As I tried to put across in the inaugural post on the lies of the agenda that doesn't exist, there are many levels of lies and dishonesty that are utilized by proponents of the agenda. Some are blatant and others are not so much. Today's lie is supported by pointing to fringe groups such as the Fred Phelps crowd, who incorrectly insist that "God hates fags". Of course, this is as untrue and as much of a distortion of Biblical teaching as anything the activists and their enablers say to promote their sinful cause. God loves us all and desires that none of us should perish. Unfortunately, many of us will.
But the activists use "hate" and "bigotry" to demonize those of us who stand firmly with the truth of the Bible and God's intention for human sexuality and do not mitigate the sinfulness of behaviors He prohibits, even when we ourselves succumb to temptations. We understand that there is absolutely no support for the ridiculous and laughable contention that Scripture only prohibits "some forms" of homosexuality and shake our heads at the completely transparent childishness of the notion.
To the activists, being unwilling to tolerate lame arguments regarding the "normalcy" and/or the moral quality of the behavior is rank bigotry, as if acknowledging reality is itself sinful. I mean, imagine being called a bigot because you acknowledge that someone who feels compelled to eat mud is abnormal. Imagine being called a hater because you acknowledge someone who stole your car has committed a sin.
But this is the level of dishonesty they must employ to gain the victimhood status on which they rely to muster sympathy for their cause. Rather than rely on facts that support their contention that their behavior is as normal as heterosexual relations (between a man and woman married to each other) and as morally equal to heterosexual relations (between a man and woman married to each other), because they can't, they take the deceitful road of demonizing the righteous side of the debate as haters and bigots out to get them.
The fact of the matter is this: intolerance of bad behavior is a virtue, not a sin. To deny the immorality of behavior that God prohibits is not really a choice faith allows. But it isn't anywhere near the same as how one feels about the person who engages in the prohibited behavior. Should we hate a liar? No. But we can hate that he lies. Should we hate the thief? No. But we can hate that he steals. Do we hate the homosexual? Not at all. But we hate how the activist will lie in order to persuade the culture that their desire and willingness to engage in deviancy should be accepted as normal and equal to normal sexual behavior that is not immoral (that is, that which takes place between a man and a woman who are married to each other).
What's more, it seems fairly obvious that the activists and their enablers are demonstrating quite a bit of hatred and bigotry toward those who disagree with them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
"But we hate how the activist will lie in order to persuade the culture that their desire and willingness to engage in deviancy should be accepted as normal and equal to normal sexual behavior that is not immoral"
I don't think any activist or LBGT person gives a crap about what you think about their sexual behavior. It's not important and it's not relevant what you think about their behavior. Sexual behavior is a private matter and none of your business.
"normal sexual behavior that is not immoral (that is, that which takes place between a man and a woman who are married to each other)."
So it's not just gays, then? Anybody not married must not have sex.
"No sex for YOU!"
"I don't think any activist or LBGT person gives a crap about what you think about their sexual behavior."
Get real. What do you think the whole "marriage equality" crap is about? What do you think the whole "gay pride" thing is about? If they, and you, truly thought sexual behavior was a private matter, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and normal, moral and rational people wouldn't be burdened with deviants trying to change the culture.
"So it's not just gays, then? Anybody not married must not have sex."
I know you like to believe that people like me are trying to legislate against sexual immorality. Like the lie highlighted by this post, you seek to demonize those of us who recognize sexual immorality. You claim to be a Christian and you have an issue with acknowledging God's position on the subject? Anyone not married sins when having sex. I didn't create the rule, I just acknowledge what it says. "No sex for YOU!" is God talking, not me. I'm married to a woman. I can have sex with her. If you're married to a woman, YOU can have sex with HER. No one here is saying it should be illegal for unmarried people to have sex, or more precisely, that any level of gov't should expend tax money to prohibit, apprehend and/or incarcerate unmarried people who mutually consent to have sex, heterosexual or perverted (aside from sex with children). Do you think you can drop that crap now, Jim, since it's such a bullshit angle to play? Or do you prefer to continue engaging in the very deceitfulness this series of posts will highlight?
"What's more, it seems fairly obvious that the activists and their enablers are demonstrating quite a bit of hatred and bigotry toward those who disagree with them."
But Marshall, you forgot the rules. They are allowed to hate because the are right.
The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth. And the truth is that homosexual behavior is a sin (as is heterosexual sex outside of marriage) and "same-sex marriage" is and will always be an oxymoron.
"Get real. What do you think the whole "marriage equality" crap is about?"
It's not about private behavior.
"What do you think the whole "gay pride" thing is about?"
It's about gays being proud of themselves, not you being proud of them.
"You claim to be a Christian and you have an issue with acknowledging God's position on the subject?"
I have no problem with acknowledging God's positions. I find it NOT relevant to the subject. It's only relevant to your opinion on the subject.
"you seek to demonize those of us who recognize sexual immorality."
You can feel free to recognize whatever you want. If there is demonization of anyone, it's those of you who want to foist their definition of "immorality" on the rest of the country.
"Do you think you can drop that crap now, Jim"
I can drop my crap when you drop your straw man. The point is not incarcerating people who have sex that you disapprove of. The point is that your disapproval is irrelevant to whether or not gays should have the right to marry. The issue is legal and financial, not biblical.
"It's not about private behavior."
It's about private behavior being sanctioned by the state in order to both procure benefits and recognition by the state (the people). To gain same is to gain legitimacy for their deviancy.
"It's about gays being proud of themselves, not you being proud of them."
It's about presenting their abnormal and sinful lifestyles as something worthy of celebration.
"I have no problem with acknowledging God's positions."
Says the man who supports what God has called an abomination.
"If there is demonization of anyone, it's those of you who want to foist their definition of "immorality" on the rest of the country."
Thanks for proving my point. The definition of "immorality" is not my own or something created by mortal man. This also should be obvious to someone who claims to be a Christian. The problem is not anyone on the righteous side of the issue foisting anything. The problem is the corrupted foisting THEIR immorality on the rest of society. That they have gotten as far as they have in doing so is something for which the rest of us should rightly feel greatly ashamed.
"The point is that your disapproval is irrelevant to whether or not gays should have the right to marry."
This is exactly wrong. Everything that is legal or illegal is a result of approval or disapproval of the majority, or of those in black robes. More importantly, and more truthfully, is that homos already have the right to marry in every state in the union. But they don't want that because of their abnormal desires. They want to redefine the word marriage in order to bestow that title and its recognition on their deviant unions. What's more, the disapproval held by thoughtful, rational and mature adults is also based on ramifications of such irrational sanctioning, not only God's Will.
"Everything that is legal or illegal is a result of approval or disapproval of the majority"
Perhaps, but your side of the argument keeps shrinking as you die off. And you will die off.
"homos already have the right to marry in every state in the union."
This is a stupid argument, and really just worthless. Gays don't have the right to marry whom they want.
"What's more, the disapproval held by thoughtful, rational and mature adults is also based on ramifications of such irrational sanctioning"
What about the approval of thoughtful, rational, and mature adults?
No matter, though. You will die off and so won't have a vote.
"This is a stupid argument, and really just worthless. Gays don't have the right to marry whom they want."
Neither do polygamists and bestiality-ists (at least, not yet). Marshall made a perfectly sound argument. Pro-ssm folks just hate it because it is so simple and true. If they don't want to marry under the real definition, they don't have to. But we don't have to change the definition for them.
Or they can "marry" at any number of apostate "churches" and set up house. Marshall and I won't get in their way. We just don't want the gov't to give preferential treatment to these unions, we don't want the inevitable teaching of 5 yr. olds how "natural" LGBTQX behavior is, and we don't want the inevitable restrictions on religious freedom that come with normalizing perversions like this.
"Neither do polygamists and bestiality-ists (at least, not yet)."
Knew that was coming. Another stupid argument. Nobody can legally marry more than one person. Nobody can legally marry an animal. If some people could and others couldn't, that would be discrimination.
Wow, Jim! Talk about a stupid argument! Not long ago, no one could legally "marry" someone of the same sex, but now in some misguided and morally corrupted states, they can. And THAT because a small minority got state justices or politicians to decide what the will of the majority is or should be. You're being totally dishonest in pretending that anyone suffered discrimination under the traditional definition of marriage, but in fact, no one was ever denied if what they wanted to do fell within that definition. So, no discrimination can have righteously ever been charged. The deviants and their supporters, like yourself, have to first change the definition to include them and THEN assert their deceitful charge. This means they have to lie first about what the definition of marriage is and then lie that they've been discrimination victims. There's no straw men here, Jimmy boy. Just an accurate and truthful assessment of reality.
"Knew that was coming. Another stupid argument. Nobody can legally marry more than one person. Nobody can legally marry an animal. If some people could and others couldn't, that would be discrimination."
As Marshall noted, you are wrong again. SSM advocates are so used to parroting their sound bites to friendly crowds that they don't realize how fundamentally wrong they are.
Remember, oxymoronic SSM isn't just a little different than saying that marriage is just for one man and one woman. It is the opposite. It is saying that marriage is not just a union of a man and a woman, it is whatever we want it to be.
The pro-SSM argument is that people should be able to marry whomever they want. If you can change the definition from one man / one woman, why not remove the part about them having to be humans? Why not remove the part about only two people being in the marriage?
Our arguments are merely the logical conclusions of yours. If you think our conclusions look stupid, we agree -- but only because that is where your SSM argument leads.
Doesn't matter. You are losing the argument by attrition.
"Doesn't matter. You are losing the argument by attrition."
And what does that mean, exactly? Well, I'll tell you. It means that immorality is winning and doing so by having corrupted people like Jim who call themselves "Christians". It has also corrupted those who may have had common sense and a rational, objective way of analyzing possible outcomes of decisions considered.
The thing is, we can't lose the argument because my side is absolutely right about everything we say on the subject. One doesn't lose an argument just because one is outnumbered. One is merely stifled and marginalized by deviants and their enablers and lap-dogs. And when all the world agrees with Jim and the activists, they will have still lost the argument, never having had a chance to win it in the first place.
But having said all of that, and again being right in saying so, I have to ask Jim if he has anything to say about the point of the post itself? Do you agree that the accusation that we are haters and bigots is a grand lie, or do you agree with the pervs, and why?
"Do you agree that the accusation that we are haters and bigots is a grand lie, or do you agree with the pervs, and why?"
I don't know what you mean about a "grand lie". Is that anything like "the final solution"?
I don't think that you are haters, and I'm not sure that "hate" is the main argument of those who support same sex marriage.
You are however, bigots. Just because your bigotry is "justified" by scripture doesn't mean it isn't bigotry.
"Homos" are "pervs" like "coloreds" are unclean. So you can bitterly cling to your guns and your bibles and be afraid that the "homo's" agenda is coming to take your grandchildren into gay bondage.
I can be every bit as Christian as you are and not use my faith to justify bigotry. But you can use derogatory names as long as you want until that last word passes your lips in a whisper:
"Winning"
Jim must have been drinking when he wrote his last.
"I don't know what you mean about a "grand lie". Is that anything like "the final solution"?"
What I mean, Jim, is that it is indeed a grand lie that those of us who support traditional marriage and regard homosexual attraction as the abnormal mental condition it is and also that homosexual behavior is sinful are haters and bigots. Do you agree with that?
As to comparing it to "the final solution", I find it interesting that you would make that comparison. OR, are you suggesting that the activists and their enablers who are putting out that lie are doing so with the same mindset as the Nazis with their "final solution"? Sober up and explain that one for me.
"I don't think that you are haters..."
Thank you.
"I'm not sure that "hate" is the main argument of those who support same sex marriage."
Of course it is, if by your comment you mean that they insist opponents are haters. It's quite a common accusation. (Parkie uses it all the time.)
I'll have to start another comment separately for the rest due to length of response...
This is how Wikipedia defines "bigot":
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender.
Mirriam-Webster:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Word English Dictionary:
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
I could add more...
There is little that isn't more descriptive of the activists and their enablers than of people who support traditional marriage and regard homosexual attraction as the abnormal mental condition it is and also that homosexual behavior is sinful. Note the first example wherein it calls a bigot a prejudiced person. Mirriam-Webster describes prejudice this way:
a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
We certainly have a plethora of information regarding the activists, their enablers, the cause they support, the behavior they favor, etc. No prejudice based on that definition. But based on the accusations and charges leveled against people who support traditional marriage and regard homosexual attraction as the abnormal mental condition it is and also that homosexual behavior is sinful, prejudice fits the activists and their enablers quite well.
All three bigot definitions speak of intolerance regarding the opinions of others. This is not the case with the average person who supports traditional marriage and regards homosexual attraction as the abnormal mental condition it is and also that homosexual behavior is sinful. That is, if mere opposition to the premise that such behavior is or should be acceptable is akin to intolerance, then it, too is a word that works equally, if not better, for the activist and his enablers, for they are indeed intolerant of the more traditional and righteous opinion that cramps their style.
But indeed, to call us bigots is indeed to insist we're haters as the Mirriam-Webster definition suggests very plainly, and the other two suggest by virtue of the "intolerance" of the bigot. "Intolerance" doesn't sound loving, so the opposite must be true to some extent.
Moving on...
""Homos" are "pervs" like "coloreds" are unclean."
Homos are pervs by virtue of their perverted attraction to members of the same sex. This is no mere opinion, but a biological fact. Do you believe that there is no reason or purpose for two compatible and complimentary sexes in nature? Also, homos are pervs by virtue of how they pervert the use of their sexual organs. Do you believe that there is no natural purpose for our sexual organs? And despite the fact that heteros might also pervert the purpose of their sexual organs for pleasure, they are at least doing so within the normal context of sex with a member of the opposite sex.
"So you can bitterly cling to your guns and your bibles and be afraid that the "homo's" agenda is coming to take your grandchildren into gay bondage."
You think we're bitter? Why's that? And from what abused opening did you pull this "coming to take your grandchildren into gay bondage" crap? Is this some cheesy slam against a proven claim that children exposed to bad behavior presented as normal are more likely to engage in that bad behavior? Are you really so thick as to suppose that isn't the case?
"I can be every bit as Christian as you are and not use my faith to justify bigotry."
I don't think you're anywhere near as Christian as I am (more's the pity for you considering my own shortcomings) as long as you defend deviant sexual behavior as you do (not to mention your desperate defense of sex as necessary for sustaining life).
"But you can use derogatory names as long as you want until that last word passes your lips in a whisper:
"Winning""
First of all, thanks for the permission, as if I needed it from you. Secondly, the only thing that makes the names I use "derogatory" is the fact that the behavior to which those names refer is sinful and abnormal. In reality, I generally only use "homosexual" and its abbreviation, "homo". "Perv" is short for pervert, as you know, and is not a pejorative but rather is biologically appropriate. So, what words give you concern?
Thirdly, I won't be whispering the word "winning", but instead will be shouting it. As long as I am in line with God's clearly revealed will for our behavior, sexual or otherwise, I cannot lose. Unfortunately, you can't win.
"and its abbreviation, "homo""
Homo is not an abbreviation. It is a long used common slur for homosexuals. It was used when I was a kid 50 years ago. We all knew what "homo" meant. It was used then the way "fag" is used today.
Don't tell me it is not a perjorative. It is and you know it well.
Perv can be used against any number of types of people. We all know what a "homo" is.
"the abnormal mental condition it is"
"the abnormal mental condition it is"
"the abnormal mental condition it is"
"the abnormal mental condition it is"
Not according to The American Psychiatry Association:
All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
"Homo is not an abbreviation. It is a long used common slur for homosexuals. It was used when I was a kid 50 years ago. We all knew what "homo" meant. It was used then the way "fag" is used today."
"Homo" is indeed an abbreviation for "homosexual". And yes, it has been used as a slur for quite some time. The reason is simple: the behavior is both sinful and mentally abnormal. But the term "homo" was used for the same reason I use it here: it's shorter and less cumbersome to say and type than saying or spelling out "homosexual". Back in the day, either the word was used as a slur, but it was used toward anyone for a number of reasons. Back in the day, real homos didn't like it because it exposed them to both further derision and negative ramifications in other areas of their lives. Now, it doesn't make any sense that a homosexual should feel being called either is derisive as it is what he is. It would be like you being insulted if someone called you "Jim", rather than "James" (if James is your legal name) or more comparatively, if someone called you a "man" (provided you truly are one), or any variation of the term. Do homosexuals really weep because someone called them a homosexual?
Now, you could indeed regard "fag" as a slur, but is it truly evil, wicked and hateful to use any slang term for wicked behavior? Let me help you out on this one. The answer is definitely "YES", if one truly believes the "victim" is mentally disordered, as I do homosexuals, so I generally do not call homos "fags" when speaking to them. I won't go so far as to say I don't use the term when speaking about them to others who aren't themselves homos. Actually, now that I think of it, I don't call them anything but their given names when I'm speaking to or with homos, because I can't think of any reason why I would call them either "homosexual" or its abbreviation, "homo". I simply don't refer to people by their behavior.
Just to re-iterate:
"Don't tell me it is not a perjorative. It is and you know it well."
It is if I use it to intentionally hurt someone, even a homo I would guess. But I'm not about to let the sensitive nature of homos dictate that the mere mention of the word is akin to an intentional attack. It isn't and you know it well. More seriously, I'm not about to let activists for sinful and abnormal behavior dictate what is moral when their whole agenda revolves around legitimizing immoral and abnormal behavior.
The APA removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders by a vote of their membership. One can look it up in their archives (I've linked to it in the past) and find that less than half of their membership voted. One can also find that at that time, the move was the result of activism from within the ranks. The notion that it came about after reviewing all the data at the time means nothing if the data itself doesn't support the vote for removal. What research was the eureka moment in proving that it wasn't a mental disorder after all? I've never seen any such research, but only subjective opinions about whether the condition qualifies. At the time the vote was taken, there were many in the field who felt same-sex attractions could be corrected or mitigated. There still are and there are many examples of those who have left the lifestyle and live happy, well-adjusted hetero lives.
One more thing regarding the FACT that homosexuality is a mental disorder...
It is plain that there is a reason for two compatible and complimentary sexes. So it is natural that each sex should be attracted to the other, ESPECIALLY sexually. Thus, it is equally plain that for one to be sexually attracted to a member of the same sex indicates an obvious malfunction. This is the epitome of logic and common sense. That anyone would dare to challenge this obvious as water is wet fact is itself either a result of mental malfunction OR a conscious and willing desire to affect change in an aspect of our culture that serves us far better than the alternative desired. (It would serve us even better were human nature not so fallen in various other immoral ways.)
In any case, it is without doubt that Jim is incapable of explaining how we who support traditional marriage and regard homosexual attraction as the abnormal mental condition it is and also that homosexual behavior is sinful are bigots or hateful. What's clear is that he so badly wishes he could, and that can only be because he knows intrinsically that he's on the wrong side of the issue and it bothers him for some reason.
"... obvious as water is wet fact..."
Well... except when it's a gas, right, Marshall?
Or a solid.
Still, you're right on one out of three.
Which is good for you.
""... obvious as water is wet fact..."
Well... except when it's a gas, right, Marshall?"
Is this an example of what passes for clever amongst the intelligentsia? Or is it another lame attempt to elicit "precision" in speech, as if anyone thinks of "water" as anything but in its liquid form as a matter of course? Oh! I know what it is! It's another example of an epic fail by feodor!
"as if anyone thinks of 'water' as anything but in its liquid form..."
Just another sign of your rigidity.
And inability to be honest with your own lazy failures.
Nonetheless, Marshall, you've just proved the point for Gay Rights.
While the majority do not think of water as other than liquid (and therefore some think water is always wet), it is still true that it exists in other states (not wet).
While the majority find their own sexuality, and that of biology, to be heterosexual (and therefore some think sexuality is always heterosexual), it is still true that sexuality is expressed in other forms (not heterosexual).
EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC SELF SELF SELF SELF SELF SELF FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
And by the way, though you may forget it, God created the molecular properties by which water can exist in and move between states of matter. So, too, did God create the marvelous dynamic of sexualities to bind us one to another and find the kind of intimate companionship that exists in heaven.
FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC SELF SELF SELF SELF FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
"he knows intrinsically that he's on the wrong side of the issue and it bothers him for some reason."
Pfffftt!
""as if anyone thinks of 'water' as anything but in its liquid form..."
Just another sign of your rigidity."
So what you're saying is that when your wife asks you for a glass of water, you ask her what form of water she'd like? Solid, liquid or gas? You have to be trying to make a joke, because the incredible stupidity implied by your statement is extreme. Too bad that you're no good at making jokes.
As to your next bit, the stupidity keeps on coming. There is no denying that sexual urges come in all sorts of forms. You and your chicken is merely one other example. But unlike water in any state, sexual behaviors come in two forms: moral and immoral. The only moral form of sexuality is that which takes place within a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. REAL Christians understand this easily. Fortunately, you had the sense to follow up your last two comments with an apt critique, as they are epic fails indeed.
In the case of your last comment, the level of stupidity expressed in your totally bullshit and Biblically unsupportable position knows no appropriate label. It stands by itself as a very unique form of stupidity. It just HAS to be a joke because no one is that stupid.
God created us male and female so that one of each should unite to become one flesh. You have totally made up your own god and lie to others that it is the God of the Bible. What a pathetically false priest you are!
Jim,
C'mon, man. Be honest. Just like feo, and for that matter, every other enabler and homosexual who has tried here and at other blogs, you cannot show how we're haters OR bigots and you can't escape the nagging feeling that you're on the wrong side of the issue. It's OK to admit it. It'll be a relief for you to stand on the side of truth for a change.
Uhmmmm, Marshall? The word you wrote was, "fact." As in "water is always wet fact."
So, my wife, along with hundreds of millions of just US citizens know this to be ludicrous. So, too, my wife would not drop her teeth if I asked for ice as, apparently, you might.
Further, you compared the "fact" of wet water to the absolute and exclusive morality of heterosexuality only.
Uhmmm, Marshall?
FFFFFFFFFFFFAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLL
The fact is that water comes in different kinds.
The fact is that sexuality comes in different kinds.
The fact is that we - only relatively recently - understood that there are states of matter and that their molecular properties dictate how they exist and move in states of matter.
The Bible does not know these things. Neither does it know that parents hitting a child has consistent and long term deleterious effects. Neither does it know that family members should not be punished for the crimes of the criminal. Neither does it know that women should be educated, allowed to choose who they want to marry and whether they need or want to work. Neither does it know that slavery is wrong everywhere at all times.
The Bible does not know these moral/immoral distinctions.
But we, under God's gracious guidance in the Spirit, now know.
So, Marshall, it is also the case with homosexuality. We now know, under God's gracious guidance in the Spirit, that sexuality of many kinds - including celebacy - is for the sake of binding people and eilliciting joy and the paradoxical experience of freedom in binding ourselves together in relationship - precisely as a sacrament of our experience of heavenly communion.
As for what you thinks is moral and immoral and creating God in your image, you need to spend a year in meditation on this, from Anne Lamont:
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
Please, feo. For the sake of your own reputation (such as it is). Stop the stupidity!
"So, my wife, along with hundreds of millions of just US citizens know this to be ludicrous. So, too, my wife would not drop her teeth if I asked for ice as, apparently, you might."
Go ahead. Ask hundreds of millions, including your wife, for a one word description of "water". Ask ten or twenty and list the responses. Then get back to me.
As for your wife dropping her teeth, I won't comment. But why would you ever ask her for "ice"? Why not just ask for water until she realizes you want it in its frozen, solid form? The answer is because there's a stark difference between asking for water and asking for ice, even though they are technically the same thing. But idiots like you, trying any lame ploy to demonize an opponent, will pretend a body needs to be more specific when speaking about water.
"The word you wrote was, "fact." As in "water is always wet fact.""
Here is my original comment:
That anyone would dare to challenge this obvious as water is wet fact...
From that point on, I can find no comment of mine stating that water is always wet. Another fail on your part. Secondly, the "fact" that water can also be solid or gas does not in the least bit mitigate the FACT that water is wet. Another fail on your part.
"Further, you compared the "fact" of wet water to the absolute and exclusive morality of heterosexuality only."
That would be the heterosexual relations between a man and woman who are married to each other. Yes. Only in that context is sexual relations morally acceptable to God. There is nothing in Scripture that even hints of any exception. Try finding one and then get back to me admitting your incredible epic failure.
"The fact is that we - only relatively recently - understood that there are states of matter and that their molecular properties dictate how they exist and move in states of matter.
The Bible does not know these things."
But God always has known these things. That He didn't deem it necessary to reveal this in Scripture is absolutely irrelevant. He didn't reveal, nor is it written anywhere in Scripture specifically, that a false priest who visits blogs under the name "feodor" would say things about Him that isn't the least bit true. But He's always known that as well.
"Neither does it know that parents hitting a child has consistent and long term deleterious effects."
This seems to indicate another epic fail by feo:
"Proverbs 19:18: "Discipline your son while there is hope, but do not (indulge your angry resentments by undue chastisements and) set yourself to his ruin."
This is at least one place where it seems to know the necessity of limiting the level of punishment. The proper use of corporal punishment has no lasting deleterious effects on children properly raised.
more...
"Neither does it know that family members should not be punished for the crimes of the criminal."
Of course it does. I've been through this with (I believe) Dan Trabue. One verse speaks of the consequences of one's sins impacting his family and another states that God will not hold accountable the sons of a man who sins. Pretty clear stuff actually.
"Neither does it know that women should be educated, allowed to choose who they want to marry and whether they need or want to work."
It doesn't speak on this issue one way or the other. That doesn't mean "It" doesn't know.
"Neither does it know that slavery is wrong everywhere at all times."
That's because it isn't necessarily true, even though we in the Western world work under that premise. The slavery of the Bible is not always comparable to the slavery of pre-Civil War USA. Some entered voluntarily into slavery as a means of self-support. Even some slaves in America felt attached to their masters. Slavery isn't evil. The behavior of the master can be. Whether or not we feel slavery is good or bad is a man-made attitude based on good intentions. I do not dispute the notion, but I do dispute idiots who pretend that they have the moral high ground on the issue simply by saying it is always wrong. Talk about lazy.
"The Bible does not know these moral/immoral distinctions."
Don't blame the Bible for your inability to understand it.
"But we, under God's gracious guidance in the Spirit, now know."
This is a blatant lie regardless of your willingness to accept THAT fact. What is more accurate is to say that you, under the pretense of being under the guidance of the Spirit, have chosen to undermine the Will of God in order to legitimize behavior HE has clearly described as prohibited. Good luck explaining that to Him when your time comes.
"We now know, under God's gracious guidance in the Spirit, that sexuality of many kinds - including celebacy - is for the sake of binding people and eilliciting joy and the paradoxical experience of freedom in binding ourselves together in relationship - precisely as a sacrament of our experience of heavenly communion."
You now know nothing of the sort. This is such arrogant bullshit as only a false priest like yourself can present. There is nothing is Scripture that legitimizes this kind of self-centered, self-promoting and self-worshiping nonsense and even for a false priest like yourself, it reaches new unsavory lows. You must be so proud.
As for what I KNOW is moral or immoral, I take my cues from the clearly revealed Will of God as so easily found in Scripture. There's no mystery there. Thus, I do exactly the opposite of creating a god in my own image, as you do with your unique crapola that you try to pass off as Christian thought.
"...you need to spend a year in meditation on this, from Anne Lamont:
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.""
You need to show where I've done or said anything that amounts to creating a god in my own image. You need to show where I've expressed any hatred for any people, even a bullshitting self-worshiping scumbag like yourself. (I pity and feel great sadness for such as you.) But I can freely admit that God hates all the behaviors I hate, as I hate all the behaviors that He hates. As I said, I take my cues from His clearly revealed Word. You clearly take yours from the world.
Marshall, I always marvel at your commitment to stick to Stupid. It seems to be conservative fad in our country in recent years.
Perry announced his candidacy for the presidency with this bon mot: "That's why, with the support of my family, and an unwavering belief in the goodness of America, I declare to you today as a candidate for president of the United States."
Just like you, Perry does not do well with the verb, "declare." He needs to declare something. The verb needs an object, not just an adverbial clause, if it's used the way he's using it.
Where did you guys train for Stupid?
"you can't escape the nagging feeling that you're on the wrong side of the issue. "
Pffft!
Jim,
You're just rockin' with the snappy comebacks, aren't you?
"Marshall, I always marvel at your commitment to stick to Stupid. It seems to be conservative fad in our country in recent years."
Yeah. 57 states. "Corpse-men" "I don't know what the term is in Austrian..."
Perry's English isn't perfect? How freakin' desperate you are! Keep tryin', twit.
In this case it's a perfect response.
I admit, Marshall, I was lazy in not reading all your responses. I had not realized that you had written so much of nothing.
Which brings me both delight and despair today.
1) Delight because you're so much on the verge of becoming aware of a deep logical problem that exists in the way you read your faith. (I'd call it theological, but am mindful of how you don't understand what that means, really.)
You are right to acknowledge that what Biblical texts cover fall short of what God covers by [his] own nature.
"'The Bible does not know these things.'
But God always has known these things. That He didn't deem it necessary to reveal this in Scripture..."
So, even you can see the gap between text and deity. I think we've made some progress.
But then you go on to think you know the summation of the meaning of what God "deems": "That He didn't deem it necessary to reveal this in Scripture is absolutely irrelevant." I don't think you can go as far as to say irrelevant. You're guessing what's in God's mind while blaming me for doing it. I'd say that what God covers that the text does not is extremely relevant because the gap is covered by the life of the Holy Spirit. Where you are grossly misunderstanding me is by assuming that I take my own experience as indication of the life of the Holy Spirit. I don't. Such an ego belongs to the Simp. The revelation of the life of the Holy Spirit comes from where it has always come from: the reflection of the gathered community on its worship and prayer life together. This is where you are breaking off from your spiritual community in the worst kind of protestant tradition of subjective and emotional schism after schism after schism. My community and yours has acknowledged the full and unconditional presence of the gift of faith and ministry in gay people. Who am I to think I know God better than the movement of my brothers and sisters? That would be demanding God move according to my wishes.
As you do.
2) Despair.
That you could write the following gives testimony to how unconscious you are of your capacity for hate:
"Even some slaves in America felt attached to their masters. Slavery isn't evil. The behavior of the master can be. Whether or not we feel slavery is good or bad is a man-made attitude based on good intentions."
There's nothing I can say to this kind of pathology.
You've won my silence. Your heart is way too dark for me to enter into conversation here. It's destructive for me to try. And you are far from being important enough to worry over.
Ah! Feodor has found an excuse to bail out of defending his own stupidity! Far better and more noble and more civil would be to request clarification for that which is unclear to him, rather than, as an arrogant asshole does, believe he simply knows what's on my mind, and that what is on my mind is automatically wrong. Typical for him.
I would be interested in seeing how feodor explains how the quote in point 2 demonstrates "hate" in any way. The entertainment value alone in such a desperate attempt would be worth the price of a ticket.
I'd be interested in examples he might render as proof of my "dark heart". A laughable notion to be sure.
If this buffoon of a psuedo-intellectual should experience any feelings of despair, it should be at the knowledge that his whole worldview has been the crap it is, since he has shown no capability of defending it against someone to whom he so arrogantly chooses to condescend as intellectually inferior. What a twit.
Let's move on to his first comical point...
"I had not realized that you had written so much of nothing."
There's much you don't realize. That I've presented no substance is not among that. That you don't realize what the substance might be...is.
"Delight because you're so much on the verge of becoming aware of a deep logical problem that exists in the way you read your faith."
That you think you could divine anyone's faith evolution at all is an example of the baseless hubris so common to your "legend-in-your-own-mind" character. That you think you detect any in mine right now is an example of your clinical stupidity.
"You are right to acknowledge that what Biblical texts cover fall short of what God covers by [his] own nature."
I never said nor implied any such thing. Once again, rather than pretend you understand, seek clarification for your own, already crippled, reputation's sake. I'll use smaller words if that will help.
What I HAVE said is that the Bible is God revealing to us what He wants us to know, both about Him and about how He wants us to live. There is nothing in Scripture that suggests we're to figure out anything else about Him on our own. Whatever we believe to be the Spirit moving in us MUST align with what is already revealed in Scripture, and not depart from it, alter it, ignore it or delete it.
"So, even you can see the gap between text and deity. I think we've made some progress."
As if that was ever in question. But "we" have made no progress as you still believe what isn't true. I have not in any way turned from truth to the crap you spew. Why would I turn from light to dark? Why would I turn from Him to you?
""That He didn't deem it necessary to reveal this in Scripture is absolutely irrelevant." I don't think you can go as far as to say irrelevant."
Of course I can. Especially if you regard my statement in the context it was made. It is irrelevant that God didn't reveal to us the workings of the molecular world or the distant reaches of the universe. These things are irrelevant to the purpose of the Bible in teaching us about God and how He wants us to live our lives. I'm not guessing in the least what God's purpose for us is, but only base my position on what He actually revealed on that score. YOU are among those who pretend to know something not revealed in Scripture when you say goofy shit like this:
"I'd say that what God covers that the text does not is extremely relevant because the gap is covered by the life of the Holy Spirit."
The Spirit does NOT reveal anything that contradicts what is already given in Scripture. Indeed, Scripture teaches that what we believe the Spirit is doing MUST align with what Scripture already says. YOU pretend your worldly beliefs are based on the the Spirit moving within you regardless of how it compares to Scripture because you don't give a rat's ass about Scripture if it conflicts with your worldly desires.
more...
Marshall, your biblical Jesus tells you that there is more to come. Not only did God not reveal all in the texts, God did not even reveal all in the very Son of God living and teaching the disciples.
Why? “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."
John 16, Marshall. Look it up, it's even in your Bible.
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."
Less vital for the sake of your soul than your dehumanizing racist beliefs is the fact that you don't pay attention to the whole Bible. Just what helps you make God in your image.
This would be yet another - obvious to the most casual observer - glaring FAILURE on your part.
But the pathology of your rigid soul wont hear of it.
"Where you are grossly misunderstanding me is by assuming that I take my own experience as indication of the life of the Holy Spirit. I don't. Such an ego belongs to the Simp."
If by "the Simp" you are referring to Neil Simpson, know that you have never proven to have 1% the understanding of Scripture as he has, and I'm not even saying he's an expert (though he's really knowledgeable). But indeed, that is absolutely the size of your ego, which is massive beyond evidence can explain.
"The revelation of the life of the Holy Spirit comes from where it has always come from: the reflection of the gathered community on its worship and prayer life together."
This almost sounds good, but it fails when people like yourself are an example of this concept. The Holy Spirit will only move a believer toward a better understanding of the faith as revealed in Scripture, not, as with people like you, toward that which conflicts with Scripture.
"This is where you are breaking off from your spiritual community in the worst kind of protestant tradition of subjective and emotional schism after schism after schism."
You must enlighten me as to how one who relies upon and adheres to the clearly revealed Word of God in Scripture is doing anything remotely resembling "breaking off" from one's spiritual community. What is subjective about obeying God's laws for human behavior, especially when they are so easy to know and understand? Even amongst the many denominations, as they were originally formed, no "schism" existed between those who understood those laws and those who didn't. It is those like yourself, the homosexual activists and enablers within the church who are responsible for the schism that now exist between true believers and those, like yourself, who pretend to believe to the extent that your personal preferences allow.
"My community and yours has acknowledged the full and unconditional presence of the gift of faith and ministry in gay people."
Your community is nothing like mine. You community seeks ways to legitimize bad behavior and then calls it the movement of the Holy Spirit. My community isn't so self-deceptive. My community puts God's Will above personal preference and realizes that with His help, desires that are in conflict with His Will can be overcome. Thus, any homosexual in MY community rejects and/or fights his homosexual desire as another might reject and/or fight his desire to steal, kill or lie.
"Who am I to think I know God better than the movement of my brothers and sisters? That would be demanding God move according to my wishes."
But that is EXACTLY what you and other enablers, as well as the activists themselves, are doing: demanding God move according to your/their wishes. Do you seriously believe that the numbers of people legitimizing bad behavior determines whether or not that behavior is or isn't still prohibited by God? The hubris of such a position is astounding, as well as damning for people like you.
"John 16, Marshall. Look it up, it's even in your Bible."
How sad and pathetic you are, not to mention desperate, to abuse John 16 in this way. What in any of that chapter, or any that come before or after, suggests that the Holy Spirit will guide us toward that which is in conflict with Scripture, and thus in conflict with the Father? I don't know what seminary you attended, but you really need to get your money back.
Actually, I can't blame the seminary. They can't be held accountable for every jackwagon that uses their diplomas to teach heresies and falsehoods. And all I know is that YOU are doing that. I can't say anything about the school you attended, as I don't know them or what they teach.
"Less vital for the sake of your soul than your dehumanizing racist beliefs is the fact that you don't pay attention to the whole Bible. Just what helps you make God in your image."
When you can demonstrate any hint of racism in my character or that I have remade God in my own image, I'll give you a shiny new dime. More difficult to demonstrate is how I have NOT paid attention to the whole Bible. You've not had any success in that endeavor so far.
All that education...all those books...
So, on my side, I have the fact that water can exist in three states, therefore, using your own analogies, sexuality can exist in more than one state.
I have the fact that you admit that biblical texts do not completely reveal the intentions of God. ["The Bible does not know these things," I said. "But God always has known these things," you said. You may not want to repeat it, but every conscious reader understands that you admitted that the Bible is limited when it comes to God's plan.]
I have the fact that Jesus himself tells us that new things will revealed. Not things that turn the Bible on its head as in your hysteria. But things that will increase God's revelation of love.
What do you have on your side?
- ad hominem
- ad hominem
- ad hominem
- ad hominem
Whew! Not doing too good, Fartshall. Bad week for you.
Plus your self-revelation of the deepest, most clinical, inhumane kind of take on slavery. Which leaves me silent in terror for your soul.
"So, on my side, I have the fact that water can exist in three states..."
Not a point in your favor as this fact isn't in dispute and doesn't mitigate the fact that water is wet. On this planet, water is mostly in liquid form. Creatures that eat ice or snow do so for the water, which becomes liquid right away for absorption.
"...therefore, using your own analogies, sexuality can exist in more than one state."
Not hardly. Sexuality comes in one form only, that of base carnal desire, and is merely manifested in different ways depending on the quality of the subject's psychological state. That is, normal people have desires for the opposite sex. Abnormal people have desires for the same sex, animals, etc.
But if you want to use my analogy, the correct way would be to notice that water is most desired by man in liquid form. Sexuality is most desired by God to manifest in the compatible and complimentary pairing of one man and one woman within the bonds of matrimony. Scripture clearly supports this view and no other.
"I have the fact that you admit that biblical texts do not completely reveal the intentions of God."
A moot point and not entirely an accurate representation of my position, which is, that God and His Will for us is revealed in Scripture. It is no mystery and easy to understand if one is honest and truly desirous of salvation and eternity in His presence. The fact that we can't know everything about Him is also revealed in Scripture.
"I have the fact that Jesus himself tells us that new things will revealed."
"New" things? Even your excerpt does not say this. The passage does NOT suggest that the Holy Spirit will say anything that hasn't been said, but only reveal to the apostles what they could not understand completely about Jesus. You are using the passage to justify the notion that the Spirit will reveal something that is in conflict with the rest of Scripture. Typical for a false priest.
"Not things that turn the Bible on its head as in your hysteria."
No hysteria here, twit. Only a calm, clear understanding of what is so clearly revealed. One cannot turn the Bible on its head by following its clearly revealed message. Pretending that the Spirit will lead you from the teachings of Scripture, particularly Lev 18:22, is not just turning it on its head, but teaching falsely as a false priest does.
"But things that will increase God's revelation of love."
How could a supposedly seminary trained intellectual not be fully cognizant of the extent of God's love? God has fully revealed His love for us in Scripture and the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Didn't they teach you that in False Priest School?
"What do you have on your side?"
God's Word clearly revealed and easy to understand as it is laid out in Scripture. You should read it sometime. Only do so without seriously, honestly and without your prideful arrogance and self-worship.
"Plus your self-revelation of the deepest, most clinical, inhumane kind of take on slavery. Which leaves me silent in terror for your soul."
Well, you see, feo, you twit, there is more than one state of slavery. Even in our country's past, some slaves were well treated and did not seek freedom as a result. Even after being given their freedom, they stayed on to continue with those who once owned them. If all slavery is evil, then what of the slavery to God of which Paul speaks? THAT is what I meant, but you are too self-satisfied that your marriage to a black woman has made you expert on all things racial, as if she and her family are themselves experts. Based on your comments, I would wager they suffer from racism themselves. YOU certainly do.
The water that is not wet:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/health/23bisexual.html?hp
Post a Comment