Getting back to that Barry Rosner column, I could almost use it for the next Agenda Lies installment, due to the underlying falseness that forms its premise. That falseness can be found in his words here:
"But never, seemingly, is there an actual discussion about the words themselves and why they are hurtful.
The focus is always on the act, the criticism and the contrition."
That falseness is in believing the focus does NOT belong on the act, or that words used in that act are of any true significance. It is indeed the act of name-calling where the real sin is committed, not in the name used to inflict the harm. One gets the sense that had Ozzie Guillen called the writer a horse's ass, not only would there have been no story, but not one sports writer would opine on the distress experienced by horses everywhere.
No. Rozner's column is simply a not-so-veiled defense of deviant sexual behavior and the people who engage in it. He starts from the unsupportable position that states that homosexual behavior is morally benign or morally equal to heterosexual behavior between a man and a woman married to each other. To him, as to other self-deceived people, it is not wrong.
OK. Let's suppose for a moment that it is not wrong. If that's the case, then what's the problem? As I said in the previous post, if someone calls me a "polack", I can't and don't take offense because I don't find being Polish to be anything to regret in the least. If I'm called a "Jesus freak", the same applies.
AH! they will respond. But you haven't been subject to the same evil persecution as homosexuals have! Really? There was a time when polack jokes were all the rage. Along with it came the condescension that would follow being caught in the act of making the average human mistake. "What a polack!"
Not good enough? Doesn't compare to physical attacks suffered by some homosexuals? Perhaps not. But Christians in many parts of the Middle East are still attacked and killed because of their beliefs. I haven't been attacked physically, but I'm attacked often on this here blog for expressing traditional and orthodox (not what Alan, Dan, Geoffrey and Feodor regard as orthodox, but ACTUAL orthodoxy) opinions. That makes me a victim in the same way most homosexuals are victims these days. A victim of mere name calling. I can't tell you how much sleep I've lost over such attacks. OK, I can tell you: none.
But that's all really besides the point. The point is that what Guillen has done is shown a great lack of self-control and poor judgement. And that would be poor judgement in publicly calling another person ANYTHING that isn't both a truthful description as well as pertinent to whatever discussion was ongoing at the time.
I don't think Guillen really had the writer's sexual orientation in mind when he called him a faggot. I don't think Kobe Bryant had the referee's orientation in mind when Kobe called him a fag. I don't think Joakim Noah had the fan's sexual orientation in mind when he called him a fag. I doubt any of these guys is even aware of the sexual orientation of any of their "victims".
Rozner sees these situations as opportunities lost for not using them to begin public edification on the horrors of using "anti-gay" slurs. But again, if the behavior is not wrong, then those engaging in it aren't wrong in their engagements, and using the term can't be offensive. Go ahead. Call me handsome in a manner meant to disparage me. See how offended I get. Call me a Jesus freak or a polack. I know the terms are meant to be negative and hurtful, but they aren't if I see nothing wrong with being handsome, Christian or Polish. What I do feel is confusion and a level of pity for the one calling me those names. It's like trying to kill me with a rub-down and a warm bath. It just won't hurt me. Nor can it.
What bothers those like Rozner is that people still understand that homosexual behavior is wrong and abnormal. They don't like people to believe that. And they want people to STOP believing that regardless of whether that belief is truthful or not.
This pants wetting over the use of homosexual related slurs is not much different than the manner in which bullying is being addressed these days. The attention is neither on the bullying or the name-calling, but rather who is being bullied and what slurs are being hurled about. Bullying and harrassments in schools have been going on since there have been schools, but the bullying of homosexual kids (or those believed to be homosexual, or kids who think they're homosexuals, or kids who are told by adults who should know better that it is OK to accept their homosexual urges as normal). Athletes and coaches have been yelling at refs, fans and sports writers since there have been sports, but somehow it's not that they lose their self-control that's the issue, but how their lack of self-control manifests itself.
Why is this? It's simple. Because those who are so corrupted as to believe that homosexual behavior is something worthy of defense are doing what they demand the rest of us never so much as dare think of doing. They are trying to force their morality down the throat of America.
I guess if Barry Rozner believes that homosexual behavior is worthy of defense, his column is one he had to write. But here's the real reason why one shouldn't hurl "anti-gay" slurs at people: if the person isn't a homosexual, you're making a horrible slanderous remark. It's like calling someone a thief if he's never stolen anything in his life. It's like calling an honest person a liar. It's like calling a hard working guy lazy. However, if you call a person a thief because he steals things, you're simply stating a fact, whether you use the actual word "thief" or any slang alternative. There's nothing wrong with stating the obvious.
76 comments:
Yes Art, delete all Parkie's posts. He laughs but won't explain what he's laughing at. He makes false statements and accusations and won't explain how he arrives at his suppositions.
He has no explanation whatsoever for his behavior. he simply scoffs without offering any opinion as to why he disagrees.
In short, his comments are worthless and useless to any intelligent conversation.
Delete his comments, please. For the sake of your loyal sensible readers.
I, for one, have had enough of his inanity. Calling me a racist is like calling Bill Clinton a virgin.
He can't cite any evidence of anything I've said or even an indication that I have a scintilla of racism in me.
And he won't even try to produce any. Ban him.
Yes, Mark. Everything you say about Parkie's comments is true enough. And indeed, he is an idiot, though that's for me to say about a visitor, not one to another, which is why I deleted a recent remark of yours. That idiot thought it was because you said something racist. LOL!
Oh yeah, he did think he had proof and I deleted that as well until I can review more closely what he offered. A cursory look found nothing. We'll see what more scrutiny produces. I'll be likely wasting my time, I'm sure.
He simply linked to my blog which has no hint of racism in any post. Quite the contrary, Some of my blogposts strongly condemn racism, even when it's black on white racism. Of course, Parkie is probably one of those (insert appropriate insult of intelligence here) who think only whites can be racist. Even if only whites can be racist, he still can't furnish any evidence of racism on my part.
However, most racists are the ones that scream "racism" the loudest.
"It is indeed the act of name-calling where the real sin is committed, not in the name used to inflict the harm."
Marshall, being beside myself with anger at you, I cannot hold back from calling you a kel tamasheq.
Now I have to go confess my sin to my priest.
"Marshall, being beside myself with anger at you..."
I knew you were a hater.
"...I cannot hold back from calling you a kel tamasheq."
So you're psychotic. Seek help for that. As to your choice of disparagement, knock yourself out. It has no effect on me.
"Now I have to go confess my sin to my priest."
Which sin exactly? And only one sin? And is your priest as false a priest as you are? If so, will it make any difference to simply go through the motions?
Well, now your being a flat out toomim.
Whatever. Got anything intelligent to say?
Marshall,
Has it occurred to you that parkie is either obsessed with you, or has a crush on you?
Well, Craig, that thought is a concern. And when you think about how small boys will tease and insult girls with whom they are smitten, it makes even more sense to consider such a thing, Parkie mentality being that level and all. And of course he does make a lot of comments regarding my physical condition, almost pretending to care about my health. He may indeed have more amorous intentions. After all, he IS creepy.
Fujaheeminion!!!
It's like some kind of stalker sending creepy anonymous notes to the object of his/her affections.
Totally Not Homophobic:
Just to recap.
1. Ma post on homosexuality
2. I call him homophobic
3. Sounds of right-wing crying
4. Ma resorts to insults
5. I inform him that real Christians don’t resort to such tactics
6. Ma responds that he can and that he is imperfect
7. Ma continues with more homosexual topics. Repeat steps 1-6 several times.
8. Banned with conditions
9. More name-calling
10. Banned without conditions
11. Finding the ban does not deter my posting. Craig and Ma resort to homophobic comments (see their posts above) combined with deleting my comments.
What happens next my dear readers?
So parkie,
What is your obsession with calling those you don't like homophobic? Seriously, you need to add #12 to your list.
12. parkie calls everyone he doesn't like homophobic for no reason.
You're just some anonymous blog stalker who is unwilling to actually add anything valuable to the conversation, why should anyone take you seriously?
"What happens next my dear readers?"
Parkie keeps posting inanities, MA keeps deleting them, parkie keeps calling folks homophobes. Scintillating conversation. Well done stalker boy/girl.
Actually, Craig. I think I'll leave Parkie's last posted for at least a while. It's an example of his own "Audacity of (a) Dope" version of the Obama drivel of a similar name. You've noted his list is incomplete, but you didn't go far enough. It's also Parkie-level inaccurate. Let's review just one or two:
1) True enough
2) This one should read "I call him homophobic without just case or legitimate reason."
3) There's been no crying on the right that I've ever heard. He's hallucinating.
4) Not so much insults as accurate descriptions of the person with whom I'm dealing based on the quality, or lack thereof, of the comments he/she leaves on my blog.
5) This is true, but it leaves out the part where he, who recently claims to believe (or more precisely stated he hasn't expressed that he doesn't), has expended the effort to provoke rather than to actually engage like a mature adult.
Gotta go---more later.
Feodor,
Are you now taking commenting lessons from Parkie?
Marshall's a slottherzen.
You don't seem to be offended.
If you think I should be offended, that doesn't speak well of you for attempting to offend me. But then, to expect more from you would be silly of me. But no, I don't offend easily, especially by attempts from such as yourself. To expend such emotion on your account wouldn't speak well of me.
More for idiot-boy (Parkie, not Feodor),
6) True enough.
7) My blog, my choice of topics. Pretty simple. So simple a simpleton like yourself should get it. Maybe not.
8) I've not yet banned anyone, nor have I to date. I'm pretty sure this was covered in recent days.
9) Again, applying the label your actions dictate. Try acting like a mature adult giving reasoned arguments and see how you're labeled then.
10) See my response to #8. Perhaps you think having a comment deleted is the same as being banned. When you find that your idiotic comments won't even publish, then you can assume you've been banned. That day is coming soon. If you have any thoughtful comments to post, now's the time.
11) OOH! You're such a rebel! Continuing to post such low quality comments knowing full well they'll be deleted makes you a geek. Congratulations on your achievement of your goal. You must be giddy with pride. What exactly IS a "homophobic" comment?
Then, Marshall, you are a fucking stupid idiot.
"Then, Marshall, you are a fucking stupid idiot."
Very classy.
I've explained this before, but I'll do it again as it really does relate to this and the other post about words and name-calling:
There is a distinction between what feodor and Parkie do when using pejoratives, and when I do. This distinction isn't so much a justification for my use of them, but merely a clarification showing the difference between us.
Above, we see feodor reduced to name calling after failing to make his point in a manner that is reasoned and persuasive. When the futility of his attempts to appear intellectual fail, rather than say nothing, he hurls insults.
When I have used pejoratives, it has been after my opponent has established himself as the (insert pejorative here) his comments have proven him to be. I have always explained why I use the words I do to label these sad individuals, and they have not defended their comments in a manner that mitigates such labeling.
But we do not see the same thing from these guys. Feo thinks I'm a bigot, but cannot show that I've ever acted as one. He thinks I am stupid, but hasn't been able to explain how. He thinks I'm illiterate, but can't show how my use of words like "agenda" have been false, unclear or imprecise.
And I don't just deny their positions, but show why their positions are wrong, stupid or idiotic. The same can't ever be said for them.
As to taking offense, why should I? Is it offensive to be called "a fucking stupid idiot"? Perhaps the lack of imagination could be so regarded, but to called such has no effect whatsoever coming from the likes of a feodor. That's called "considering the source". I consider the source beneath my concern as regards his opinion of me, especially seeing as how inaccurate his opinion is (on most things, for that matter).
In Parkie's case, he's just a troll because his comments are so consistently substance free. There is never any need for him to disagree with anything said here, because it's been well established that he does indeed disagree. Never does he provide any real position by which a comparison between positions can be made. He just disagrees and rather than risk by expressing why he disagrees, he prefers to be disagreeable by posting meaningless comments void of substance, wit or relevance. At least feodor puts in some effort, despite the result being the same.
So this explanation indicates that it is both Parkie and feo who are the real "fucking stupid idiots", but I don't need to say it as long as they continue to prove it themselves with their comments and weak insults.
Marshall, you're always crawling through the weeds of your mind and losing sight of what you thought just a few steps ago.
LIke this long response of yours which, in terms of substance, says nothing.
First, I apologize for using such strong language without explanation, but it was for a point. And this is the point:
I committed the "act" of calling you a name four times without goading you into a response. You did not deem it necessary to go off at length in following up to being called those names.
This in spite of your own words, "It is indeed the act of name-calling where the real sin is committed, not in the name used to inflict the harm."
But when I used strong words, words that carry meaning in and of themselves, in a fifth act of calling you a name, you responded at great length.
Apparently the name matters, Marshall.
Which makes your whole post a lie. You reacted to some of the words not all of them - you reacted only to those you understood.
You gave the lie to your own post.
______________
I never said you used the word, "agenda," wrong. It was the sense of "declare" you confused as being related to a declaration when, according to dictionaries, your use of declare was not related to declaration. What I pointed out was that the Declaration of Independence has an agenda, as any declaration [note, not any use of "declare"] does have. I even agreed with you: gay rights is an agenda: the agenda of our founding fathers.
You really do lose yourself in the jungle of your own train-wrecks of thoughts.
feo,
That you can't follow along doesn't mean it is I who is lost. It wasn't what you called me that provoked my last, but the total of all the things you called me. What's more, I was drawing a distinction between what is going when either of us is engaging in the act of name-calling. As such, I wasn't reacting to the words themselves at all. You could have made that lame point had I commented after the first shot or had I waited until you posted 100. MY point laid out in the post stands as strongly as before.
I'll have to get to the rest later.
The quote at the top of your response post only signifies one name calling act, Marshall.
Apparently, it's CYA time for you.
Some people, when they're wrong and know it, they become noble. You're just pathetic.
"The quote at the top of your response post only signifies one name calling act, Marshall.
Apparently, it's CYA time for you."
I don't know what "CYA time" is supposed to me. But I do know that I have left a response following pretty much every name-calling comment you've posted. Now what are ya gonna try to say, fool? How sad it is that you continue to do the happy dance only to find that you've once again made a fool of yourself. I know you'd like to think you've proven me wrong, feo, but just like most of your arguments, you seem to believe stating your opinion seals the deal. It doesn't, though with luck, at some point it might support some future endeavor to prove me wrong. You haven't come close to success as yet. But keep on trying.
Feodor, for the rest left unanswered,
"It was the sense of "declare" you confused as being related to a declaration when, according to dictionaries, your use of declare was not related to declaration"
Sorry, but you're still off base. To declare something IS a declaration. A declaration is what is declared. I don't understand your problem with this simple concept. If one declares and opinion, wish or whatever, a declaration has been made. If a declaration has been made, someone is declaring something; something has been declared; someone made an effort to declare.
"What I pointed out was that the Declaration of Independence has an agenda, as any declaration [note, not any use of "declare"] does have."
But that isn't the case, either regarding the D of I or any declaration simply by virtue of it having been declared. I would not disagree if you were to say a declaration might have added to it an agenda for accomplishing some task, but a declaration does not automatically, or even necessarily routinely contain and agenda for doing anything. The D of I has no agenda that YOU'VE presented, nor any besides the desire to gain independence, which isn't really an agenda in and of itself, except perhaps in the broadest sense of what the word "agenda" means.
"I even agreed with you: gay rights is an agenda: the agenda of our founding fathers."
First of all, you didn't agree with me in that manner. You simply said you agreed homosexuals have an agenda. "Gay rights" isn't an agenda. Trying to acquire what they believe is on the list of their rights would entail having an agenda as to how they do acquire them.
Secondly, there is nothing to which I have any right that homos have ever been deprived. There is nothing the founders considered to be unalienable rights of which homos have been deprived. The agenda of the homo lobby is to conflate actual rights they already have, with privileges to which the US Constitution does not guarantee anyone. Their agenda, as well as the "rights" to which they declare themselves as having a right, is in no way similar to that of the founders.
"there is nothing to which I have any right that homos have ever been deprived. There is nothing the founders considered to be unalienable rights of which homos have been deprived. The agenda of the homo lobby is to conflate actual rights they already have, with privileges to which the US Constitution does not guarantee anyone."
Gays have all the rights of all other Americans, and the founders didn't give them those rights. They are God given, and inalienable.
The problem with the so-called "Gay rights" movement, is that Gays want special rights to be afforded them at the expense of normal people's rights.
Among other things, they want to be allowed to force their perverse lifestyle choice on impressionable children, while at the same time banning the teaching of anything that would disagree with their world view, and they emphasize that with violence and intimidation.
Which founding father suggested a that is a right?
"... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..."
Tell us, boys, the last person murdered for being thought a heterosexual?
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28329089/ns/world_news-americas/t/ecuadorean-killed-new-york-buried-home/]
"... Liberty..."
Tell us, boys, the last person to have been unlawfully imprisoned, tortured, and tied to a fence for being a heterosexual?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard]
"... and the pursuit of Happiness."
Tell us, boys, when was the last time a teenager in college was murderously ridiculed for being heterosexual?
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/dharun-revi-molly-wei-charged_n_743539.html]
Cover Your Ass, Marshall, keep on covering your ass.
No need to cover what hasn't been exposed, feodork. Let's review your latest epic fail:
1) The Eduadorian: This report, despite the suggestion that there might be some homo-related "hate" by the attackers, indicates the motivation was related to the victim's ethnicity. It speaks of other such attacks on Latinos, but not of attacks on homos. The article clearly indicates its concern with attacks on Latino immigrants.
2) Matthew Shepard: This case has been bandied about as an anti-homo "hate crime", but the victim's orientation has not been established as the motivation with absolute certainty. The perpetrators have gone back and forth on their stories regarding whether they even knew the kid was a homo or whether or not his homosexuality had anything to do with picking him as a victim.
3) Roommate suicide: It has never been established that the kid who killed himself was a victim of anti-homo sentiment on the part of the roommate. There's every indication his sexual encounter would have been broadcast even if it had been with a girl. It just happened to be with a dude. There's never been any admission that the roommate was "homophobic" in any way that I've ever seen.
4) And this is the most important point: The federal government of the United States of America was not in any way involved with any of these incidents. The fact that any rights of any citizen may have been abused by another citizen is not an example of the abused citizen being denied his rights by the government. Any crime committed is an example of somebody's rights being abused by the perpetrator of that crime. That's pretty much what a crime is.
BUT! even if we go back to before that Texas sodomy law being overturned, you still don't have a case. All laws deprive someone of liberties he intended to take and/or happiness the intended to pursue by taking them. But the states (the people in them) are within their rights to decide what is or isn't proper behavior and legislate accordingly. The question then is a matter of equal application of that legislation. Laws pertaining to sexual behaviors do not take into account the orientation of the participants and only regard the behavior itself.
You stupid man.
Of course you're right, Marshall. Black men and women were lynched because of the sexual come-ons they spoke. They should not have punished with death, surely, but they pushed the envelope and risked fomenting anger.
Lynching had nothing to do with the color of their skin. It wasn't right to lynch them - but it wasn't racial at all.
Interposition and Nullification.
You carry on a very fine white tradition, Marshall.
feodor,
Apparently you intend to prove my point about your intelligence. The stupidity inherent in anyone supposing a relation between skin color and desires for particular sexual behaviors has been demonstrated ad nauseum here and elsewhere. There is no such relationship and to pretend that a homo whining about "rights" is in any way similar to the plight of the black man in this country is insulting to any black man that is himself not a homo. I've yet to meet one black person that is keen on the comparison. I've not yet met a black homo. One thing I have discussed with several black associates is in regards those who think they are completely in tune with the black experience simply by virtue of their interracial marriage. These people were not impressed by such "defenders of the black cause". Indeed, they rolled their eyes at the mere mention of people like yourself.
No federal law allowed for the lynching of anyone for sexual come-ons. Please cite the statute if you believe me wrong. What some municipality may have done does not speak for the nation. However, those that have felt their laws did not conflict with Constitutional protections do not mitigate my point in the least.
"Lynching had nothing to do with the color of their skin. It wasn't right to lynch them - but it wasn't racial at all."
I don't know where you got this idea, but it bears no relation to any point I've made. In each of the examples you stupidly thought supported some point you were trying to make, there was no proof that anti-homo bias was the motivating factor. Don't condescend to me when your failure is exposed. And don't compare your lame examples to lynchings where racial bigotry was no doubt the motivating factor.
"Interposition and Nullification.
You carry on a very fine white tradition, Marshall."
More stupidity and falseness. Stupidity in attempting to pretend that those are white traditions merely because of secessionist arguments, and falseness because you think you are standing on behalf of black race and have once again "exposed" something bigoted in my remarks. You're a fraud, a fool and a poor advertisement for higher education.
Jesus, Marshall, because subtlety and a metaphoric imagination is beyond you, I find I have to fill in many blanks here - gaps you create and could be misunderstood by others.
My analogy does not refer to relating sex drive with ethnicity. Only for cavemen would such a thought come to mind, those troglodyte minds that think this is still a live issue. Raise a hand, Marshall, for spending energy waving off a old canard.
Neither does my analogy suggest a direct relationship between gay rights in this country and the civil rights struggle. Obviously, the violence faced cannot be compared in the least. Though many of those supporting gay rights make frequent and glib comparisons. That you want to call someone on it, however, is laughable. Take the log out of your own eye before commenting on the speck in your brother.
My analogy - and I really need to give up hoping for you mind to gain elasticity - is, rather, a direct comment on the immoral dampening and sloughing off of violence against others that many of the American white majority engage in and which you have just repeated.
While man black folks do not support homosexual claims of normalcy, the great majority of black folks do see the context as a battle for toleration. And black folks are in a position to be particularly sensitive to coded resistance to toleration and heavily veiled threats arising from hatred.
They know - not needing "acquaintances", I hear it from family and friends - that your fight against gay rights openly, could easily and automatically, in any situation of stress, return to feelings of inchoate anger and racism toward people of color.
How you treat others who are marginalized communicates how shallow are your public vows of toleration along other lines.
In short, Marshall, you're the kind of person black people wont trust very far. They hear too clearly the patterns of your words of nullification and interposition.
"...subtlety and a metaphoric imagination..."
Is that what they're calling "bullshit" these days? Has it been even a week since you dared speak about "precision" and now you're going with subtlety and a metaphoric imagination? Tell me the truth: your eyes are brown, aren't they?
"Take the log out of your own eye before commenting on the speck in your brother."
So typical for a lefty snob to use THIS canard in any given conversation, as if the opponent is guilty of that behavior over which Jesus made this comment originally. It bores me.
"My analogy..." is totally misplace and misapplied given the examples you offered. THAT was my point, you mindless twit.
"While man black folks do not support homosexual claims of normalcy, the great majority of black folks do see the context as a battle for toleration."
More bullshit. What poll are you citing to offer such a claim? How many blacks have you personally polled to come to this conclusion? What constitutes "the great majority of black folks" that can be viewed as representative? I have no doubt that you are only familiar with the Michelle Obama/Al Sharpton type black people, who, by virtue of their politics, are as stupid and idiotic as you are. They do not deal in reality any more than you do.
"They know - not needing "acquaintances", I hear it from family and friends - that your fight against gay rights openly, could easily and automatically, in any situation of stress, return to feelings of inchoate anger and racism toward people of color."
More bullshit. People of color AND reason and common sense understand that "gay rights" is a term that truly means special privileges for a small minority of people based on their peculiar sexual perversions. They understand the stark difference between standing firmly for morality and virtue and real bigotry and prejudice of the kind that previous generations of blacks have suffered. There is no credibility coming from any circle of friends and family that counts you among their number.
"How you treat others who are marginalized communicates how shallow are your public vows of toleration along other lines."
Still more crap. To suggest that righteous intolerance for bad behavior is equal to marginalizing a group based on gender or skin color is rank lying and typical of those who are morally bankrupt, like yourself. Do you not "marginalize" thieves? Do you not "marginalize" the lazy?
NEVER tell anyone the schools that gave you a diploma. They don't deserve such bad marketing as to connect one so stupid as yourself with their institutions.
So unmitigated snark is your desperate bottom line strategy now?
If you need sources to help you hear and read black voices and opinions, I can certainly suggest some. Let me know.
Among those of my black family who hold both a deep reserve toward normalizing homosexuality but understand that the white opposition speaks in a way that reminds them of a still-living - mildly unconscious - racist America would be my father-in-law.
My father-in-law grew up in Philadelphia playing on almost every outdoor basketball court then existing. He went to Catholic school but had no money for college. At 18, he went to NY to stay with an uncle and find a job. Not finding or allowed to take good opportunities, he joined the Army and was sent off to build the Friendship Highway in Thailand in the 1960s. After so many years, he left the Army, got an entry job at a bank and started raising a family in the Bronx. Career opportunities were still not favorable, so he re-upped with the Navy. He steadily rose in the ranks, working in logistics in many places of the world, retiring with pension as a Chief Warrant Officer. He then became a civilian working with the military in logistics for another fifteen years, earning a second pension. The military had given him and his family free housing, free medical care, base services, base exchange prices on all groceries and goods - still does - allowing the family to gain strength as a solid middle class family. His performance meant increased paygrades and a high pension. His two daughters were able to go to Ivy League graduate schools and one works in Corporate Philanthropy and the other for a non-profit consultancy in lay and clerical leadership development for Catholic dioceses.
He and his wife have been centrist in their politics, obviously pro-military but also pro-civil rights. He's nowhere near as liberal as I am.
All of which to say is that these are the kind of people you would agree make up a great America.
But, Marshall, you are the kind of white America we talk about at great length at family get togethers. And the conversation always is an attempt to answer this question:
Why are so many white folks in this country so fucked up, blaming everyone else for their troubles instead of where it lies: crazy batshit Republicans who are breaking the power structures of the middle class?
His experience is that America can work well. But not with hate for the other and not by rewarding only the rich.
"Michelle Obama/Al Sharpton type black people"
so it goes.
"Michelle Obama/Al Sharpton type black people"
That really is something, isn't it.
"So unmitigated snark is your desperate bottom line strategy now?"
You wish I was desperate. My snark is mere icing on the cake of correction, truth and common sense from which you would benefit by a heaping helping.
"If you need sources to help you hear and read black voices and opinions, I can certainly suggest some."
I'm sure you can. I doubt I'd get anything more than leftist whining.
The story of your father-in-law is heartwarming, but unnecessarily sad in its conclusion. That he lived a life that showed what personal responsibility can achieve and still winds up whining about the man is the sad part.
"Why are so many white folks in this country so fucked up, blaming everyone else for their troubles instead of where it lies: crazy batshit Republicans who are breaking the power structures of the middle class?"
This in itself is YOUR family members blaming others. The only white people I know who blame others for their problems are the same kind of people that do so in the black community or any other faction of every group who won't take responsibility for their own situations. These people are almost exclusively left leaning. Conservatives, regardless of their race, gender or financial situation rarely give thought to who might be to blame for their troubles, since they are too busy taking care of business. Someday, you'll have to entertain me with lame attempts to support THIS stupid statement: "crazy batshit Republicans who are breaking the power structures of the middle class?"
When you can point to any Democrat that has implemented any policy successful in strengthening the middle class, that'll be the day. It's easy to point to Republicans if you are pointing to those who cowtowed to idiotic Dem pressures in a hopeless attempt to win favor or concessions of substance.
"His experience is that America can work well. But not with hate for the other and not by rewarding only the rich."
His experience, if he chose to be totally truthful in his reflections, is that America works well despite the presence of haters who will always be a part of the total experience. I tend to avoid haters and deal only with the best people available. What's HIS problem? What's more, this "rewarding only the rich" crap is tired and as untruthful as it has always been. It is a purposeful distortion of conservative tax policy that serves to incite class warfare in order for leftist vermin to gain support. It appeals to chumps, losers and the lazy (redundancies, I know) and is the type of demagoguery of which you accused a compadre of mine.
Your idea of who the haters are and who the blamers are (there are those who can legitimately and accurately place blame where it truly belongs---they aren't on the left anywhere to be found) is typical.
So unmitigated snark is your desperate bottom line strategy now?
If you need sources to help you hear and read black voices and opinions, I can certainly suggest some. Let me know.
Among those of my black family who hold both a deep reserve toward normalizing homosexuality but understand that the white opposition speaks in a way that reminds them of a still-living - mildly unconscious - racist America would be my father-in-law.
My father-in-law grew up in Philadelphia playing on almost every outdoor basketball court then existing. He went to Catholic school but had no money for college. At 18, he went to NY to stay with an uncle and find a job. Not finding or allowed to take good opportunities, he joined the Army and was sent off to build the Friendship Highway in Thailand in the 1960s. After so many years, he left the Army, got an entry job at a bank and started raising a family in the Bronx. Career opportunities were still not favorable, so he re-upped with the Navy. He steadily rose in the ranks, working in logistics in many places of the world, retiring with pension as a Chief Warrant Officer. He then became a civilian working with the military in logistics for another fifteen years, earning a second pension. The military had given him and his family free housing, free medical care, base services, base exchange prices on all groceries and goods - still does - allowing the family to gain strength as a solid middle class family. His performance meant increased paygrades and a high pension. His two daughters were able to go to Ivy League graduate schools and one works in Corporate Philanthropy and the other for a non-profit consultancy in lay and clerical leadership development for Catholic dioceses.
He and his wife have been centrist in their politics, obviously pro-military but also pro-civil rights. He's nowhere near as liberal as I am.
All of which to say is that these are the kind of people you would agree make up a great America.
But, Marshall, you are the kind of white America we talk about at great length at family get togethers. And the conversation always is an attempt to answer this question:
Why are so many white folks in this country so fucked up, blaming everyone else for their troubles instead of where it lies: crazy batshit Republicans who are breaking the power structures of the middle class?
His experience is that America can work well. But not with hate for the other and not by rewarding only the rich.
Parklife said...
"Michelle Obama/Al Sharpton type black people"
so it goes.
Feodor said...
"Michelle Obama/Al Sharpton type black people"
That really is something, isn't it.
What's your problem with this statement? You're not going to suggest racism again, are you? Here's your demagogues, feo. These two are examples of the worst of black leadership, appealing to the victimhood mentality they help to create and maintain in order to garner support.
The quality of character to which struggling minorities need emulate is found in the examples of those like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Alan West, JC Watts, Condi Rice, and even Bill Cosby. I would not mention the two bozos above in the same sentence with any of these find Americans, except to provide an incredibly stark distinction between laudable (say, Clarence Thomas) and reprehensible (Jesse Jackson).
So yeah. Obama/Sharpton type black people. They're the type to whom no one, black, white or striped, should ever give the time of day unless they aspire to misery.
"Conservatives... rarely give thought to who might be to blame for their troubles"
Except for the illegal aliens, the welfare queens, the "gummint", the liberals, and that Marxist in the White House.
You're beginning to fly your true colors, Marshall.
Better cover back up.
Jim said,
""Conservatives... rarely give thought to who might be to blame for their troubles"
Except for the illegal aliens, the welfare queens, the "gummint", the liberals, and that Marxist in the White House."
That's incredible. Jim confuses the point (or is himself terribly confused--likely the case). No conservative looks at set-backs or roadblocks in his progress as automatically the result of outside forces beyond his control. But to understand the effects of liberal policy on business is not excuse making but recognition of cause and effect.
"You're beginning to fly your true colors, Marshall.
Better cover back up."
When haven't I flown my true colors? What a stupid statement. I've no reason to cover them up in the least. Perhaps you can take your own advice and be more precise in your meaning for a change. You're no doubt once again accusing me of something of which you have no real cause.
As for homophobia, these words of Marshall's constitute it:
"Getting back more closely to the point, you might think that putting homosexuals to death is wrong. This is because you don’t see that behavior in the same light as God does..."
As fare as black folks fearing the "under the surface" thinking that many white people carry on which could easily surface into racist violence when the chips are down? The following words of Marshall constitute what they fear (notice the use of the word, "property"):
"As to putting anyone to death, homosexuals or babies, you make the another common mistake assuming that God taking a life is the same as a human being taking a life. It is not the same as we are His to take. We are His “property” in the sense that He is sovereign and well within His rights to do with His creation as He pleases."
With such words, slavers justified that historical "providence" that ordained them slavers and slaves as slaves. "If God wants them to be property - and history tells us God's plan - then who are we to argue."
Like I said, Marshall, you continue a long, infamous tradition.
"As for homophobia, these words of Marshall's constitute it:"
You're such an incredibly stupid man, or you're purposely seeking to provoke through false practices. What should be plain to one who claims to possess high mental faculties is that I was drawing a distinction between what you, or any human being, believes about God's punishment for such deviant behavior, and what God's position on the behavior suggests is an appropriate punishment. How typical for a liar and supporter of such deviancy to suggest that I support the notion that we put homos to death for being homos, especially when knowing that I have consistently rejected such a thought in every freakin' post on the subject. I stated it very clearly that you, false priest so arrogant as to dare correct God, do not regard homosex as sinful, whereas God does and always has.
"As fare as black folks fearing the "under the surface" thinking that many white people carry..."
Perhaps the black folks you know have this racist and neurotic fear (honkeyphobia? A true case of irrational fear.), but well adjusted black folk do not. Or perhaps you are speaking for yourself, racked with guilt feelings that won't subside after years of association with your wife and her family.
What chips could be down to a level that you think would allow a manifestation of the "under the surface" racism you stupidly think "many" white people repress? Apparently your wife and extended family would be wrong to count on you "when the chips are down". They'd have no problem with most of white America.
"The following words of Marshall constitute what they fear (notice the use of the word, "property"):"
More audacious and stupid falsehood. Where in anything I've said would justify the accusation that I was speaking of one group of people regarding another as property. I was clearly speaking of the relationship between God and His creation, that we are His to do with as He pleases for reasons of His own. HE decides which sin is worthy of death and HE decides if people we might regard as innocent of any crime should be taken for reasons we might not understand or recognize. At no point would anyone of even moderate intelligent confuse my words with a belief that one person can own another. I don't for a second believe that even black people so stupid as to accept you into their family would be THIS stupid. I DO believe that you are so arrogant, prideful and willing to lie to make a point as to put forth such stupidity as if it were true.
"With such words, slavers justified that historical "providence" that ordained them slavers and slaves as slaves."
Maybe in your fevered mind, fool. Only an idiot like you would take the truth of what I said to infer a justification to regard another human being as property. How in the world, in ANYONE'S mind aside from your very small one, does one person go from "We are God's to do with as He pleases..." to "...so that means I can enslave someone"?
"Like I said, Marshall, you continue a long, infamous tradition."
Like I said, feodor, all that education, all those books, and not a shred of intelligence to show for it. You are such a sad example of higher education!
Ma.. a lot of spinning and digging.
And Parkie chimes in with another charge for which he hasn't the skill, evidence or spine to defend.
Parkie, you little troll-boy. I take it as a given that you disagree with most anything I say. But until you are willing to risk, to step up like a man (whether you are one or not) and lay out an argument, a pathetic little troll is all you'll be. The only spinning and digging is coming from your false priest, and I defy you to show any coming from me. You couldn't if your life depended upon it.
Marshall, are you aware or are you not aware that if your blog comments were made public the headlines as well as public opinion would consider you to be an extremist in strict kinship with right wing Christian murderers?
Try again, Parkie.
Feodor,
Only those looking to stoke such division. Reasonable people would understand exactly my meaning.
If "reasonable people" you mean someone like Anders Behring Breivik, you'd be half right. He'd understand you. But neither of you are reasonable.
"Try again, Parkie"
Lol...
Thanks for proving my point.
"Thanks for proving my point."
Get real, troll-boy. Aside from what protrudes from atop your head, you have no point. Never have, likely never will. You've never given any reason why anyone would expect one from you.
"If "reasonable people" you mean someone like Anders Behring Breivik, you'd be half right."
Yeah, idiot. That's exactly who I had in mind. What a schmuck!
I'm sorry, perhaps you meant your spiritual brother, Scott Roeder.
I'm not surprised a false priest such as you, feo, would continue to attempt to compare and connect me with such people. Lies are your forte and you spew them with abandon. Typical.
You're the one who thinks like them:
"Getting back more closely to the point, you might think that putting homosexuals to death is wrong. This is because you don’t see that behavior in the same light as God does..."
Feodor,
Are you really that stupid (he asks as if the answer isn't painfully clear)?
"You're the one who thinks like them:
"Getting back more closely to the point, you might think that putting homosexuals to death is wrong. This is because you don’t see that behavior in the same light as God does...""
To reiterate:
"I was clearly speaking of the relationship between God and His creation, that we are His to do with as He pleases for reasons of His own. HE decides which sin is worthy of death and HE decides if people we might regard as innocent of any crime should be taken for reasons we might not understand or recognize."
To be even more clear so that your dishonest and corrupt mind cannot invent any more stupidity, I was referring to God's call for capital punishment for homosexual behavior in Leviticus. You know this is what I meant if you're half the intellectual you pretend to be. NEVER have I ever supported the notion of putting homos to death, EVER!
In Leviticus, God calls for the death of all sorts of sinners. Indeed, as you might recall if you were truly trained in Christian teaching, the wages of sin is death. That death and how it manifests is totally up to God and His judgment. Since Jesus' death on the cross, only the sin of murder continues to carry a capital punishment in our society.
You're a liar, feodor.
Your theology - such that it is - has no answer for acts like Breivik's or Roeder's:
1) You say that faith must read God as hating and angry toward homosexuality, abortion, and, even more, that Christian faith must read God as hating liberal policies that open doors to such things.
2) Then you say that since God is sovereign, God can do anything God wills and it is right. And you make all kinds of inferences that God may well will to take lives because of their sinfulness. "That death and how it manifests is totally up to God and His judgment."
3) By your faith - such that it is - you cannot absolutely deny that Breivik and Roefer and others are the instrument of God's judgment. God does what God does.
4) So, because you claim to know how God judges by how you read - such that you can - Holy Scripture, and because you then CYA by saying you certainly cannot know how God may carry out judgments or whether any particular instance is an event of his judgment... your theology - such that it is - has no answer for acts like Breivik's or Roeder's. As far as your theology goes - just as far as the first floor toilet - they may be carrying out the will of God. Who knows?
You have learned so well, oh blind viper, from people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Lee Atwater, David Duke, Karl Rove, Glenn Beck...
and other purveyors of false faith.
And the judgment which you use will be used on you. And doubly so.
Feodor,
If your theology and sense of morality wasn't so corrupt, you wouldn't horribly misstate my positions.
1) I say that the Bible clearly and unambiguously states that homosexual behavior is sinful, and abomination worthy of death during the OT period. He equally is opposed to murder, and most abortions can easily be shown to parallel any murder of born person. Thus, with these basic and fundamental truths regarding Biblical teaching, it would follow that liberal policies that "open the door to such things" is to be complicit in the sins themselves.
2) God IS sovereign (I guess they didn't teach you that in false priest seminary), and He CAN do what He wants, when He wants and AS He wants, AND, because He happens to be God, the Creator of all things, it can't NOT be righteous whatever He chooses to do. What's your problem with this?
""That death and how it manifests is totally up to God and His judgment.""
This strikes you as an odd belief? To be clear, before you make an even greater fool of yourself, "death and how it manifests" means physical or spiritual death, or both. That is, merely one's life ending, or one's eternal life ending or, more precisely, eternal separation from God, whatever that means and however that might manifest.
3) Are you now saying that such a thing is totally impossible? That God would not have as part of His Master Plan, that some should die in horrible ways at the hands of horrible people for reasons you or I might not fathom? By my faith, which, unlike yours, is actually based on the Bible, I have no idea what God has in mind beyond what He clearly revealed to us in Scripture. I do my best to live by that, but do not feel I am prohibited from speculating on what ISN'T clearly revealed. You have a problem with this?
4) "So, because you claim to know how God judges by how you read - such that you can - Holy Scripture..."
Are you referring to me, dumb ass? What I "claim" is what the Bible clearly states is sinful behavior. I speculate that it is possible that God might intercede in our lives in a tangible manner if He so chooses which might explain any number of things for which we have no ready answer, and also that it might give comfort to suppose He actually DOES intercede for His good purpose. Speculation is not belief. For example, I often speculate that God provides me with dumb asses in order that I might be a good example for others to follow. I'm not the best example, but I'll always have dumb asses like you so that I can practice. That doesn't mean that's actually why I run into dumb asses like you, but it does give me comfort to speculate in this way.
"...your theology - such that it is - has no answer for acts like Breivik's or Roeder's..."
Sure it does. It's called "evil". It's the same answer for false priests supporting sinful behaviors as equal to non-sinful behaviors. Evil and wickedness exist in the world as a result of Adam's sin and Satan's influence. You must be so proud to be a part of that.
"You have learned so well, oh blind viper, from people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Lee Atwater, David Duke, Karl Rove, Glenn Beck..."
All of the above possess good points and bad. But I take my cues from Scripture. As to this:
"...and other purveyors of false faith."
...I know of few better examples of purveyors of false faith than you, feodor.
"And the judgment which you use will be used on you. And doubly so."
That's good because I don't do judging. At least not the type Jesus warns against.
If you had a brain, you could track your own thoughts.
"God IS sovereign (I guess they didn't teach you that in false priest seminary), and He CAN do what He wants, when He wants and AS He wants, AND, because He happens to be God, the Creator of all things, it can't NOT be righteous whatever He chooses to do. What's your problem with this?"
together with...
"What I 'claim' is what the Bible clearly states is sinful behavior. I speculate that it is possible that God might intercede in our lives in a tangible manner if He so chooses..."
If you really believe these things, if these are theological truths for you, then how do you know that Breivik or Roeder are not - as they claim - instruments of God? How do you make your beliefs coherently logical to also categorically denying that they have carried purposes of God? How can you explain yourself besides just "knowing" it?
Isn't there a possibility that they are instruments of God's righteous wrath? The way you compose your beliefs suggest this is entirely possible.
"If you had a brain, you could track your own thoughts."
If you were honest, you could realize that you aren't capable of following the simplest of concepts. Look at the second quote. If you had a brain, you could easily see that I drew a distinction between what the Bible clearly teaches and what I speculate MIGHT be possible. The latter is not a statement of belief of what is true, but only a speculation of what may be. I don't live according to the speculation, you twit. Thus, I can speculate about almost anything and even speculate about two contradictory possibilities as both being...POSSIBLE...but not fact.
So, though I might speculate that it is possible that God uses evil people to accomplish His ends, and this is based on the notion that all things are part of His Plan, that is not to say that a given event or person is directly mandated by Him to serve such an end. His plan might simply be to let things progress of their own volition and from that He will judge if we have acted according to His Will.
But, assuming that I "believe" that He uses evil people toward His ends, this does not justify any person's claim that they act as instruments of God, as if He and they have some sort of tangible pact. That is merely a claim they make to justify their actions that are clearly contradictory to His clearly revealed Will.
Thus, there is no conflict in anything I've said, but only in your addled lump of bile you lovingly call your brain.
As to what is possible for God, the answer is "ANYTHING". Speculation as to what that might be is only that...speculation. Get a freakin' grip, twit. You spend way too much time trying to find fault that doesn't exist in order to demonize me for standing up for clearly revealed Biblical truths. And you fail in the attempt over and over again.
"If you were honest"
Says the guy, that knows the benefit of being married yet claims gay people have all the same rights.
Ma.. its a tangled web.
"Says the guy, that knows the benefit of being married yet claims gay people have all the same rights."
I am sometimes compelled to leave posted one of Parkie's comments when it distinguishes itself for it's rank stupidity and dishonesty.
The argument, troll, is that the benefits to which this side of the debate focuses is the benefits to society. Homo unions do not provide them. Of course, your dishonesty is in suggesting that homos are unable to avail themselves of the joy of marriage. They, of course, are, but insist on something that does not fall within the definition. Boo-freakin'-hoo.
As to the benefits to the individual, they are derived by virtue of the complimentary nature of an actual marriage, and thus, they cannot be had by two of the same gender pretending to be married to each other.
So, your answer to the question I asked - in your theology isn't there a possibility that they are instruments of God's righteous wrath? - is obviously YES, there is a possibility!
("So, though I might speculate that it is possible that God uses evil people to accomplish His ends, and this is based on the notion that all things are part of His Plan...")
And this of course is no surprise: that in your theology hate, rage, executed judgment, using murderous people, the shooting down of doctors following the law, of teens on a week's camping trip... all may in fact be God "intervening" in human affairs.
I understand that you cannot know if it is, cannot say or even lean toward that it may be. But it is in print now that you admit that it is possible that God is carrying out wrathful judgment.
What a theology you have, Marshall. It's the same exact kind that allows Pat Robertson to "speculate" that hurricanes are acts of God's wrath, to "speculate" that 9/11 is an act of God's wrath. Your theology is no different, it allows for the possibility.
Jesus. You need Jesus really badly.
If you want to know how in the world you ingested such a theology (I'm hoping that it surprises you with disgust that you do in fact have such a theology) then perhaps you should look to the consequences of reading the Bible with such strict literal meaning - a way of thinking about scripture's role and reading it that come about only after the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment - a way of reading scripture that ignores that scripture was not written to carry literal meaning so often and so exclusively.
Another area you may want to look into are the particular dynamics of mid-nineteenth century American frontier movements. You are so clearly a child of a particular past era.
If you want to be liberated from this dark prison of a faith, I'd point you to move closer to the living Christ. You badly need the Author of Life, and I'd mostly recommend silence in your life so that you may more readily meet him. Silent meditation and read John 14 -17. The Farewell Discourse on Love. Those two things, Marshall, for your spiritual liberation. Maybe even an icon of Christ to center your vision and fill your heart with a picture of Love.
It does work. You can count millions of Christian saints over the centuries, close or not so close to the churches of their times, in places like Syria, India, Eqypt, Cappadocia, the Russian countryside, the Italian hills, French meadows, Irish shores, Kentucky woodlands.
Christianity can be a joyous, world embracing, loving and laughing faith that finds God in sexual embrace, paint, poetry, ponds, corporate offices, subway trains, and desert caves.
You may be closer than you know, Marshall, to finding the peace and indwelling nature of the risen Christ to say not that because God is Sovereign, God may do anything at all and it is right... but to say that God is love and would not do anything again that is not loving (as he said his rainbow signified and his son's incarnation in human flesh accomplished). God has been teaching us about love for so long and even made us to respond to love, to his love, to the love of others. We are made to recognize what is of God by being able to feel the vibrations of love - and hate and anger and judgment and all that dark theology you have has not place in God.
You may be closer than you think, Marshall.
"But it is in print now that you admit that it is possible that God is carrying out wrathful judgment."
Don't think I said that anywhere at all. I said, "all things are part of His plan". If a preacher says that a tragedy might be God lifting His protection, I cannot say such a thing is not possible, for I cannot know the details of God's plan. I allow for the FACT that I cannot know His mind or fathom why He does what He does in every situation. I can only assume that He puts you and Parkie and other foolish people in my path in order to give me a chance to act in a Christian manner in the face of your bullshit. It could be that the idea is to use my blog as a way to correct your bullshit and bring you to a REAL understanding of what it means to be a Christian. I simply won't insist that I know what He hasn't clearly revealed in Scripture and I never have. But speculation is a worthy exercise, even when it results in the goofy shit you say.
As to wrathful judgment, it IS coming for some. Not for me, for I DO have Jesus and in a manner that is as Scripture describes, not as some liberal faker wishes it was. And speaking of fakers:
"...a way of reading scripture that ignores that scripture was not written to carry literal meaning so often and so exclusively."
I know how you and those like you read Scripture. You read it as if you can see things that aren't there so as to legitimize and justify that which an honest study can only determine to be sinful and unChristian. It's quite typical of those like yourself. It's how Dan finds justification for homo marriage. It's how Geoffrey comes to believe that God doesn't care about how we act sexually. It's all make believe for those like yourself. You make yourself believe that Scripture says what you WANT it to say.
"You are so clearly a child of a particular past era."
I am a child of God, doing my best to live as He has revealed He wants us all to live. YOU are a hell-spawn fraud who sees what you want to see, deceiving yourself that you are somehow more enlightened than we poor backward believers.
"If you want to be liberated from this dark prison of a faith, I'd point you to move closer to the living Christ."
There is no darkness in my faith. But I am enslaved by His clearly revealed message of hope and salvation. The only Christ you could point me to is a false and poor imitation of He Who is the Son of God.
"...I'd mostly recommend silence in your life..."
Take your own advice. No one would benefit by shutting the hell up more than you...except for Parkie. You're too busy telling the world how clever you are without any demonstration of cleverness to back it up. You're a fraud, feo. Your ramblings do not speak of anything other than your own distorted understanding.
"...and hate and anger and judgment and all that dark theology you have has not place in God."
There's nothing dark about my theology. Recognizing that God will judge us all one way or the other is consistent with Scripture. There's nothing hateful or angry about it. But to say that God does not hate sin or that sinning does not anger Him is about as unChristian as anything you've ever said, and you've stated a lot of unChristian positions since you've reared your arrogant head at this blog. If God has no wrathful side to His nature, from what do we need salvation?
"If God has no wrathful side to His nature, from what do we need salvation?"
"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?"
We need to be saved from ourselves, Marshall.
We need to be saved from those habits of our being that refuse to love, refuse to hope, those daily acts of ours that constitute a rejection of faith in how gloriously we are made by God to be together in community, shining in agreement with the capacity we have as created and glorified by Christ.
We need to be saved from ourselves, Marshall... not from God.
"We need to be saved from ourselves, Marshall... not from God."
That's not what Jesus says. Your statement only works if it recognizes the consequence of not repenting of our sinful ways. That consequence is God's wrath, His judgement, His perfect justice. If none of this exists, there is no downside to non-repentance. Accepting Christ relieves us of that sorry end because He already paid the penalty for our sins. This is all very basic and elementary Christian truths, feo. You obviously slept a lot in seminary.
Furthermore, you conflate this ultimate justice with the everyday consequences of living life. What happens at judgment is described for us. What happens during the course of our lives as far as God's direct or indirect influence and action we can only speculate.
But to take the position that God does not intervene in human affairs makes Jesus a liar, as He taught us to pray and to appeal to God, telling us He will hear our prayers. And if He does not intervene, then what is the purpose of the Holy Spirit? Simply to tell chuckleheaded liberals that sinful behavior is no longer sinful? I don't think so, but even if THAT incredibly stupid position were true, that is an intervention into our daily lives, is it not?
Thus, how can you pretend to know the mind of God, that He might use tragedy and pain in order to draw people to Him? This is not a new concept and is held by a great many people. It's plain your intent is simply to seek ways to belittle my positions. Unfortunately, you're not bright enough for the task and only expose your own shortcomings. That saves me all sorts of time.
"Your statement only works if it recognizes the consequence of not repenting of our sinful ways."
The consequence, as you've said, is death of various kinds. Not some fuming, smoke breathing deity. We're well past that.
God does not intervene with hate, anger, death and evil. Such things are the absence of God, not of God.
Christians have understood this since the earliest days. But the wars of the Reformation brought a Protestantism that threw Christian theology out with the bureaucratic bathwater.
When we pray to God, we are to pray for God's kingdom (a kingdom of love coming to all), a perfect Earth of love as Heaven also is, for bread, and for forgiveness and to be able to forgive.
All good outcomes of the presence of God, the Holy Spirit. As God promised, no cursed ground because of still evil men, and no flood again, ever.
"The consequence, as you've said, is death of various kinds. Not some fuming, smoke breathing deity. We're well past that."
Once again, I'm not so sure we can say that God causes our physical deaths as a punishment or consequence of our sins, though death can indeed be a consequence of our sinful actions. But I'm damned sure I never suggested, implied or stated anything about God being a fuming, smoke breathing anything. That's just you hoping for something at which you can cast what you think are righteous aspersions. It was a lame attempt.
"God does not intervene with hate, anger, death and evil."
Never said He did, though death does not go with the other three possibilities. Death is simply death and should He bring about or allow the death of one to compel another is not something YOU can say with any certainty is beyond His character.
"As God promised, no cursed ground because of still evil men, and no flood again, ever."
You're not really bringing up the cursed ground issue again, are you? You failed so miserably the last time around. But that He promised to never again wipe out the entire world as He did with the Flood, that doesn't mean He won't turn away from a people because of their sin and allow nasty things to befall. Some people turn to God only after experience severe hardship and suffering. When you think you have the insight necessary to tell the difference between His Hand being involved or not, you will have achieved the height of arrogance. I assume nothing about what He might decide to do as my only concern is to do what He wants of me by His clearly revealed Word in Scripture.
Feodor: ""God does not intervene with hate, anger, death and evil."
Fartshall: "Never said He did..."
That's not the problem. The problem is that you cannot deny that God doesn't or that God may not. Which puts you in the same thought league as Christian and Muslim extremists and terrorists.
The fact that you are neither bright nor thoughtful shows in your last remark, feodor.
Evil exists in the world only by God's allowance. Do you suppose He is incapable of annihilating all evil? Do you really think that Satan acts without God's permission? In that sense, one could say that God intervenes with evil if one wishes to be a feodor about it. But to allow evil and then to say that He actually acts with evil is two different things.
God is NOT in any way evil and thus, nothing He does is in itself or by definition "evil", even if the very same act is evil if committed by any of us. This is the same problem that vexes Danny T when he prefers to believe God never annihilated any groups of people because of the fact that babies might have been victims of the act.
"Which puts you in the same thought league as Christian and Muslim extremists and terrorists."
Not even close, Sparky. I don't hold with anyone who claims they know that God wants them to commit acts that are clearly forbidden us in Scripture. That, too, is a far cry from saying that the actions of such people are not a part of God's will. If you're too thick to understand the distinction, just say so and I'll be more than happy to enlighten you, without lame cracks about "doing your spade work for you".
"Evil exists..."
Now, see, you can't get two words out without straying off the path. Evil is an absence, a non-entity, non-existence. A corruption of existence. You really don't get negative concepts do you?
"You really don't get negative concepts do you?"
Sure I do. Here's one for ya': feodor is NOT intelligent. How's that? Here's another: feodor is a NON-intellectual. Want more?
Evil exists, you idiot. You're proof of that. But if you need more, ask over 6 million Jewish victims of Adolph Hitler if evil exits. Ask the victims of John Wayne Gacy. Ask the victims of Mao, Stalin, Amin.
" A corruption of existence."
That's on your business card, ain't it?
Post a Comment