting given the troll's complete lack of knowledge regarding the Bible and its contents."
Really, ma.. you shouldnt call yourself names. This is really getting out of hand. And referencing yourself in the third person.. what a 90s Republican thing to do.
"the onus is on Feodor"
Sadly.. its also on you. Nobody is actually trying to change your mind. Just like nobody will cure you of your homophobia.
Many posts ago you conceded that he knew more about the Bible than you. You have actually written this. And, it warms my soul that we agree on something. Then you gave up and decided to stop quoting from it.
"Removing my comments?
Tisk.. tisk.."
No. I haven't. Not that have any value. Not that they'd be missed. I enjoy letting you make an ass of yourself. It's the one thing at which you are unsurpassed. Case in point:
"Really, ma.. you shouldnt call yourself names. This is really getting out of hand. And referencing yourself in the third person.. what a 90s Republican thing to do."
Exhibit two:
"Just like nobody will cure you of your homophobia."
No one can cure what I don't have. You've accused me of this mythical condition in the past. You've yet to provide any evidence that either I am irrationally afraid of homos or that I hate them. What YOU have is a nasty desire to find fault in those with whom you disagree. You cannot deal with the logic of my arguments (indeed, you've never tried to counter any of my arguments---you only mock from afar as if I'm actually in error), so instead, like the troll you are, you label.
"Many posts ago you conceded that he knew more about the Bible than you. You have actually written this."
Well, I've written something like this. But the actual message was that despite what his education has provided him in terms of academic knowledge of the faith, he has shown little understanding of it. It doesn't matter what you know St. Augustine said, or what you know Martin Luther wrote if what you believe is inane. As shown by Feo's poor attempts to use Scripture to support his opinions he's expressed here, he has a very poor understanding indeed. None of his offerings have withstood basic scrutiny.
And it has been his inane positions on the humanity of the unborn, the condition of creation, that he has claimed are Biblically supported. Thus, the onus IS on him to find such support to offer as proof. It is not I who must provide Biblical support for that which I have not claimed IS supported. I've only shown that HIS "support" is not support at all but poor interpretations. In fact, they've not been interpretations at all, but rather, Feodor's own preferred meanings laid upon the verses he used, meanings the verses themselves do not possess. He likes to pretend, as so many "progressive" so-called Christains do, that they have found deeper meanings in Scripture.
"Then you gave up and decided to stop quoting from it."
Now you're just saying crap, aren't you? Kinda hard up to really catch me at fault somehow, aren't ya? Though you're willfully stupid, I regard you as a clinical idiot, so I must help the handicapped like yourself. Thus, I'll correct you yet again: Just because I haven't quoted Scripture lately, doesn't mean I've "given up" anything. I was never big on quoting Scripture anyway, but I have my moments when it is appropriate. Here, however, you fool, I haven't needed to as Feodor's quoting has given enough to do correcting his poor understanding.
Now...getting back to this:
"Removing my comments?
Tisk.. tisk.."
This is not far from likely as you continually fail to post any comments that adds to any discussion. If you feel there is nothing noteworthy here at my blog, then you prove what an incredible idiot you are for spending any time visiting. Since you haven't the spine for serious discussion, and what clinical idiot troll would, you might prefer to spend your time looking at those cute cat pictures that are all the rage.
"homos"
I stand corrected.
""homos"
I stand corrected."
No, troll. You stand corrupted. You're a sick and pathetic little worm with not a wit of sense, cleverness or substance.
I'm going to respond to this supposed "gotcha" before I delete your other, worthless and stupid comments. After that, if you have nothing worthy of responding to, according to my standards, I will delete any further comments, because you bore me to tears and I no longer have the time or inclination to provide a forum for your incredible stupidity.
Are you suggesting, like so many other twisted lefties lacking a real argument in support of perversion, that the use of the contraction "homo" is an indication of an irrational fear of...homos? Is that really the best your 8 year old mind can muster? Are you truly that incredibly pathetic (he asks knowing full well the answer)? Try again, troll. Prove I have either an irrational fear of or hatred for homosexuals. I dare you to try, coward.
Post a Comment